Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:07, 4 April 2011 editPassionless (talk \| contribs)3,461 edits →Request concerning Mbz1: add← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:09, 4 April 2011 edit undoMbz1 (talk \| contribs)22,338 edits →Side note#2 conduct of user:passionless: + moreNext edit →
Line 428:		Line 428:
	=====Side note#2 conduct of ]=====		=====Side note#2 conduct of ]=====
	*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 and . There were also other online and offline warnings. Filing this AE after all of those demonstrates ] behaviour.		*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 and . There were also other online and offline warnings. Filing this AE after all of those demonstrates ] behaviour.
			*Filing an on ] demonstrates a behavioral pattern.

	====Comments by others about the request concerning Mbz1 ====		====Comments by others about the request concerning Mbz1 ====

Revision as of 04:09, 4 April 2011

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

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

Shortcut

WP:AE

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

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347

Hangakiran

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

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

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

Request concerning Hangakiran

User requesting enforcement: Biruitorul 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Discussion concerning Hangakiran

Statement by Hangakiran

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Hangakiran

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

Result concerning Hangakiran

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

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

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

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

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

Leidseplein

Leidseplein warned of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 07:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Leidseplein User requesting enforcement Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Leidseplein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Accusation of trying to impose your POV on the world, which violates WP:AGF 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" 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. 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 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. false and baseless accusation that I ("as advocated by another editor") am trying to ensure that there's "ONE interpretation of history allowed on Misplaced Pages", i.e. more WP:BATTLEGROUND language. Goodwin's Law violation by comparing my statements to Communist Party propaganda. 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. - question mark abuse. Not really a violation of anything specific but perhaps relevant to this whole "passionately" thing. - 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 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. - "I was asked by a third party to point out..." This is a strange statement as it appears to indicate that Leidseplein was asked to make edits and comments on the article by someone else, as potentially a WP:MEATPUPPET. It looks (I don't know if it actually is) sketchy especially in the context of the battleground nature of this area, the large number of sanctioned and topic banned editors, and editors under interaction bans. Who was this third party? When I asked this question it was repeatedly ignored or evaded by Leidseplein. Similarly, here 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 Misplaced Pages policy but they do seem strange to me. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) - after Liedsplein's initial revert with an accusatory edit summary I posted a comment on the talk page in which I asked him to focus on content rather than on editors: an edit summary that uses phrases such as trying to impose your POV on the world is unnecessarily combative and fails to assume good faith. Contrast that with my edit summary (but 1) this isnt considered to be part of WB 2) different circumstances than German occupation of Sudetenland) which directly focused on content rather than accusing any editor of wrong doing. I asked Liedsplein several times during the discussion to stop making statements which refer to me or my supposed motives personally and focus on discussing content instead. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Notification of DIGWUREN sanctions. Additional comments by editor filing complaint At this point I'm not asking for a sanction, block or ban. As far as I know, the editor has not been previously made aware of the WP:DIGWUREN restrictions, warned of the discretionary sanctions in this area, or of the especially strong need to avoid making this area more of a battleground than it already is. Another mitigating factor is that Liedsplein, after he reverted me did ask for a third opinion (though his phrasing of the dispute was non-neutral and had to be corrected ) - 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: "Thanks for the third opinion, it's much appreciated." "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 . 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 Misplaced Pages, consider me notified. My response: After this latest batch, I'm very much inclined to ask for a more serious block/sanction on civility grounds alone - making unsubstantiated and false accusations against others is not something that is usually tolerated. However, I do think that Leidseplein allowed himself to be unduly influenced by others. I do think that he should tell us who these individuals are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Leidseplein Statement by Leidseplein The editor complaining against me is IMO trying to retaliate for a 3rd Opinion I provided in Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807). He suddenly started shadowing me, harassing me and disrupting everything I do on wikipedia after the opinion I provided. After numerous false accusations (like accusing me of double reverts), threats, hypocritical accusations of personal attacks, inapplicable appeals to wiki policy and an overall inability to accept cited facts contrary to his POV at Talk:Western betrayal, he has resorted to this overblown and excessively verbose attempt to quash facts he doesn't like...all in service of promoting his version of history (only) and without offering any form of compromise and wihout accepting or countering any of several offered compromise solutions I offered on the talk pages. Volunteer Marek was the subject of a complaint made to me by two other editors for disrupting their work. Their main complaint, which I endorse, is that this editor tries to impose his POV and version of history onto articles without readily accepting compromise or offering agreeeable solutions. It also seems this complaint made by Marek here today is a reaction to Volunteer Marek's sanctions earned earlier this week, seen here...which is taking yet another form both through this complaint and his arguments at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) and Talk:Western betrayal. The statement of my position about the article in question and the full record are available on the Western Betrayal talk pages. This, along with my 3rd opinion on Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) is where the main explanation for this complaint by Volunteer Marek can be found, and my contributions there speak for themselves, both good and bad. One more thing, I plead guilty to Marek's accusation number 8 = I AM guilty of 'question mark abuse'. Since Volunteer Marek is asking for nothing except to have me notified that sanctions exist on Misplaced Pages, consider me notified. Best wishes.Leidseplein (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC) PS someone is editing and deleting comments I make here, if I had hours to argue over trivial details I'd figure it out, but kindly leave my own commments here unedited Comments by others about the request concerning Leidseplein Aim was a Digwuren notification. Which has been implicitly acknowledged by Leidseplein as being understood. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Close this. Collect (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (apparently inadvertently removed) Collect (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Leidesplein, could you please provide differences (i.e, direct quotes with links to specific postings to the talk pages) in order to support your statement. TFD (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I notice that Leidesplein has never been warned and therefore the request should have been presented to ANI instead. I suggest that the request be moved there where there will be greater input from the community. TFD (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Leidseplein This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Most of the diffs submitted as evidence are not really problematic, but on the whole they do paint a picture of rather passionate argumentativeness, so I am warning Leidseplein to abide by the following principles enunciated by the Arbitration Committee. They apply, of course, to Volunteer Marek and others as well, and this warning is not to be construed as an endorsement of any inappropriate conduct by Volunteer Marek or others. "The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2#Purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Misplaced Pages both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Principles) Noncompliance with these principles and other rules of conduct may result in sanctions as provided for in WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 07:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Request concerning Leidseplein

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

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

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

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

Accusation of trying to impose your POV on the world, which violates WP:AGF
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"
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.
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
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.
false and baseless accusation that I ("as advocated by another editor") am trying to ensure that there's "ONE interpretation of history allowed on Misplaced Pages", i.e. more WP:BATTLEGROUND language. Goodwin's Law violation by comparing my statements to Communist Party propaganda.
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.
- question mark abuse. Not really a violation of anything specific but perhaps relevant to this whole "passionately" thing.
- 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

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.
- "I was asked by a third party to point out..." This is a strange statement as it appears to indicate that Leidseplein was asked to make edits and comments on the article by someone else, as potentially a WP:MEATPUPPET. It looks (I don't know if it actually is) sketchy especially in the context of the battleground nature of this area, the large number of sanctioned and topic banned editors, and editors under interaction bans. Who was this third party? When I asked this question it was repeatedly ignored or evaded by Leidseplein.
Similarly, here 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 Misplaced Pages policy but they do seem strange to me.

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

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

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

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

Another mitigating factor is that Liedsplein, after he reverted me did ask for a third opinion (though his phrasing of the dispute was non-neutral and had to be corrected ) - 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:

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

"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 . 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 Misplaced Pages, consider me notified.

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Leidseplein

Statement by Leidseplein

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Leidseplein

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

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

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

Result concerning Leidseplein

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

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

"The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2#Purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Misplaced Pages both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Principles)

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

BenJonson

BenJonson (talk · contribs) is topic-banned indefinitely from Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning BenJonson User against whom enforcement is requested = User:BenJonson Note: He also edits under IPs 68.55.45.214, 76.69.101.88, and 131.118.144.253. Sanction or remedy that this user violated Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Conduct_and_decorum Impugns Paul B and accuses him of calling him and others holocaust deniers (later changed to "Nazis"). (2nd and 3rd edits down) Impugns honesty of James S. Shapiro and claims he’s my "hero". Again accuses Paul of calling him and others Nazis. Strongly implies that I colluded with Shapiro to edit the SAQ page to his specifications. More along that line (see entire discussion for subsequent edits and half-denials, thereby having it both ways). More personal attacks. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Tendentious_editing Adding a clearly non-WP:RS reference to SAQ page from an Oxfordian journal that he edits (which he almost always refers to as "leading", "prestigious", or "peer reviewed"). Does so again from same journal with no discussion after being reverted. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Talk_pages 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. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Casting_aspersions Continuing to make aspersions of collusion after being asked to retract his remarks. Same again, plus accusation that Nishidani threatened him and that Paul, Nishidani, and I had taken "ownership" of the SAQ page. 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). Accuses administrators of colluding with editors to suppress "open discourse". Accuses Paul, Nishidani and I of acting "with impunity and the apparent sanction of Misplaced Pages admins". Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Revealing_personal_information Refers to my RL employment (although mistakenly; sheriff’s office’s don’t have public relations departments.) Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Disruptive_influence 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) Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Zwiegenbaum Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Smcamilc Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to Warning by User:Bishonen Warning by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Warning by User:EdJohnston Asked to remain civil by User:Nikkimaria Another warning by Nikkimaria. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I will leave that to the administrators, although I do think he has been warned more than enough about his bullying and supercilious behaviour. My wish is that the personally offensive remarks be withdrawn and that he apologise to each editor. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Additional comments: Please reformat where needed. I found this to be a very difficult template to use and the instructions impenetrable. IMO it should be replaced by a simpler template. I've done the necessary reformatting (adding the standard headers) and am here noting your notification of BenJonson. Sandstein 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC) BenJonson, please don't edit this section. Your comments are not part of Tom's request for enforcement against you. I have moved your link to John Stuart Mill to the section for your own statement. Bishonen \| talk 21:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC). Discussion concerning BenJonson Statement by BenJonson A reading that may be of service: http://en.wikipedia.org/On_Liberty http://www.bartleby.com/130/ --BenJonson (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 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) Congratulating others for getting topic banned, and making references to editors' RL situations? This is about as bad as it gets. IMO it doesn't really matter if the IPs are him or not. I'm minded to indef him under the general admin power to prevent disruption, and we can add an indef topic ban per the discretionary sanctions on top of that. T. Canens (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Yeah, the overall picture is pretty clear, isn't it. Not sure the double measure is needed – a topic ban alone would boil down to pretty much the same effect, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Meh. I think the RL situation part warrants a block, due to its chilling effect. Besides, if this is his approach to editing, then I don't see much hope for him anywhere on this project. T. Canens (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC) This is awful conduct by by BenJonson, and his statement is not encouraging either, to put it mildly. I agree that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate. No opinion whether an indefinite block is also needed on top of that to prevent continued disruption, since the disruption here is all topic-related. Sandstein 21:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Fine, I suppose we can give him some more rope and stick with topic ban for now. T. Canens (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I count 3 admins, which is more than sufficient to take AE action. Under the authority of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, as incorporated by Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Discretionary sanctions, BenJonson (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Request concerning BenJonson

User against whom enforcement is requested = User:BenJonson

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Tendentious_editing

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Talk_pages

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.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Casting_aspersions

Continuing to make aspersions of collusion after being asked to retract his remarks.
Same again, plus accusation that Nishidani threatened him and that Paul, Nishidani, and I had taken "ownership" of the SAQ page.
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).
Accuses administrators of colluding with editors to suppress "open discourse".
Accuses Paul, Nishidani and I of acting "with impunity and the apparent sanction of Misplaced Pages admins".

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Revealing_personal_information

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Disruptive_influence

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)
Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Zwiegenbaum
Encouraging the continued flouting of community norms by banned SPA editor Smcamilc

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

Warning by User:Bishonen
Warning by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
Warning by User:EdJohnston
Asked to remain civil by User:Nikkimaria
Another warning by Nikkimaria.

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning BenJonson

Statement by BenJonson

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

HantersSpade

HantersSpade (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sock per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#02 March 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning HantersSpade User requesting enforcement O Fenian (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 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 Misplaced Pages: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 First revert Second revert, within an hour of the first never mind the 24 hour limit Third revert, within an hour of the first never mind the 24 hour limit Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Not applicable, 1RR notice is visible in the page notice Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Indefinite block Additional comments by editor filing complaint The IP and HanterSpade are the same editor. For example look at the editing history of 92.20.46.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which includes edits to Richard Burton (same as HantersSpade), and you will also see similar edit by the IP and HantersSpade to Éamon de Valera. Per Misplaced Pages: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) 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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 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. Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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

Request concerning HantersSpade

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

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: Misplaced Pages: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

First revert
Second revert, within an hour of the first never mind the 24 hour limit
Third revert, within an hour of the first never mind the 24 hour limit

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The IP and HanterSpade are the same editor. For example look at the editing history of 92.20.46.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which includes edits to Richard Burton (same as HantersSpade), and you will also see similar edit by the IP and HantersSpade to Éamon de Valera. Per Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Misplaced Pages: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)

Mbz1

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

Request concerning Mbz1

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

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: Misplaced Pages: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

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
"Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away."
scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the last two sections to find:
"I have never hounded anyone, but have been hounded myself" 23:24, 9 January 2011

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

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

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

"trolling, trolling trolling" 20:37, 11 January 2011
"You are lying and trolling as usually"
"trolls and wikihounds, and, who are spreading lies about me"
edit line:"responding to the troll"
"I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise some common sense." .... "Poor, poor wikipedia that has administrators as you are."
"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.
"User:Passionless is a wikihound...wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit."
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.
- 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.
edit summary of "reverted trolling".
"I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense."
Incivility
"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.
"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.
"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."
Adds links which show number of articles created for the purpose of discrediting another editor as inexperienced.
"Of course some people have common sense while others do not."
Claiming others are attacking her/witch hunt.
Saying disturbing/racist things
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.
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
"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.
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 the comments.
-unilateral move of an article at an AfD to add “(antisemetic and conspiracy theories)” to the title *article has been deleted since her edit*
User talk:82.205.53.148, Mbz is giving out notifications as if she was an admin/BITE.

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Mbz1

Statement by Mbz1

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

Hounding

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

Personal attacks

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

"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

- All the differences provided above are 3 months old and has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine-Israel articles. Bringing those here is disruptive, if for nothing else because it is taking time to read over and to respond--Mbz1 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"You are lying and trolling as usually"
- User:Unomi used to hound me a lot. It was noted by a few other users.The comment in question was made after User:Unomi said Almost all the articles you create crawl through AfD with a large number of issues raised by a variety of editors and invariably they have to be fixed by others. When I explained to the user that its statement is false because from 63 articles I created only 5 or 6 were nominated on deletion and most of those were kept, the user changed its language a little bit, but still continued with a false accusations. The edit in question was made more than 2 months ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"after that trolling of yours"

- wrong difference. The edit was made by a different user, not me.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"trolls and wikihounds, and, who are spreading lies about me"
- a general comment with no users named made at my talk page 3 months ago--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
edit line:"responding to the troll"
- User:Demiurge1000 after being politely asked to keep off my page and stop templating regulars keeps coming to my page over, and over, and over again with a new templates, if that very user contacts now indefinitely banned User:Sol Goldstone in order to obtain what the user believed were my private emails hacked from my hacked email account, how that user should be called? The edit in question was made 2 months ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise some common sense." .... "Poor, poor wikipedia that has administrators as you are."
- Well, yes, if an admin is getting involved in edit warring and not because he knows what he 's doing, but to make a point, I said what I said and stay behind my words, but here I'd like to stop at user:Passionless's conduct. The user "forgot" to say that I removed my message myself.The edit in question was made a month ago and is not related to Palestine-Israel articles--Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"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.
- I actually was referring to a sock of a banned user, my personal wikihound now indefinitely blocked user:RalphofPolo--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"User:Passionless is a wikihound...wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit."
- Well, yes, it is what I said, and could repeat it.Here are 2 examples: 1 2 There are many more that could be provided, if requested. Here I'd like to stop more at how those accusations were collected. passionless used now deleted attack page that was started by user:Huldra. As it is seen from this dif user:passionless did not even bother to check the differences berfore submitting them here --Mbz1 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
edit summary of "reverted trolling".
- The thing is that as you probably noticed English is not my first language. When I translate some words in my native tongue those really do not sound so bad, but still before I am using any of those words I'm usually trying to see how other editors, that are known to be polite using those words. So, with the word "trolling" , for example, I looked at this diff. I could provide quite a few other examples of using this word by highly respected editors/administrators--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense."
- Is this a PA?In any case the edit was made a month ago and is not related to I/P articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Incivility

"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.
- Yes, guilty as charged I said it to Gwen Gale after she told me she's done with me, but what user:passionless did not provide my quote right. Here's what I really said: To tell you the truth I wish you have never started with me :-) Sorry, I am in funny mood today. Please don't get angry with me. Let's laugh together. Good luck to you too! Gwen Gale understood a joke, and I gave her a barnstar for her sense of humor. On the other hand looks like user:passionless is not only a master of saying half truths, but is also completely lacking any sense of humor, a very bad combination indeed! Once again the edit in question has nothing to do with I/P related topic--Mbz1 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
Adds links which show number of articles created for the purpose of discrediting another editor as inexperienced.

"Of course some people have common sense while others do not."

- This is the same diff as passionless discussed in #87 (please see my response section above.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Claiming others are attacking her/witch hunt.
- Yes, I did say it, and this AE request is a confirmation of what I meant.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying disturbing/racist things

She says "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and links the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian.
- In my bad dream I would have never ever said "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and linked it "to an image of a Palestinian". I do not divide people by race, I do not divide people by religion, and I do not divide people by ethnicity. I did not link "the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian", I linked it to the image of a lyncher and a murderer,I linked it to this image. It is highly disturbing to me that user:passionless calls this image an image of a Palestinian. Is this image represents a Palestinian? No, it is not an image of a Palestinian. It is an image of a murderer and a lyncher, and it is what I meant when I linked the above sentence to the image. Because no Palestinian could have stoned 2 boys to death and then using their blood write an antisemitic slogans and leave a bloody hand prints at the cave's wall. This murder were done by a terrorist, who lost his right to be called a Palestinian at the moment he did it. I have not a single even small animosity towards Arabs. Here are only a few articles I wrote The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust. Please also see this edit in which I said:"I'd like to use the opportunity and to say that my heart is going out to peoples of Japan and Syria one of whom is fighting a horrible disaster and another is fighting an oppressive regime". I despise all kind of racism including antisemitism. I guess user:passionless who accuses me of making a "racist" statement is still to demonstrate any good word he wrote about Jews and or Judaism.

Inability to work co-operatively
"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.
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 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)
-unilateral move of an article at an AfD to add “(antisemetic and conspiracy theories)” to the title *article has been deleted since her edit.
- guilty as charged. I did move the article Jews and money because, well because it was antisemitic and representing conspiracy theories article. That's why it was deleted. Once again the edit has nothing to do wit I?p topics--Mbz1 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
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)

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)
There were also reports of stones thrown on the villagers by nearby settlers.
- No source--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
15 Palestinaians were arrested, all eventually released without being charged.
- No source--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
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)

(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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages's reputation. Yes, I used "vandalism" in my edit summary. Maybe it was not vandalism per say, but it was a bad faith edit, and wp:gaming

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

Side note#2 conduct of user:passionless

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.

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 Misplaced Pages email interface. In both cases, these emails were sent from Mbz1 to me after Mbz1 had already "banned" me from her talk page. Of course, I didn't reply at all. In addition, Mbz1 also posted on my talk page after she had already "banned" me from her talk page.

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

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

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)

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. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Mbz1

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