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

Request concerning Mbz1

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles - Decorum

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

Hounding

1. [47] Mbz1 has never commented at ITN/C before this edit which is clearly a hound of me and even a personal attack-calling me a liar. Mbz1 did remove the personal attack when warned.

   Personal attacks

2. [48] "Rant, rant, rant. The users as you are only good to drive content contributes away."
3. scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the last two sections to find:

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

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

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

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

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

4. [49] "You are lying and trolling as usually"
5. [50] "trolls and wikihounds, [ ] and, who are spreading lies about me"
6. [51] edit line:"responding to the troll"
7. [52] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise some common sense." .... "Poor, poor wikipedia that has administrators as you are."
8. [53] "Please feel free to re-block me to satisfy the trolls, the hounds and the socks" It is clear she is referring to actual editors here, me being the hound maybe even troll too.
9. [54] "User:Passionless is a wikihound...wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit."
10. [55] calls an IP a vandal for adding a tag to an article... see also User talk:82.205.34.232 for another message left on their talk page.
11. [56]- again, calls the IP a vandal (clearly is not a vandal) and says that Roscelese "clearly has not a slightest idea what she was doing". So two personal attacks in one.
12. [57] edit summary of "reverted trolling".
13. [58] "I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense."

    Incivility

14. [59] "To tell you the truth I wish you have never started with me" Said to the admin who just released her earlier from sanctions, though Gwen did take it quite well.
15. [60] "he demonstrated not only his complete inability to perform his administrative duties, but also his strong POV." Again insulting an admin who disagree with her edits.
16. [61] "About your attacking...me" and "If you have a problem with me using particular sources, you're welcome to take me to ae and try to make me topic banned. Otherwise I am done with you here."
17. [62] Adds links which show number of articles created for the purpose of discrediting another editor as inexperienced.
18. [63] "Of course some people have common sense while others do not."
19. [64] Claiming others are attacking her/witch hunt.

    Saying disturbing/racist things

20. [65] She says "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and links the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian.
21. [66] Discredits a Palestinian journalist and appears to attach Palestinian rocket attacks and anti-semitism in Sweden to the journalist. -noted by three editors as an "unjustified attack"/"racist".

    Inability to work co-operatively

22. [67] "All feature messages from you will be removed with no reading." - Assuming this means "future messages", it appears a clear statement of intent to reject, unread, even constructive and collegial comments from another editor.
23. [68] adding highly opinionated comments such as "Hamas and other terror groups do kill innocent Israeli civilian and children in purpose." to an ITN/C. The comment is removed by an admin as being unhelpful, and Mbz1 instantly re-adds [69] the comments.
24. [70] -unilateral move of an article at an AfD to add “(antisemetic and conspiracy theories)” to the title *article has been deleted since her edit*
25. User talk:82.205.53.148, Mbz is giving out notifications as if she was an admin/BITE.
26. [71] "I did ask you to stay off my talk page, din't I" She refuses to let others talk to her, even when she calls their edits disruptive and continues to repeat information she knows is false.

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

1. [72] Warning by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [73] Warning by Ohiostandard (talk · contribs)
3. [74] Warning byRoscelese (talk · contribs)
4. No doubt many more that I have not listed (hard to find)

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

Indefinite I-P topic ban, ban from using the words vandal, hound, and troll ever.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Also, I did contacted admins off-wiki who are aware of the situation, who today suggested I take Mbz1 to either RFC or AE. Passionless -Talk 04:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

Discussion concerning Mbz1

Statement by Mbz1

For convenience I will repeat user:Passionless accusations and provide my responses below each of them in green color, with the links being in blue color. IMO this will make it easier to read. I will only stop at the differences that are connected to I/P conflict, but by request could provide an explanation for other differences.

• [76] Mbz1 has never commented at ITN/C before this edit which is clearly a hound of me and even a personal attack-calling me a liar. Mbz1 did remove the personal attack when warned.
  • I have already explained at a few user's pages how I got to ITN/C. In case Passionless did not notice this User:Elen of the Roads explained to Passionless saying about the accusation "There is absolutely no way she is following you - she would have got there all on her own, I can vouch for that." Bringing this accusation again demonstrates battle ground behavior of the user.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• [77] "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.

• [78] "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

• [79] calls an IP a vandal for adding a tag to an article... see also User talk:82.205.34.232 for another message left on their talk page.
  • Please see my response below in the sub-section "Side note #1 why I call an IP tagging the article "vandalism"--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• [80]- again, calls the IP a vandal (clearly is not a vandal) and says that Roscelese "clearly has not a slightest idea what she was doing". So two personal attacks in one.
  • Please see my response below in the sub-section "Side note #1 why I call an IP tagging the article "vandalism"--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• [81] "he demonstrated not only his complete inability to perform his administrative duties, but also his strong POV." Again insulting an admin who disagree with her edits.
  • Yes, I said it, but after the user explained to me his motives although I am disagree with him I did toned my comments down. Once again user:passionless used a tactic of saying half truth.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• [82] "About your attacking...me" and "If you have a problem with me using particular sources, you're welcome to take me to ae and try to make me topic banned. Otherwise I am done with you here."
  • This comment was made in response to user:Ohiostandard repeatedly using the article's talk page to comment on me personally. For example: "if you can't do that for some reason then you have no business editing here". this pattern was noticed by another editor,but Ohiostandard has continued up to now using the article talk page to comment on me personally. Here is interesting to note that passionless asked Ohiostandard on their talk page to tag the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• [83] She says "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and links the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian.
  • In my bad dream I would have never ever said "besides who else could deep their hand in the victims blood and smear it around" and linked it "to an image of a Palestinian". I do not divide people by race, I do not divide people by religion, and I do not divide people by ethnicity. I did not link "the entire sentence to an image of a Palestinian", I linked it to the image of a lyncher and a murderer,I linked it to this image. It is highly disturbing to me that user:passionless calls this image an image of a Palestinian. Is this image represents a Palestinian? No, it is not an image of a Palestinian. It is an image of a murderer and a lyncher, and it is what I meant when I linked the above sentence to the image. Because no Palestinian could have stoned 2 boys to death and then using their blood write an antisemitic slogans and leave a bloody hand prints at the cave's wall. This murder were done by a terrorist, who lost his right to be called a Palestinian at the moment he did it. I have not a single even small animosity towards Arabs. Here are only a few articles I wrote The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust. Please also see this edit in which I said:"I'd like to use the opportunity and to say that my heart is going out to peoples of Japan and Syria one of whom is fighting a horrible disaster and another is fighting an oppressive regime". I despise all kind of racism including antisemitism. I guess user:passionless who accuses me of making a "racist" statement is still to demonstrate any good word he wrote about Jews and or Judaism.
• Hamas and other terror groups do kill innocent Israeli civilian and children in purpose." to an ITN/C. The comment is removed by an admin as being unhelpful, and Mbz1 instantly re-adds [84] the comments.
  • This comment was made in response to two other comments that you could see in the diff provided above. I will quote them here: "Note 8-9times as many Palestinians died in Israeli attacks yesterday with a similar number injured. To highlight an attack on Israelis while ignoring the huge number of attacks on Palestinians would of course be ridiculous." by passionless and "It might sound hard and cold. But the death of palestinians by Israeli rockets etc etc.. happens almost weekly. While a bombing of this kind is rare (not since 2004) in Israel. That is why this stroy trumps the Palestinian story mentioned. Sad but very true" by user BabbaQ--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• User talk:82.205.53.148, Mbz is giving out notifications as if she was an admin/BITE.
  • Of course has nothing to do with BITE. I was told many times any editor could notify another user--Mbz1 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side note#2 conduct of user:passionless

"Evidences" presented for this AE

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

WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

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

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

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

Edit warring on the same article

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

BLP violation on the same article

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

Strange

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

Topic banned

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

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

• Below is a copy from this AE request
  • Passionless (talk · contribs) has engaged in sustained edit warring, misused the rollback tool on edits that are not clearly vandalism ([85][86][87]), and attempted to game the topic-area 1RR ([88][89][90]).

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

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

Responses

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

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

• response to HJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Mbz1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I do not see how most of the diffs are related to Palestine-Israel conflict, the subject of discretionary sanctions. Some statements by Mbz1 are indeed related to the conflict, but they sound more like statements of opinion or fact at various talk pages, rather than incivility or violation of policy. For example, "terror groups do kill innocent Israeli civilian and children in purpose". So what? Everyone knows that. However, these users do appear to be involved in heated conversations (e.g. Mbz1 voted and Passionless responded [91], [92], [93]). Perhaps this statement by Passionless needs a clarification. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you characterizing my edits (the last two diffs you posted) as if they happened before Mbz1, when they took place before Mbz1's edit to ITN/C? This mistake of yours shows me in a poor light, please rectify. Passionless -Talk 05:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I said "Passionless responded" (please see above). Yes, there is a problem with your response. That was a vote about placing to news an article about a terrorist attack in Israel. Mbz1 simply voted and noted that it was a first such terrorist attack in Israel during last four years [94]. This is a legitimate argument, and she acted within the policy. In response, you started firing personal accusations that she attacks you and stalks you [95]. Hence you promoted a development of the conflict. It's not a good idea to demand sanctions at AE if you are a part of the problem. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by BorisG

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

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

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

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

Another recent example was User:Brews ohare, a professional educator with many high quality contributions, who was banned soon after having a dispute about presentation of Pythagorean theorem [96]. Yes, I strongly agree that prolific content contribution is not an acceptable excuse for bad behavior. However, productive editors with problems should only receive brief blocks, 1RR restrictions or may be even topic bans, but only for a short period of time. Why? Because we already have a significantly less manpower than needed for the good of the project. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re to HJ Mitchell

@HJ Mitchell ("I would be intrigued to hear how they think their presence is beneficial to the the topic area"). Mbz1 has 20,000+ contributions and created 80 new pages. Maybe a half of them was related to Israel, but not necessarily to the "conflict". A lot of them are significant additions/improvement of content, including beautiful illustrations. Passionless has 3,000+ contributions (1,000+ in article space), and he created 2 new pages, specifically about the conflict. This is also good contribution. Thinking logically, banning both contributors from the area would be the most damaging solution for content production, as I also argued in more general terms in arbitration page [97] [98]. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Passionless's responses to admins/latest comments

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

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

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

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

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

• @ HJ Mitchell, I ask you to please take a look at Hodja's comments above. I ask you because I know you had commented on the event when it happened so are aware of the true situation. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @ HJ Mitchell, About my contributes to I-P articles, besides the articles List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011 and Palestinian Security Council Resolution, 2011(wrote for an ITN), I really do not write a lot on I-P articles. I do watch the talk pages and revert vandalism on those pages, but I never write new paragraphs on I-P articles. I watch for POV pushing and for non RSs, like I recently did for Muslim World Today and Scottish Friends of Israel. My role in I-P articles - I let others write (I suck at writing) and I make sure it doesn't violate policy. Passionless -Talk 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @All admins, Mbz has brought many complaints against me above, while much of it is not worthy of response, I will respond to any particular questions about my actions if you ask me to. Passionless -Talk 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @All Some may believe that I have a battle mentality and something personal against Mbz, and that is why I started this AE. But, I want to make sure you all understand that that is not true, and I do so by pointing out that three other editors have all suggested either taking Mbz1 to Arbcom, ANI, or immediately blocking all due to seperate incidents and all within the last two weeks. Also a further three other editors helped me collect diffs showing Mbz's poor behaviour and that another admin had advised me to take Mbz1 here. Passionless -Talk 06:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have been recently involved in active conflict with Mbz1 and contributed in development of the conflict [99]. Your failure to admit it is not an argument in your favor. Yes, you contacted administrators by email to make sure that it is her, but not you who will be sanctioned. Will it work? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bwilkins, You say you want to topic ban me, I must ask for what reasons, what have I done since my last block that would allow such an action? I hope you realize many of the diffs provided by Mbz about me are from or have been handled in previous cases. Like mentioned by others here, there is a lack of evidence to really topic ban me. Passionless -Talk 18:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

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

Comment by ZScarpia

Since it looks to me as though, to a large extent, Mbz1 was provoked, and since her comments don't appear to me to be particularly heinous (compared to the general level in the IP area), I think that a long-term topic ban would be unjust. Unfortunately, because of her history, Mbz1 has become a bit of an easy mark. I do, though, think that it would be useful to continue the restriction on raising cases on noticeboards.     ←   ZScarpia   17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jaakobou

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The point was that nobody knew for sure that it was a terrorist attack."     ←   ZScarpia   17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

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

Comment by Soosim

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

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

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

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

Comment by Tzu Zha Men

What I see here is nothing more than a couple of editors with an on-going personal feud. The best solution here is an interaction ban.
But if topic bans are to be handed out, they need to be meted out in an even-handed way. While Mbz1's conduct is far from perfect as the diffs above and her block history illustrate, Passionless's behavior is not any better, and he seems to have come here with unclean hands. Recall if you will that Passionless was just very recently indef blocked for 'treating Wikipedia as a battleground; obviously incapable of editing in a collaborative editing environment or in compliance with core policies like NPOV and BLP'. That block was lifted just 2 weeks ago, with the unblocking admin noting he was unblocking only after receiving assurances from Passionless "that in future he will ensure that his editing is scrupulously in accordance with policy. " (emphasis is mine). A mere two days after that promise, Passionless was edit-warring, breaking 1RR on an article subject to that restriction, and being warned by an administrator that "you breached 1rr. Now you know. Given the background on this, you shouldn't be reverting GF content at all in IP topics".[100] Five days later, another admin provided yet another warning, after the conflict spilled into ITN. A day later, he announced his plans to bring Mbz1 to AE,and was advised against that by two admins, Gatoclass and Malik Shabazz. Gatoclass told him "filing a report on another user is only likely to reinforce the impression of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, so I think you should just drop this", and that "since getting unblocked you appear to have taken up where you left off. " [101] - truer words have not been spoken.
Finally, Passionless has stated that "I really do not write a lot on I-P articles" - in which case an I/P topic ban should really not be much of a hardship on him. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nsaum75

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

Comment by Betsythedevine

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

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

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

The last appeal by Mbz1

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

Statement by Broccolo

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

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

Result concerning Mbz1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I agree with the mutual interaction ban and with the topic ban for Mbz1, although I would impose it for an indefinite duration. Mbz1's conduct, as is apparent from the evidence, continues to be poor in this topic area despite years of topic bans and blocks, including an indefinite block. Edits like [102] are of particular concern. I am not necessarily opposed to a topic ban for Passionless also, but I am not sure that the limited evidence of misconduct in this thread warrants this measure.  Sandstein  17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with EdJohnston's proposed sanctions. Either indef or 1 year is fine with me for Mbz1. T. Canens (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Miradre

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Correct use of sources
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Original research
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Single purpose accounts

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

1. [103] Misrepresents material in the main article to suit POV
2. [104] Original Synthesis of Material
3. [105] Mis-use of statistics to to suggest Race is causation factor rather than simply on of the data sets.

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

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

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

Enforcement action requested

Topic ban from Race Related articles broadly construed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

• @Miradre, I am addressing observable behaviors with evidence. Please state my POV that you accuse me of trying to push? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sandstein since Miradre brought in the bag and let the cat out this indeed within the topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I encourage people to read WP:REDFLAG part of the policy of WP:V
  • Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community Y No one claim in Criminology, Anthropology, Biology, Criminal Justice, or Sociology would claim Race is tied propensity to commit crimes other than as point of correlation but certainly not as causation as the aritcle as put together by Miradre advances.
  • or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. Y again. Look at Magnus comments and Miradre
  • This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Y Read this AE discussion here and examine the arugments about material and subject matter here that Miradre is bringing to the table.

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Miradre

Statement by Miradre

• Reply to The Resident Anthropologist: Race and crime is not even marked as being under any editing restrictions or active arbitration remedies. The 3 diffs does not show any violation of policy. The first diff is a summarization of material after I had moved the material to the main article. The two others are supported by the given sources. If anything, the nominating editor should be censured for this attempt to ban me. He is also trying to delete the article itself, certainly a notable and much discussed topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (3rd nomination)‎. This is just another attempt to push his own POV.Miradre (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reply: Your POV? You expressed it quite eloquently in the AfD discussion linked to above: "linking race and crime is bullshit and ingoring the issue in favor of POV pushing.... It Needs to be cleansed with fire". Not sure what your point regarding the rK-theory study is. I corrected some errors and explained it better here: [106] Regarding your misunderstanding that crime rates are somehow correlations or causes. I have already tried to explain this in the AfD discussion. Not sure how it can be explained better to you. Crime rates are, for example: number of crimes/year/100,000 people. That is neither a correlation or a cause.Miradre (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to AndyTheGrump: I am not clear exactly far the arbitration remedies apply. Does it applies to only the main topics about race and intelligence? Or every topic where IQ is one of many different theories for explaining racial differences? Maybe it does. But it is hard for me to know where the line goes. I only know that the article was not marked as all other main articles about race and intelligence have been. Anyhow, this does not matter because none of the given diffs is even remotely close to any policy violation.
  • Reply regarding Pinker on race: From The Blank Slate (p. 144): "Nowadays it is popular to say that races do not exist but are purely social constructions. Though that is certainly true of bureaucratic pigeonholes such as "colored," "Hispanic," "Asian/Pacific Islander," and the one-drop rule for being "black," it is an overstatement when it comes to human differences in general. The biological anthropologist Vincent Sarich points out that a race is just a very large and partly inbred family. Some racial distinctions thus may have a degree of biological reality, even though they are not exact boundaries between fixed categories. Humans, having recently evolved from a single founder population, are all related, but Europeans, having mostly bred with other Europeans for millennia, are on average more closely related to other Europeans than they are to Africans or Asians, and vice versa. Because oceans, deserts, and mountain ranges have prevented people from choosing mates at random in the past, the large inbred families we call races are still discernible, each with a somewhat different distribution of gene frequencies. In theory, some of the varying genes could affect personality or intelligence (though any such differences would at most apply to averages, with vast overlap between the group members). This is not to say that such genetic differences are expected or that we have evidence for them, only that they are biologically possible."Miradre (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply again: Pinker does not say that the differences must be minor. Nor does he state anything specific, denial or confirmation, regarding any specific mental factor. He carefully avoids that. Here he makes a very general defense of biological race and in the other quote defends very generally the idea that genes are important and that this does not have to lead to genocide. Am I a single-purpose account? Not sure. WP:SPA states "When identifying SPAs, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA." While I have a focus it is quite broad. I have edited, for example, on how Malaria affects intelligence, Human Accomplishment, Evolutionary psychology, Race and sports, Intelligence and health, Theory of multiple intelligences, and Race and crime. Certainly a focus but according to the quote above it may be to broad for a SPA. Regardless, I agree with "If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations." That I have done and as noted below received praise for my improvements by experts on the subjects. I have made a lot of edits. Most of them are just simple, boring housecleaning edits in order to improve the articles. I do not see any of those wanting to ban me from the area making any large attempts to improve the articles there themselves.Miradre (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Jagiello: That is incorrect. If I wanted to include only the views of one side, then, for example, when I cited the Handbook of Crime Correlates, a literature review of 5200 studies and certainly not a racist source, I should only have mentioned official crime rates which all shows racial differences. But instead I also included the opposing views from self-reported offending. This occurred before the current dispute started and no one except me was interested in the article. On the other hand, some of those now disliking unpleasant views have simply mass deleted sourced information they dislike, not even added by me, or deleted links to entire subarticles on this topic.[107][108] If anyone should be censured, it is such editors.Miradre (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Aprock: Aprock again takes up the many months old SPI, as he did during the last AE. I deny Aprock's highly misleading descriptions of by now old editing that has already been discussed in an earlier AE. Aprock again implies I am a banned user. The truth is far simpler. Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous. I only edit under the current name now. I find it somehow strange that Aprock should accuse me of POV editing since he has consistently pushed his own POV and argued for social theories and against biological theories in his own editing. I include views from both sides if they are in the sources. See my earlier comment above on this. Regarding this situation at Race and Sports I note for example this diff showing that I have reached a mutual beneficial understanding with current main editor there.[109] Regarding my editing there causing disruption, I argue that even if the topic is controversial, there is now a rapidly improving and interesting article on Race and sports.Miradre (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Mathsci: Apart from the sockpuppet allegations, the many months old SPI, and general allegations of POV editing I discuss elsewhere, the main complaint at the previous AE was regarding talk page disputes between me and others regarding the existence of POV tags on articles. Link: [110] I have since avoided any similar protracted discussions regarding the existence of POV tags on the articles and have accepted their existence even when I personally have felt they have not been adequately explained. Still, I personally do not think that having long talk page discussions regarding the existence of POV tags was a very serious offense that should unduly affect future decisions. Regarding the other allegations made there by Aprock and repeated here again by Aprock see my reply to him as well as my reply here in general regarding the allegations of POV editing.Miradre (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Maunus: Regarding the r/K theory I changed to what the source states which anyone having the source can check for themselves. I changed an incorrect negative description to the neutral one which is in the source. Regarding the second diff, my edit summary explains it. Unsourced and a straw man. Regarding the content dispute, I note that no one has argued that the average IQ of US blacks can be applied to any group in the world with more or less African ancestry regardless of local environmental factors. Regarding the last diff, Maunus may think the r/K theory has been completely discredited, but this is not the case which the source in his first diff proves. An article mainly on crime is not the place to explain all the many arguments in support and all the many arguments against this rather complex theory. Indeed, if I did so I would instead be accused of undue weight on this theory. So I omitted explaining almost everything regarding the theory and mentioned none of the general evidence in its favor. I simply mentioned the crime aspect and a study specifically on the crime aspect and noted that there are general criticisms against the theory in the main article about it. Furthermore, Maunus is hardly the person to accuse others of not including opposing views. See this edit where he deletes all the sourced opposing views regarding the existence of biological races and leaves only the argument that it is a social construct: [111] Miradre (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there were no "uninvolved user" who agreed with Maunus that there should be no opposing views. The only users who have edited the article after that time is Maunus and myself. Neither did I reinsert the material but instead voiced my opposition on the talk page. Maunus seems to argue below that the article should remain mostly a POV fork for his views because it is being considered for a merger with another article. That is of course not a good justification. Furthermore, no proper merger proposal have been done with only one template added and no talk page section for discussion of a merger. So it looks like the article will remain Maunus's POV fork for an indefinite time.Miradre (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also like to note that I have received much praise for my editing to articles such as IQ as can be seen on my talk page.[112] Including by academic researchers in the field as can be seen if looking who have added the remarks.[113] I have spent considerable effort and time in order to improve Wikipedia on these topics. The facts and proposed explanations may not always be as everyone would like the world to be. But I hope that Wikipedia is not censored also when the results may be unpleasant.Miradre (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Another point is that I am pushing fringe views. But when asked anonymously, the only poll ever done on the views of IQ researchers showed that the partial genetic explanation was the most common explanation for the racial IQ gaps.^[1] Now this obviously does not mean that this view is the correct one or that there are not other significant views. But I do argue that this shows that this view is not a fringe one among the experts on the subject, when they are allowed to express their views anonymously.Miradre (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation for editing these controversial topics

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

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

But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.^[2]

Jensen and Rushton point out that research has shown that also in a group with a lower average some individuals will be above the average of other groups. They also argue that when society is blamed for disparities in average group achievements that instead result from biological differences, the result is demands for compensation from the less successful group which the more successful group feel is unjustified, causing mutual resentment.^[3] Linda Gottfredson similarly argues that denying real biological differences instead cause people to seek something to blame causing hostility between groups. In the US, examples being the views that whites are racist or blacks are lazy. She furthermore argues that "virtually all the victim groups of genocide in the Twentieth Century had relatively high average levels of achievement (e.g., German Jews, educated Cambodians, Russian Kulaks, Armenians in Turkey, Ibos in Nigeria; Gordon, 1980)."^[4] Gottfredson has also disputed that a lower achieving group gains from denying or concealing real biological differences. An increasingly complex society built on the assumption than everyone can do equally well means that they who do not have this ability have increasing trouble functioning in most areas of life. They need various forms of special assistance which is not possible as long as the need is denied to exist.^[4][5]

Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre

Comment by AndyTheGrump

Can I point out that Miradre's comment that "race and crime is not even marked as being under any editing restrictions or active arbitration remedies" is rather disingenuous, given his contributions to an article that expressly refers to a (supposed) "relationship between IQ and crime" as one of the explanations. Indeed, in this diff [114] Miradre explicitly refers to the linkage. I cannot see how he can reasonably claim not to see that this came within the arbitration remidies remit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Jagiello

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

Comment by Boothello

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

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

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

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

I notice that Resident Anthropologist has engaged in WP:CANVASSING to attract people likely to agree with him to this AE thread. [115] [116] [117] This is a fairly transparent attempt at using AE to keep information that he finds offensive off of Wikipedia, even though in all three of the diffs provided Miradre's edits are correctly summarizing what the sources say. If the information added by Miradre is supported by the sources used, he is not doing anything wrong by adding it. On the other hand, if Resident Anthropologist succeeds at censoring the viewpoint he doesn't like by means of canvassing and baseless accusations of source misrepresentation, that will be bad for Wikipedia.Boothello (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by aprock

Miradre is a returning user, who's original identity was not found during a sock puppet investigation last October. He has not responded to requests for information about what previous account(s) he has edited under, nor explained why he has opened a new account to pursue his current editing. I think it is telling that his explanation for creating a new account is that he wanted to edit in this controversial topic area anonymously. He appears to have understood that his edits would be perceived as problematic even before he made his first edit under his new account.

Given the disruptive editing behavior detailed then, previous to the prior AE request, and now, it is quite possible that he is a sanctioned user returning to edit in a manner consistent with WP:CPUSH. A concurrent demonstration of his disruptive editing can be found at the AfD for Race and Crime, an article created by a user banned for racist edits, and now championed by Miradre. Another recent example of his disruptive editing can be found on the [talk page of Race and sports]. Because this is a case of civil pov pushing, simple diffs are unlikely to shed light on the full level of disruption, I strongly urge administrators to review the AfD discussion and the talk page discussion linked to above. Diffs of specific disruptive behavior from last October which match those supplied above can be found on the SPI page. aprock (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note to Sandstein: From R/I Arbitration Remedies: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles. I guess it is an open question as to whether or not Race and crime, (and Race and sports), constitute "closely related articles", but as AndyTheGrump noted above, even Miradre seems to think that they are related in some way. I posit that using J. Philippe Rushton ("a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, most widely known for his work on intelligence and racial differences") as a source may well qualify as "closely related" regardless of article. aprock (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by Mathsci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Maunus

Miradre's editing is definitely covered by the R&I provisions. Whether or not the article is in the particular category, Miradre's edits certainly are: As can be seen in edits such as these, where Miradre changes a neutral wording to a positive one regarding J. Phillippe Rushton's r/K selection theory which has been almost unanimously rejected by specialists and which holds that Blacks are more criminal and less intelligent because the ancestral African environement made that the best evolutionary strategy  : [118]. And here where he removes material describing one of the main arguments from a psychologist who argues against the validity of Race as a psychological variable: [119]. The R&I provisions of course do not mean that editors are free to push POV's regarding race and intelligence as long as they do so in articles that are not currently in the R & I controversy category. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of Miradre's editing style [120]. After having given an entire paragraph to Rushton's completely discredited theory he inserts a single sentence alluding to criticism's as a token neutralization. In fact it is obvious that the paragraph in its entirity gives undue weight to a fringe view as the "various criticisms" have in fact completely rejected the validity of Rushton's theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Result concerning Miradre

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

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

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

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

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

That is a reasonable argument, but in view of how unclear even some arbitrators appear to be about the scope and the operation of their own remedies ([121], [122]), I prefer to err on the side of caution when interpreting the wording of an arbitration remedy, so as not to be yelled at again. You remain, of course, free to take any action you consider appropriate, but you may want to wait until the recently opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Race and Intelligence concludes.  Sandstein  21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request concerning Anonimu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Codrin.B (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu, Conditions to provisionally suspend Anonimu's ban

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

1. [123], [124], [125] Blalant vandalism, removal of properly sourced content and attempt to push a radically different version, against scientifical consensus, in the Capidava article. A well known Dacian town, with a proper Dacian name and history, who he wants to represent at all cost as non-Dacian despite all content from reputable archaeologists and historians. More specifically, he repeateadly violated the 1RR revert parole that he is subject to after his ban was provisionally suspended.
2. [126] Blanking of Dacian Script without any attempt to talk. Later, managed to gain enough votes to delete the article. The topic of the article was about controversial archeological finds. The article itself was well sourced and not controversial at all.
3. [127] Blatant removal of WikiProject Dacia tag from Talk:Constanţa although it is clearly known as an important ancient city for the Geto-Dacian history, therefore important for the project
4. [128] Blanking the Crobidae and redirecting it to Krobyzoi, without any attempt to merge the different content in the two articles.

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified here.

Discussion concerning Anonimu

Statement by Anonimu

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

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

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

The lack of good faith of CodrinB and the sterility of this report is once more proven by the fact that CodrinB is continuing to edit war at Capidava, engaging in personal attacks against my persona through his edit summaries: [129]. What more is needed to prove that this report is just a tool used to gain upper hand in a content dispute?Anonimu (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the CodrinB's personal attacks go on unhampered: [130].Anonimu (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others concerning Anonimu

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

• I am of course about to undermine my own position here, but I must point out that Anonimu has violated[131][132][133] the 1RR restriction placed on him at his unblock. But my view is that those conditions are no longer relevant, because they are so stale: since Anonimu was unbanned (and I was assigned as his mentor), the 1RR and civility parole has never been enforced. To dust them off and begin to use them now would be unusual and draconian, and not something I think we ought to be looking at. We could, because the restrictions were imposed by ArbCom and thus are relevant to AE, but we shouldn't as a matter of common sense. On balance, IMV, to place Anonimu on notice of the Digwuren discretionary sanctions would be the best course of action here. AGK [•] 16:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from admin section) I might be relatively new here and I am not aware of all the committees. If necessary, I will report this to the forum suggested, but can you please help me understand how 3 reverts in barely over 24 hours like these 3 [134], [135], [136] do not violate the 1RR parole that you can enforce? Thanks --Codrin.B (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Result concerning Anonimu

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

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

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

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

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