Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vexorg

Topic ban proposal for user:Vexorg
I propose a topic ban for user:Vexorg for all the articles that mention Jews or Arab terrorist organizations. The user often edits music related or plant related articles, but as soon as the user touches articles on the above topics, it edit become disruptive, POV and violation WP:BLP Here's only few differences of the edit history of the user: Those are only very few differences. I could provide many more on request, but IMO the picture is clear.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) removing well sourced info from Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe
 * 2) removing well sourced info from Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe
 * 3) nominating the same article for deletion
 * 4) removing well sourced information from a sensitive article
 * 5) Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
 * 6) Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
 * 7) Pushing POV; also violates wp:BLP
 * 8) POV pushing
 * 9) restoring unsoursed info
 * 10) restoring bogus quotes in Henry Kissinger in the violation of WP:BLP
 * 11) removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic
 * 12) and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic
 * 13) the edit from today, which demonstrates that the user is seeing nothing wrong in it edit pattern


 * Comment by veorg This user is clearly trying to mount a personal campaign against me. I have just reported him for edit warring here after I removed his POV edits on an article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mbz1_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 - The fact he has kept a record sheet and claims .... "I could provide many more on request" means he is clearly stalking me. Nearly all those issues he/she lists above have long since been put to bed. And some of them are absurd. 12. is in regards to a sensible discussion on a talk page and 13. is a comment about it here!!! The rest are mostly very innocuous. Is that the kind of editor you want on Wikipedia. Someone who seems more interested in vendettas against other editors? I won't waste any more time on this editor's personal hangups. The articles themselves deserve attention instead. Vexorg (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * just to add: I gave the user Mbz1 notice I had reported him for edit warring and he didn't take it seriously and deleted it by writing it off as a rant http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=347858549 Vexorg (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Him"?? - A l is o n  ❤ 06:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'her' then. It makes no difference to me what sex a person is. Would 'it' be better? Alternatively please replace all instances of 'him' with 'him/her' and he with 'he/she'. Isn't it better to concentrate on the editing issues? Vexorg (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Him" is not a problem, no need to replace anything. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This conflict is getting really absurd. Unbelievable!! Mbz1, unless I'm missing something, there's no obvious indication of what sex you are of your page. Had there been I would have addressed you accordingly. Whatever. Is there an administrator out there who is more interested in resolving things than being worried about what sex people are? Vexorg (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of verbiage as a result of a one-word comment pointing out the inherent bias in one's perceptions and it's important to set the record straight, especially given that so few of Wikipedia contributors are women :( - A l is o n  ❤ 07:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * there was no intentional bias. It was simply an innocuous label because I'm more interested in resolving the conflict of editing than worrying what sex editors are. I would expect an administrator to resolve the editing issues before worrying about some hang up about a perceived gender inequality in wikipedia Vexorg (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1 is one of the most prolific contributors of featured pictures at Wikimedia Commons. There she is often referred to as "Mila", per her user page. :)  Durova  412 02:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) You and me both, sister.  Someone called me him yesterday too.
 * Neutral Comment - "Keeping a record sheet" (as mentioned above) and being able to provide "diffs" is hardly evidence of stalking. It doesn't take more than an hour or two at best to fully explore an average editor's history on WP, as all edits that user ever created are quite available to the entire world, forever.  A really good researcher can gain a great understanding of a user's behavior pattern pretty quickly on a totally unknown editor (even a longstanding one).  Hope this clears some things up :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * none the less there is history with this editor and myself. I voted to delete an article that this editor had spent a lot of time on. it's more complicated than you might think. Vexorg (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing's simple, Vexorg, and I am neutral precisely because I don't know the history between you two (though I may look into it ;>) But, "The fact he has kept a record sheet and claims .... "I could provide many more on request" means he is clearly stalking me." does not mean he is stalking you.  Other factors might, but not this... Doc9871 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I cannot support a topic ban at this time. I will admit the diffs provided are problematic, and I encourage User:Vexorg to consider adjusting editing behavior. However, what User:Mbz1 fails to mention is that Vexorg has been active in discussion on the articles' talk pages, while I fail to see that same evidence from Mbz1. Furthermore, I see little evidence of attempts to contact Vexorg regarding this problem outside of enforcement (i.e., WP:AN3). I cannot support a topic ban where the user's problematic behavior has not previously been discussed thoroughly in an attempt at reformation and while the user has been active on the article talk pages. If I am missing evidence please feel free to point me to it. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No wonder you fail to see the same evidences from me. The only article I was involved with user was Rothschild family.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that only causes me to consider opposing further. If the active editors on the article don't have a particular problem with this user, and are communicating on the talk page to resolve issues, then I don't see how I can support a topic ban at this time. Even if you aren't active on those pages, if you consider these diffs to be problematic, then I would rather have seen some kind of discussion on the user's talk page, showing these diffs and asking for change in behavior. If that discussion goes south, then perhaps a topic ban can be considered, but I really can't support it as the first step in dispute resolution. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay how about that::I cannot understand where you coming from when you're saying "little evidence of attempts to contact Vexorg regarding this problem outside of enforcement" Have you seen the user talk page by any chance?
 * obsession with Al-Qaeda
 * BLP
 * edit warring]
 * Henry Kissinger
 * do not add "British Jews" category
 * and so on, and so on, and so on. Practically all the edits at the topics I mentioned are disruptive, involve slow edit warring and violation of common sense and WP:BLP --Mbz1 (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, however I don't consider this particularly problematic. Talk pages are going to have some dispute; that's what they're for – to promote discussion. If there were evidence of repetitive behavior and unresponsiveness to the problems after being contacted on his/her talk page, then I could consider a topic ban, but not right now. It is simply too soon. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah,Shirik, I am afraid you do not see what I am saying. The user talk page contains a warning over a warning over a warning. There's practically nothing, but warnings at the user talk page. There are warnings about wp:BLP, yet today the user violates it yet another time and time again . If it is not repetition of behavior the user was warned about few times, what is?Still, Shirik, I'd like to thank you for taking your time to comment here --Mbz1 (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I do see what you're saying, but I don't agree with how problematic you consider it. The editor is involved in controversial topics; there are bound to be editors that disagree and there will be problems from time to time. But the sheer lack of frequency of these "major problems" combined with the responsiveness to discussions like at User talk:Vexorg leads me to think that, should this topic ban be considered, the overall issue should have been directly discussed with the user first. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The following section is in response to User:Vexorg above, but its placement here is retained for continuity -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)It has nothing to do with the user voting to delete the article, few others did, including, but not limited the user, who nominated it to be deleted. The post has also nothing to do with the user reporting me for edit warring. It is the user notorious agenda, which made me report the user here.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take no offense to this, but you've just left me confused, and I think your edit conflict is to blame – was this second part meant as a response to me or a response to the section above? The tabulation and content seems to suggest it was a response to User:Doc9871 instead of me, contrary to where this comment was placed. I'm just trying to understand better. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry,Shirik, the comment you refer to was made in response to the comment made by Vexorg, when the user claimed I posted because the user voted to delete my article.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tying two back-to-back open AN/I's together? Will a third be created shortly? Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Was that comment inappropriate? Factsontheground (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't inappropriate at all; you've done nothing wrong there. I'm just wondering if the above incident isn't directly tied (same content content and editors) to this thread. You two are in conflict in the above thread.  Opening multiple threads between similar editors and content before at least one is resolved is like "clogging the arteries"... Doc9871 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it was inappropriate. Your comment has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You clearly have some kind of conflict going on with Mbz1 bringing your disagreement, and disparaging remarks down to this thread does nothing to further the discussion toward resolution. You are either part of the solution, part of the problem, or irrelevant. When it comes to this thread I would suggest that your comments are at best irrelevant to the discussion, and at worst baiting.--Adam in MO Talk 08:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I should've put a ;> after "nothing wrong there"... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't see enough evidence here for a topic ban. You both are involved in contentious article disputes. I think more evidence is needed of disruptiveness. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "well-sourced info" about Al Qaeda in Europe is actually sourced to opinion in a July 2003 analysis from "The Centre for Peace in the Balkans", a November 2001 editorial in The Wall Street Journal Europe and July 2005 comments by Richard Holbrooke. None of these are reliable sources for statements of fact.  When Vexorg nominated this article for deletion in September, it was a stub.  None of this warrants sanctions.  The Four Deuces (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The user removed entire sections, they are now in the article.--09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will try one more time. Let's forget about Al-Qaeda. I cannot care less about them. Let's talk about the user agenda towards Jews. Let's for example take
 * Henry Kissinger article
 * Please see here the user was warned on it talk page in October
 * Please see  here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few months later.
 * Please see  here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few days later.
 * It is the same pattern for almost all the user user contributions at the topic including, but not limited to Rothschild family. I strongly believe the Wikipedia will benefit, if the user should be topic banned, and topic banned now.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not A "Vote" Here, but I would certainly "Oppose" - "Strongly believing" WP would "benefit" (not "would stop harming WP") a topic ban now needs a far better argument, I think. Demanding action without excellent evidence to support that action isn't the best way to win a topic ban, I'm afraid.  Any other opinions out there? Doc9871 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to have my own opinion, and to express it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Possible compromise - These issues obviously transcend what can be done here, a massive understatement in general. Insofar as these issues can be dealt with on individual articles, they should be. If they transcend those articles, or encompass a wide berth of similar articles, I understand the appeal to this forum. I'm not one to decide anything here, but I would suggest both parties try and at the least and determine where they disagree, on an article-by-article basis. If that process is totally broken then you should indicate that here, but ideally everyone will continue to discuss this on the appropriate pages. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - I absolutely think discussing these things on the appropriate pages is exactly what should be done... Doc9871 (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not agree As I have proven on the example with Henry Kissinger article this approach does not work. Please also notice that I am involved with the user on a single article only.Everybody disagrees with the user, as it is seen from the user talk page, but the user continues to push it POV.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, based on your experience on one article with this editor, you are requesting a topic ban. Is this correct? Doc9871 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (crickets chirping) Anytime on the topic ban comments. I shudder to think every time I had a disagreement on a page that warranted a "topic ban" (there have been a few ;>).  But that's just me, ya know :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Practically every time user:Vexorg is touching an article that has some connection to a Jew, Jews, or the persons user:Vexorg believes are Jews there's either WP:BLP violation and/or wp:POV and/or edit warring, and/or vandalism".  It is disappointing that nobody sees or does not want to see the problem with the user agenda, but whatever.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support ban A virulent anti-Jewish, bias seems to permeate user:Vexorg's work here, seems to have an overwrought anger as well...Modernist (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a bias is hardly reason to topic ban someone from a contentious topic. Topic bans should be brought on for persistant and disruptive failure to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.  I have no familiarity with this case, so I cannot say whether or not Vexorg is being disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban, but I sure want to see better reasons than "he has a viewpoint that doesn't agree with mine". Buddy431 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Buddy, may I please ask you, if you did not read or did not understand what I stated above? Or you do not consider WP:BLP violation and/or wp:POV and/or edit warring, and/or vandalism" as a disruptions? What more evidences you'd like to see?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly WP:BLP violations, WP:POV, and edit warring violate both guidelines and policy...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was refering exclusively to Modernist's comment directly preceding mine (though my post could probably be applied to some of the other comments in this thread as well). Like I said, I have no interest in this case, and don't care enough to find out.  I do feel strongly that the rational provided for !votes should give reasons for topic banning that are actually banable offenses, rather than a generic "he's biased". Buddy431 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban - The diffs seem to show good-faith editing, no worse than any editor trying to incorporate balancing material here and there. Many editors have biases, the key is simply working things out in the Talk page and ensuring that the content ends up neutral and balanced.  It is no crime to edit articles on, say, England/Ireland with nothing but positive content on England.  And it is no crime to edit articles on England/Ireland with nothing but negative content on England. (Disclaimer:  as an editor that has done lots of editing on the topic of Criticism of religion I have frequently been accused of anti-Mormon, antisemitic, and anti-Christian bias).  Many editors have limited time to work on WP, and simply choose to contribute in a narrow area. That area may be offensive to other editors, but the fact that the editing is limited to one area is no reason for a topic ban.  --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander, could you please explain why you consider these wp:blp violations from a single article edit history to be a "good-faith editing" ;;;;,[--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * mbz1: can you double check those diffs? The ones you posted here are very benign.   If those are the correct diffs, and you have concerns about their appropriateness, can you show the Talk page diffs where you tried to reconcile the concern?  --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the differences presented here were reverting of other users. I got to the article only few days ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the offensive accusation of racism by Modernist above An accusation of racism is a serious one. I ask that Modernist retracts his/her claim that I have "virulent anti-Jewish, bias" - I have no prejudices against anyone becuase of their race ethnicity, etc and such a false claim offensive. I don't spend valuable time editing Wikipedia to be subjected to personal attacks by those who might have some political agenda I would also ask what agenda Modernist has for making such a false claim. Vexorg (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic show Vexorg's agenda clearly enough. I'd support placing Vexorg on a 1R restriction on Jews, Zionist and Judaism, broadly construed, their edit warring has gone far enough. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Zionist Movement is a political organisation and not a race. The ZOG maybe a conspiracy, but it's ZOG not JOG and there not anti-semitic. It's worth noting Fences  that Zionism isn't mutually inclusive with Jews and in fact many Jews a very against the ideology of Zionism. To accuse me of anti-semitism is false and offensive. My only agenda is accuracy on Wikipedia. Calling ZOG an anti-semitic CT is IMO wrong. t oaccuse me racism for that is below the belt. But then the race card is shown regularly by thiose who support Zionism. Vexorg (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Zionist Occupation Government" is most definitely an anti-semitic conspiracy theory and the term itself originated with and is associated with the Neo-Nazi movement in the US. Splitting hairs over the fact that "Zionist" isn't the same thing as "Jewish" in this particular context is basically akin to when the Neo-Nazis insist that they're not "White Power" but "just" "White Pride" - it's a meaningless distinction for all intents and purposes, except propaganda by these groups themselves. Having said that I have no idea if Vexorg is familiar enough with the history of the term or s/he's just engaging in some original research. It could be s/he just got confused by the terminology, since these extremist groups often do use "codewords" to obfuscate their actual ideology. At any rate, removing the fact that it is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory does raise one's eyebrows.radek (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but one of those diffs is a candid discussion on a Talk page, and the other was removing a qualifier to a link, where the linked article abundantly describes the qualifier. I see no smoking gun here.   But, as you are proposing the milder 1RR rather than a more severe topic ban,  the threshold is not so high.  --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remember those are only differences from a single article I was involved in. There are few more like those, for example, as the one I mentioned above Henry Kissinger article
 * 1) here the user was warned on it talk page in October
 * 2) here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few months later.
 * 3) here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few days later.

I would agree for 1RR ban for the user to see, if the user edit pattern will improve.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * mbz1: can you double-check those diffs?  On that Talk page discussion, I see no mention of the BLP policy at all.  I do see some discussion of Quotation policy, and neutrality policy.   Is that what you are referring to?  But user Vexorg _did_ engage in a discussion on the Talk page, I think with just one other editor, and I don't see that any consensus was achieved.  I may not agree with Vexorg's edits, but it looks like he/she was trying to add some (well-sourced) content into the article.  Have you tried engaging Vexorg on the Talk page of the Kissinger article to try to achieve a compromise?  --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits the user has added to Henry Kissinger  are gone, were removed not by me, but few others, so there's nothing more to engage about. I am going to make a section break for a new proposal of 1RR edit restriction. There are more than enough differences to support that measure at the very least.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see the user Mbz1 is not going to give up on his/her obsessive personal vendetta against me. Obviously realising his original claim has been largely demolished by consensus, Mbz1 is now stating he/she will mount another, predictably long winded, attempt to have my editing restricted simply because my edits conflict with his political views. Vexorg (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear indication that the user Mbz1 is mounting a personal campaign against me here 1  Mbz1 has inserted the following reason [ #12 ] at the top of this section as part of his argument that I should be banned from editing certain topics 12. and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic for proposing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-Semitic - This is a discussion on a talk page, and not even an article edit, never mind disruptive editing, POV editing and violation of article editing, as he his claiming. The user Mbz1 clearly has both a personal and political agenda here. Far from recently being disruptive here I actually gave Mbz1 the last word on the Rothschild Article that caused Mbz1's current obsessive campaign and took it to the talk page. Mbz1isn't IMO interested in a better Wikipedia but more interested in chasing after those who make edits that oppose his political opinion. The amount of effort he has put in here in trying to demonize me speaks volumes Vexorg (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear indication that the user Mbz1 is mounting a personal campaign against me here 2  - now Mbz1 has added yet anotherindication of his/her personal agenda to his every growing obsessive list at the top of this section by adding a quote from my comments in this article ... 13. the edit from today, which demonstrates that the user is seeing nothing wrong in it edit pattern. I am finding Mbz1 political and personal campaign against me getting more and more obsessive by the minute Vexorg (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)  Analysis of two more non-arguments by Mbz1 - has two non-arguments to his/her ever growing list 5. and 6. respectively. Is anyone taking Mbz1 seriously any more? I am finding it very difficult and it is very tedious to keep having to defend myself against such an obsessive tirade. The only reason I added British Jews AND English Jews on these articles is becuase I'd seen the two categories together on many other articles and though that was a traditional Wikipedia thing. England is a subset of British so there's of duplication. same as, for example, describing someone as both European and French. There's NOTHING in those two arguments that supports Mbz1 charges of !disruptive, POV and violation!. Another example of him/her scraping the barrel to boost a personal campaign Vexorg (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
 * 6. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there


 * Vexorg - to be sure I have no agenda except that I don't like bias of any kind, I am willing to take your word, I accept your explanation and your assertion that you are not anti-Jewish and I apologize to you if I have either hurt or offended you. I am willing to take you at your word, assuming your edits will reflect fairness, open-mindedness and lack an agenda of your own...Modernist (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted Modernist - if I ever make an anti-Jewish edit then feel free to report me for it. But I can assure you that has never happened and will never happen. I see no logic in being prejudiced against anyone for their race/ethnicity regardless of the immorality of it. I only make judgements based on people's behaviour. Vexorg (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support a topic ban on anything to do with Jews and Zionism and Israel, based on the following: Vexorg calls this Anti-Defamation  League a Zionist group rather than a pro-Israeli group, which is against its own definition of itself as well as consensus; striking out "antisemitic hoax" from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well known and universally accepted "antisemitic hoax"; arguing that Zionist Occupation Government is not antisemitic, removing sourced material that does not correspond to his POV with respect to Zionism; & restoring unsourced material with respect to Jews and Zionism.  Edit warring & disrupting previously stable articles over these issues demonstrates an unwillingness to collaborate in good faith with respect to articles concerning Jews and Zionism and Israel.  Stellarkid (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose any topic ban. I see no evidence here of a long-term pattern of disruptive editing; rather, an attempt to inflate a series of minor (sometimes trivial) disagreements into a full-blown epic. This really is a waste of everyone's time. RolandR (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a topic ban per Stellarkid. Breein1007 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Turian's Proposal
I have been keeping an eye on this ever since it started to erupt into a crazy  war of "I'm right." From what I have seen and read, MBz1's intentions seemed to be based (and mired) in the fact that he has a severe  disagreement with Vexorg. Yeah, I know, stating the obvious. Keeping in mind that I am a completely neutral party in this matter, here is my  proposal:


 * Mbz1 is banned for one month from editing any article which Vexorg has edited. This includes anything to  do with Henry  Kissinger,  the Zionist Movement, or any Israeli/Jewish topic. He is permitted to  talk and discuss possible edits on the talk pages, but is placed on a  strict no tolerance policy of name calling, accusations, or any other  form of disparagement against any  editor. (This is mainly due to the virulent nature Mbz1 has taken in his  attempts to "resolve" this.)
 * Vexorg is permitted to edit articles but is strongly advised to cooperate with Mbz1 in an attempt to portray a  neutral point of view on the previously named articles. Any remarks are  to remain civil, and any failure to do so will place him underneath the  same topic ban.
 * Both editors are prohibited from editing the other editor's talk page, especially in the case of handing out  warnings.
 * After the month is over, Mbz1 is placed on a 1RR for any edits made by Vexorg (the same goes for Vexorg) for the  following 3 months.
 * If any of these restrictions are violated, a block at the discretion of any administrator will suffice.

Of course, I am not an administrator, but the argument seems like a massive paradox of actions. If anyone has a better alternative, feel free to make your suggestions, but at the  current rate, these two are going to gnaw at each other until something  bad happens. These prohibitions are aimed at calming them down. –Turian   ( talk )  21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just wonder, if you've ever realized that I was involved with the other party only on a single article, while the other party was involved with other editors on quite a few other articles over and over and over again? For example, there's nothing for me to edit in Henry Kissinger. The sanity was restored by others. As a matter of fact I have never edited the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm making sure you don't find a loophole in the process. I am well aware of the circumstances. –Turian  ( talk )  22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are "well aware of the circumstances" and propose to ban me on Jewish related articles while allowing the other party to edit, I have no more questions for you. Warm regards, and thank you for the nice laugh.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your ploy has no ground here, I'm afraid, nor does you constant disrespect of other members. –Turian  ( talk )  22:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break: 1RR restriction on user:Vexorg
Few other editors suggested 1RR edit restriction for the user, so I'd like to put it in as an alternative measure.Please notice that the measure offered here is not because of edit-warring but because of edit-warring + wp:POV + WP:BLP
 * Support The evidences of disruptive editing presented above, no need to repeat--Mbz1 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This implies you did nothing wrong, so I cannot support it. –Turian  ( talk )  22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Hopefully things then settle down...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * exposing untruth by Mbz1 Mbz1 said "Few other editors suggested" - that's not the case: One other user suggested a 1RR on me. another user suggested a 1RR on both of us. Vexorg (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * user talking about 1RR on you only and here's one more. If we are to add to those two User:Modernist, who has supported the complete topic ban above and before, we will get "few users".--Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * no that's the one I have already mentioned. There is only two. Vexorg (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! only two users supported a 1RR at the time you created this section break. It's easy to go back to the state of this discussion at the time you created this section break. Please stop telling untruths to make your point. They are easily exposed Vexorg (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support/Comment The user Mbz1 is not only mounting a personal vendetta against me, but the few legitimate instances of edit warring I've been a part of in the past have already been addressed and I have already received temporary suspensions for them. It seems Mbz1 wants me punished twice. the rest of his arguments listed at the top of this section are either really innocuous or absurd Vexorg (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not allowed to vote here I am afraid. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support- It will be good for him in the end.., the edit 3RR report could also be actioned and they both appear to have violated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - At the very least Stellarkid (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Should give it some time to calm down. Although I'd like to see some measures taken against Mbz1 as well, as they seem to be almost as guilty (of edit warring if nothing else). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Turian.
 * Support - looks like a sensible measure -  A l is o n  ❤ 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a two way street. You can't seriously only sanction one member in a dispute that has erupted into something rather ridiculous, can you? –Turian  ( talk )  23:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both editors have been edit-warring, IMO, but this editor also has POV and BLP issues going on. As I see it, Mbz1 saw herself as reverting BLP issues, action which is largely covered per policy - A l is o n  ❤ 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * and you are ignoring Mbz1's clear personal vendatta against me? It's also worth noting that User:Alison has amde a meal out of the fact I called Mbz1 a 'he' and ranted about male/female inequality on my talk page regarding it. Vexorg (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good grief already. I need a rollseyes emoticon - A l is o n  ❤ 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I respectfully suggest you made yourself biased in this discussion. Vexorg (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose It takes two to edit war. In response to Alison, Mbz1 has an unique interpretation of WP:BLP; yesterday she accused an editor of violating BLP on an article's Talk page when he described a political party as racist and proto-fascist. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Malik, it requires at least two editors to edit warring, but it requires only one to make such an edit: removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic. It requires only one editor to make the edits like those ;;;please notice the edit summary;. Needless to say that only those very few edits that BTW were all reverted, are rather a good reason for concern. Once again I would have never proposed neither a topic ban, not 1RR restriction, if there was not such a big history of the edits I linked to above.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * support The evidence presented here are quite disturbing. Broccoli (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While this isn't a vote, I would oppose this sanction. In particular, I am unhappy that Mbz1 has chosen to come directly to AN/I without attempting to resolve the issues first on the user's talk page. In addition, while the link mentioned in the above comment is unfortunate, anyone clicking the 'Protocols' link in the article would clearly see the nature of the work in question; thus I believe the argument can be made that its removal, whilst likely detrimental to the article, is wholly insufficient to support the sanctions that Mbz1 is attempting to impose, and would urge her to discuss this with Vexorg on his talk page. A le_Jrb talk  00:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you by any chance seen the user talk page? If you did, and still believe that something could be resolved with the user, you are an optimist, I am afraid I am not.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Had you made a good-faith attempt to discuss with Vex, and failed, I would be more likely to agree with you. As you felt it appropriate to completely and arbitrarily bypass this standard step in dispute resolution, I'm not. I did, of course, look at the talk page, and see several messages from a user who seems to be in an ongoing long-term dispute, some notifications including an AfD (which failed), a long and completely irrelevant discussion about gender and a few other discussions where Vex has responded to every comment. Which one of the above demonstrates a blatant unwillingness to discuss issues? A le_Jrb talk  01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the user did respond to the comments, but nothing has changed, as I have shown on Henry Kissinger example. Few times the user added controversial quotations to the article, few times it was removed, the user responded the comments at the talk page, and... few months later posted the thing back to the article, and of course it was removed once again (none of the edits was done by me) BTW about engagement - the user reported me first to the edit-warring board. I have absolutely no problems with that at all. I believed and I still do I was removing the violation of wp:BLP, when I changed "were and are" to "were" and other things. If I am mistaking, I am more than ready to accept whatever ban, whatever sanctions I deserve. The problem I have with the user is not about edit warring, it is something much more serious than that IMO. Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from Vexorg to Mbz1's sinister comments above Mbz1 said "The problem I have with the user is not about edit warring, it is something much more serious than that IMO." - So tell us Mbz1 what is this much more serious thing? It is clear from this ridiculous tirade that you are COMPLETELY OBSESSED WITH ME!! You have not once attempted to reconcile your differences with me by talking to me. You start this campaign with THIRTEEN instances of edits at the the top of this article most of which either innocuous, untruths and ridiculously cite a well meant argument of mine on a talk page. What on earth is that all about? I made a well reasoned case on an article's talk page and you are using that as a reason to put sanctions on me? You are seriously making yourself look foolish here. Let's look at edit number 10. which you call "restoring bogus quotes" -The quotes are not bogus they were sourced. the contention on that Henry Kissinger article was about the inclusion of a 'Quotes' Section, not the validity of the Quotes. You are being severely disingenuous. Point 13. is a reference to part of my comments here!! What on earth is that all about? point number 9, was info that was in the TV documentary itself. When I get time IS shall watch the recording I have of it and restore that material sourcing it's position in the program. The program is already notable enough. it is quite clear your campaign against me is not in good faith. You have already admitted here that you support a 'cause' of POV editing on Wikipedia and even applauded another editor for getting a ban for it. To wit: OK just to add..... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gilabrand#Blocked :Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause! Enjoy your break. Best wishes] ... is pretty indicative of why Mbz1 edits Wikipedia. Mbz1 why cannot you be honest and tell what your real agenda is here. Because whatever it is it's certainly not for the good of Wikipedia Vexorg (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, one bran new revert from today that was reverted (not by me)  soon after. Somebody would tell me there's nothing bad in that revert, and I would have agreed, if there was no that revert  removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic and many others like that.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment by Vexorg in response to Mbz1 immediately above - Yes I reverted one time what was a removal of properly sourced information. When I reverted I added 'see talk' and [immediately created a discussion section on the talk page] explaining why I reverted. I since returned to the article only to find the the user who originally removed the material user:Plot Spoiler had reverted it a second time, ignored the talk page, and gave no proper rationale for his reversion in the edit comments. I have [contacted Plot Spoiler on his/her talk page] to make him/her aware of the situation and to please discuss the article on the talk page. I also noticed that Mbz1 has [recently contacted Plot Spoiler] in order to boost her personal campaign against me. Ask yourseves why she is contacting editors about articles where there is no problems ( I have gone through the proper procedures of initial discussion with no edit warring ) and which is nothing to do with her vendetta here. Vexorg (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mbz1, I think you should consider dropping the stick and backing away from the horse. Unomi (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as per Malik Shabazz, but maybe a two-revert rule restriction would be a lot fairer? Minima c  ( talk ) 05:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support To say Vexorg has issues playing nicely with other children doesn't begin to describe it. He's a highly experienced edit warrior, and I don't mean that as a compliment (anybody who likes is invited to check his blog log, which is ginormous). My previous interactions with this editor have been uniformly negative, and frequently consist of damage control. A 1RR restriction is long overdue. Ray  Talk 08:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor is ignoring the personal vendetta by User:Mbz1] becuase he/she is obviously more interested in pushing his/her own prejudices about me. [[User:RayAYang has a personal agenda. I am happy for unbiased editors to check my logs on Wikipedia. I have nothing to hide. I've always admitted to getting embroiled in edit wars in the past. But they were done with best of intentions for Wikipedia. I have already been punished for my previous infractions. It's unfair to be punished twice just becuase the user Mbz1 has an exponentially expanding obsession with me. All I ask is that other editors commenting here pay attention to Mbz1's seemingly unhealthy obsession. I have made over 3,500 edits on Wikipedia. All with the most sincere of intentions. it's sad to be faced with people who have a political agenda. Vexorg (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support It's a start and will give this user an opportunity to relax before he reaches a possible block or ban. --Shuki (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - 1 week block and long term 1RR - per my notes on the AN3, and my review on Vexorg's commentary and activity in relation to the Protocols libel - and his extensive block history over edit warring. Mbz1 should probably be given a one week topic ban for both her tone issues and the edit-warring with Vexorg. I'd suggest a 72hr block on her but there is some real BLP concern that should have at least been properly discussed.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC) fix 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Vexorg's commentary and activity in relation to the Protocols libel" - So you admit you are using personal reasons for supporting sanctions against me. That's OK. At least you are honest. My commentary here is necessary to defend myself. never before have I witnessed such an obsessive crusade by an editor user:Mvz1. What an I suppose to do, laydown and this editor make all kinds of allegations and launch personal attacks for let's be honesty here because I have made edits that have been contrary to her political agenda. Vexorg (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure it is a personal issue to object your activity in relations to this topic. I've also put into consideration that you did, in fact, make quite a lot of reverts against multiple editors and broke 3RR while knowing full well the implications of doing this. With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * this proposal by Mbz1 is steeped in a personal agenda. No one can truly read through all this and claim there isn't such a personal agenda. It's also obviosuly obsessive. Look I haven't got a problem with being pulled up for getting embroiled in edit wars ( it always takes two to edit war btw ) and I have been punished and accepted the punishment in the past for it. I don't vlaim to be a perfect editor. What I strongly o0bject to is thinly veiled personal agendas. it's obvious that the problem Mbz1 has with me is that I make edits that go against her political cause. And you of all people know it. I wish people could be honest and just say if they don't like someone else's viewpoint instead of trying lamely to try and hide it behind some kind of Wikipedia editing protocol with the agenda of sanctioning them. I'm not stupid, I can see the political agenda behind MBz1's obsession here. her 13 points reveal it. The following reveals it. "The problem I have with the user is not about edit warring, it is something much more serious than that IMO." - Mbz1 above And I notice she hasn't the courage to come back and tell us exactly what that 'serious' issue is. Although we all know don't we? Frankly I find her behaviour childish as well as obsessive. Vexorg (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * are you suggesting my lack of relaxing about the being the subject of an obsessive personal campaign against me by another editor with a transparent political agenda is a reason to sanction me? Surely not? -- I'm actually very relaxed about editing Wikipedia though. Check my last edit and you'll see I've gone through the proper procedures on the talk page. Vexorg (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Almost opposed, as I think 1RR is too weak. But there is some highly disturbing stuff here. IronDuke 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And just what is this 'highly disturbing stuff' you speak of???? Vexorg (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the descriptor of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and your comments about ZOG not being antisemitic. I want to be horrified by them, as well as by those who would defend you, but it's par for the course here.  IronDuke  04:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do we really need a community discussion for a 1rr restriction? Every user should strive to limit themselves to 1rr.
 * Indeed. I am now striving for that, even if not perfect. What is very sinister is the agenda of a few editors here who are voting to sanction me for a viewpoint. Even as well reasoned argument on a talk page has been cited as a weapon against me. It's obvious this whole thing is transparently a political agenda and not about 1RR, 2RR or even 56RR. I'd heard about political witchhunts on Wikipedia before but never before been the target of one of them Vexorg (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Malik Shabazz and Turian. I'd also like to add that this kind of ANI pile on is very disturbing. No previous attempt were made to engage in dispute resolution here. It takes two to tango and any objective reading of the comments and diffs here would see that Mbz1 is not exactly easy to work with, constantly casting aspersions based on whether or not a person's politics (as she understands or interprets them) please her. Sorry, but what's happening here is simply wrong.  T i a m u t talk 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * look who is talking now about what is wrong, and who is easy to work with, and about disturbing ANI piles. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1 I'm afraid your frankly immature and obsessive campaign against me simply because you have interpreted my views as being in conflict with your politically motivated editing on Wikipedia, which you have called 'the right cause' have been exposed. One has only got to read through your 13 points in the lead of this article to see what your political motivations are. You still haven't had the courage to tell your real reasons for mounting such an obsessive campaign against me have you. Do come one Mbz1 pony up. You said "The problem I have with the user is not about edit warring, it is something much more serious than that IMO." so come on, tell us what this serious thing is? Or are you going to continue to fail to have the courage to do so. Vexorg (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The hypocrisy of user:Mbz1 -- Unbelievable!! Mbz1 has called for a block on an editor who made an enforcement request on user:Gilabrand. Gilabrand if you remember is the editor who Mbz1 applauded for being blocked for the 'right cause' - So how long should Mbz1 be blocked for harassing me with this ridiculous and obsessive proposal here?  Vexorg shakes his head in amazement that these people can get away with editing wikipedia with such a blatant and vicious political bias. Vexorg (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as my comments in the previous section. I see absolutely no grounds for such action. RolandR (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Tiamut. EuroPride (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Tiamut. NickCT (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support or at least a Strong warning. You seriously need to chill out and assume some good faith on the part of your fellow editors. You called me a liar (twice) in Talk:Henry_Kissinger after I both linked and quoted the rule I was citing. If you disagree with an editor, state your case using reason and logic, rather than assume they are out to get you. Bonewah (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Shuki. Breein1007 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break: 1RR restriction on User:Mbz1
As can be seen above the user Mbz1 has been mounting an almost obsessive campaign against me and has dragged up a whole series of issues which have long been put to bed. Yesterday I reported Mbz1 for edit warring here [User:Mbz1 reported by User:Vexorg (Result: )] - Mbz1's response has been tpo mount tis long campaign against me. Points 12. and 13. in his ever growing last at the topof this article are absurd to say the least. Therefore I propose a 1RR on Mbz1 so I can go abut editing without being 'Wikihounded' by this user who is clearly mounting a campaign becuase some of my edits are against his obvious political agenda. Vexorg (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support as per whole article. Vexorg (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't really seen enough evidence to justify this measure and your tone is no better than Mbz1's.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is read this extensive diatribe to see Mbz1's obsession here. Look at the 13 points at the top. many of them are nothing more than personal vendettas and nothing to do any wikipedia editing policy, especially 12 and 13. And regards tone, I am simply defending myself against this tirade. Vexorg (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Break: Back to the original complaint here
Just beginning to take a look at this user's contributions, and must say that despite his noisy protestations to the contrary, when it comes to edit-warring, he is second to none. This is his history at the Rothschild article just today. The following appear to be all reversions - March 5: ,, ,,, ,.

Will check out the allegations of POV-pushing in a bit. Stellarkid (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the point of my proposal. –Turian  ( talk )  22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit wars that the Rothschild are Zionists, I was surprised to hear this, I googled it and there is nothing reliable, wikipedia is there and a lot of opinionated places, David Ike is there a pretty motley crew. Its a fringe position being given a mouthpiece through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the edit wars are nothing to do with the Rothshild's being Zionists, but some of the family being involved in Zionism Vexorg (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no question that (some of) the Rothschilds helped finance the purchase of land in Palestine on behalf of early Zionists. See these sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * MalikS is quite correct. Financial support from certain members of the Rothschild family was very important to the success of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine starting in the 1880s (or maybe it was 1890s).  This is very well known and not disputed, and there is a large academic literature about it.  If that is all this dispute is about, fixing it is just a matter of choosing good sources from the many available.  It is also the case, but much less known, that a few senior Rothschilds (such as Lord Nathaniel Rothschild) were opposed to Zionism. The historical importance of the latter was very liitle, but it means one should be careful to assign actions to the correct individuals and not to the family as a whole. Zerotalk 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The category probably belongs on notable Zioinists among the Rochilds rather than tagged on the entire family.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Break: Vexorg says Enough is Enough now!!
I've expended far too much time and energy on what is nothing more than a personal vendetta by the user

I reported this user here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mbz1_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 yesterday and as a result the user has replied with an obsessive campaign against me using arguments that are nothing more than scraping the barrel. I have been involved in edit wars in the past. some of them a long time ago. I have already been punished for them with temporary bans. Yet this user is dragging up a past history simply as a retort to my reporting this user for edit warring. Some of this users arguments are ridiculous ... Look at this at the top of this article ...


 * # [12.] and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic
 * # [13.] the edit from today, which demonstrates that the user is seeing nothing wrong in it edit pattern

this isn't the argument of someone genuinely interested in making Wikipedia better, this is the actions of someone with a personal vendetta

I've spent much of the day defending myself against this personal tirade. No more. I've no intention of edit warring with this user. My reverts to the Rothschild article yesterday were simply to correct what I saw was an unnecessary series of edits by user:Mbz1 - You can note that I was the one who bowed out of the edit war before it got silly and took it to the talk page. Mbz1 didn't bother until today and seems more interested in having me censored/restricted/punish than editing wikipedia.

I've got better things to do wit my life that keep up with the constant obsessive and innocuous arguments put forward by user:Mbz1. So I am bowing out of this absurd debate which is built upon nothing more than a personal vendetta. If I am punished with 1RR, 2RR3RR or even 69RR whatever. user:Mbz1 as won. but if user:Mbz1 gets away with this scott free then it's a sad indictment on Wikipedia IMO. Vexorg (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK just to add..... this :"Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause! Enjoy your break. Best wishes - .-- Mbz1 08:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)"  ... is pretty indicative of why Mbz1 edits Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 'ZOG' is indeed antisemitic-inspired terminology and it is not heart-warming to see arguments (read: sophistry) to the contrary. Mbz1 made violations as well. No doubt both of you should be sanctioned but the extent and the possibility of reform is in question.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To say it's sophistry is very disingenuous of you. Although I can see your motivations for slipping that one in. There is nothing racist in ZOG itself IMO even if racists have used it as one of their arguments in the past. I am just not afraid to broach these issues, despite running the risk of offensive accusations against me and obsessive campaigns as we see here. JOG would be racist, not ZOG Zionism is a political movement not a race and doesn't speak for all Jews. None the less these differences of opinion in politics should NOT be the basis to campaign to have other editors sanctioned but this is CLEARLY what Mbz1 is doing here. Her political Agenda is transparent. She even applauded another editor who got a temporary ban because it was 'for the right cause' In contrast I have no obsessive campaign against Mbz1, I am simply defending myself here Vexorg (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A racist or bigot generally does not consider his theories racist, but absolute truth. I do urge you to take a look at the Wikipedia article on the Zionist Occupation Government and note the first line which calls this "an antisemitic conspiracy  theory."  Please for your own edification I urge you to read the external as well as the internal links in the article.  In the meantime, please do not go pointing  your finger at others when you refuse to acknowledge your own problems.  Stellarkid (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please quit the childish personal attacks. I am neither a racist or a bigot. If you persist with these offensive allegations I shall report you. I don't have any problems you highly offensive and patronising person. Why does Wikipedia allow these distasteful people to edit it's pages? Vexorg (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Advice Please - What's the procedure for complaining against personal attacks. I am disgusted to read the bile by the editor Stellarkid above and wish to make an official complaint. Thanks in advance. Vexorg (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
Although I am quite disappointed in the results, I believe something good came out of that:

Vexorg's "contributions" were exposed to more people, who did see the problems there. IMO Mackan79 was able to sum it the best at Vexorg's talk page "Honestly... if that is your approach I think you will end up blocked from editing in this area.". Let us hope that Vexorg would change it edit pattern.

I'd also like to talk about some of the oppose's reasons. If I do not count tiamut, and her canvasing friends, few other opposers saw the problem that I asked to enforce some restrictions on Vexorg while saying nothing about my own conduct. They either failed or did not want to realize that the proposal was not because of edit-warring at all. Yet, I agree to be 1RR restricted, if the community believe I should be. As a matter of fact I'd like to challenge Vexorg. Would you agree to 1rr restriction, if we are sanctioned together? Some other opposers complained that I should have engaged in a dialog with Vexorg. I guess I should have, shouldn't I? Except I knew that nothing good will come out of that. You do not believe me? Well, see or even read one more time this very thread. So, Vexorg, my offer stands, let us be 1RR sanctioned together you and me, how's that? As a matter of fact I have few more challenges to offer. Here they all are:
 * 1) Let us both be restricted indefinitely to 1RR editing for all the articles.
 * 2) Let us both be restricted indefinitely on introducing or removing the word "Zionist" to/from any article.
 * 3) Let us both to be restricted indefinitely on removing or adding the words "anti-Semitic" "antisemitism" and any similar words from/to any Wikipedia article.
 * 4) Let us both to be restricted indefinitely on removing or adding the whole sections from/to any Al-Qaeda related articles or nominate them on deletion.
 * 5) We both have no restrictions to discuss the subjects at the article talk pages.
 * 6) If any of us violates the restrictions the other party as well as any uninvolved user has the right to ask for the enforcement.
 * 7) Each of us has the right to apply for lifting the restrictions in 6 months. If the restrictions are lifted, the other party restrictions should be lifted at the same time.

IMO it is a fair proposal, Now it is your turn,Vexorg--Mbz1 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have wasted a lot of people's time on your obsessive campaign against me because some of my edits did not agree with you political cause here. I've looked at your history and it seems I'm not the first person you've pulled the race card on. Frankly I've found your whole approach childish. Other editors have told you should have started dialog with me first if you had any issues with my editing. But no you had to make a big song and dance about it in public and try to get me censored from editing articles that are part of your 'cause'.


 * I'm not stupid. I know exactly what your agenda is here on Wikipedia. The reason you didn't want to engage in dialog with me is because you didn't want a resolution that didn't involve getting me sanctioned. And the comments by your freinds who have the same agenda are also very transparent have contaminated this section. Especially your friend StellarKid who repulsively called me a racist and a bigot.


 * And please don't continue this lie and say nothing would have come out of dialog with me. Other editors have pointed out to you that I am always receptive to engage in dialog. There's plenty of proof of that and you know it. So why are you disappointed in the results? You are disappointed becuase your little campaign didn't work did it. You exposed it as being not about Wikipedia quality but about a political bias from the start with your 13 points. Y12. and 13. You want me sanctioned because I believe ZOG isn't anti-Semitic. That is pure proof that your agenda is nothing more than political. What is worse is that you haven't even the courage to admit your real agenda. After you said "The problem I have with the user is not about edit warring, it is something much more serious than that IMO." - well after asking twice you still haven't found the backbone to answer have you?


 * All this started after we had a bit of edit warring at the Rothschild article. I was the one who stopped the edit war and took it to the talk page and reported you for edit warring. Did you both to come to the talk page? No, you started this campaign against me here and have wasted countless hours of my time defending myself against your nonsense.


 * Frankly I find you very immature. And without being intentionally patronising towards you, you need to learn that you cannot keep throwing your toys out of your buggy every time an edit is made on Wikipedia that is not in keeping with your 'cause'. And now you want to 'challenge' me? Make me 'an offer'? What on earth are you talking about? You already lost big time as you made yourself look extremely foolish with all this.


 * Look, I stupidly got embroiled in an brief edit war on the Rothschild family Article with you. I actually stopped edit warring with you approx 6 minutes after the edit war and took it to the talk page and reported you for edit warring. See I realised at the time what I was doing was wrong. As far as I was concerned it was over then. And as far as I cam concerned now it is over now. Vexorg (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit Conflict - I've just seen your added list. Answer: Grow up!! Vexorg (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The edit-warring ended a long time ago. Wikipedia is a very big place. Why don't the two of you just avoid one another in the future? I would support a restriction that banned the two of you from interacting with one another. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as always you're missing the point, but I guess there's no reason to repeat what is the point for one hundred first time, you will not get it anyway--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I love you too. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Reply to Malik above That's right Malik the edit warring finished a long time ago now. :) I can assure everyone there's no need to forcibly restrict me to avoid such an obsessive, childish and political motivated editor as Mbz1 is. The less I see of her the better. I shall go about my usual Wikipedia business, but this time make a much bigger effort to not get embroiled in edit warring. I suggest Mbz1 does the same as her history on Wikipedia is rather controversial. Cheers :) Vexorg (talk)
 * Vexorg, I'd like to let you know that I do not take close to my heart the incivility and personal attacks by the ones, who have to repeat "I am not stupid" few times in order to make sure they really are not.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Mbz1 continues this comment in her edit summary where she says "while in reality they are" Vexorg (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am amazed you actually were able to put two and two together :)--Mbz1 (talk)
 * Goodbye! Vexorg (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodbye? maybe, maybe not it is up to you now--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing administrator, please notice the edit pattern of Vexorg is still the same
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * All those edits were reverted by other editors.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)