Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:37, 6 June 2018 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,530 edits →Result of the appeal by Darkfrog24: +← Previous edit Revision as of 09:10, 6 June 2018 edit undoThryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators98,989 edits →Statement by Thryduulf: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=753196723#Motion:_Darkfrog24Next edit →
Line 1,278: Line 1,278:


===Statement by Thryduulf=== ===Statement by Thryduulf===
{{replyto|Sandstein}} as noted in the appeal, I resigned from taking an active role regarding this sanction months ago. I did this because I did not have time to deal with the endless relitigation framed as clarification requests. Post my topic ban, she was blocked until she acknowledged she understood the reason she was topic banned and agreed to stop disruptively relitigating it. Appeals were declined by arbcom twice based on no evidence of understanding why the topic ban was placed, no acknowledgement that her actions were disruptive (none of the edit warring, the battlegrounding, or the relitigation), and a desire to carry on where she left off. This appeal is just more of the same. Either this is deliberate ] or it is a severe case of ].

At minium this appeal needs to be declined with prejudice, but I'd be very tempted to reblock indefintely under the same conditions as last time with no appeals permitted for 12 months. If an appeal is just more of the same, then the interval until the next would be doubled.

Darkfrog exhausted my patience long ago and so I do not intend to contribute further to this request. ] (]) 09:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


===Statement by ]=== ===Statement by ]===

Revision as of 09:10, 6 June 2018

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    Factchecker atyourservice

    Factchecker atyourservice is topic banned for three months from edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. They should understand this restriction is considered lenient and further disruption after the topic ban expires will probably result in an indefinite topic ban. --NeilN 14:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Factchecker atyourservice

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBAPDS:
    1. 21 May 2018 Archived discussion that shows: 1. Lack of decorum to other editors by calling editors liars, etc. 2. Violation of an IBAN with User:BullRangifer 3. WP:BATTLEGROUND
    2. 28 April 2018 Archived discussion that shows: First attempt to insert POV. Comments like, "his response simply shows you're not paying attention", shows lack of respect for other editors. Moreover, does not take constructive advice from other editors. For example, one editor suggested: "I strongly suggest you revert everything you've added and break it down into smaller homogeneous units that can be discussed in an orderly way."
    3. 28 April 2018 Archived discussion. 1. Comments like, "Either say why it is incorrect or unfruitful or shut your incorrect, unfruitful mouth." show lack of decorum. 2. Continued WP:BATTLEGROUND
    4. "no_public_evidence" 17 May 2018 Archived discussion. 1. Continued effort to push POV 2. Continued WP:BATTLEGROUND ; Note comments like, "What's embarrassing is the apparently emotional attachment to the idea of Trump guilt". 3.Misplaced Pages:Forumshopping. RFC does not seem to be coming to the editors preferred consensus so the editor starts another section to make the same point. Note: Section will not directly link, but discussion is under section titled, "Latest New York Times report confirming "no public evidence"
    5. 15 May 2018 Archived discussion. 1.Uncivil attitude with an admin. 2. Lack of respect for other editors.
    6. 3 May 2018 Archived discussion. 1.Uncivil attitude with an admin. 2. Lack of respect for other editors.
    1. May 22 IBAN violation.

    Note on Evidence: Because the behavior is mainly involving behavior on talk pages that are long and require context, I am linking achieved discussion per "You may also link to an archived version of long discussions". Diffs would lack context and be too many.


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 3 May 2018 IBAN ban with BullRangifer.
    2. 15 May 2018 31 hour block.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This posting made after this discussion was closed as "No consensus here, remit to AE."

    • @Sandstein: I feel your pain. But less time for you to read it then me to put that together. If admins want diffs to evaluate, the template's instructions should be changed. However, you wouldn't get this and other valid complaints. Casprings (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: Another way to state camp 2 and 3 is, people who agree with the community consensus and people who disagree. We have tools to get community consensus and they should be used. However, to say that people in group "2", "have no choice", is to suggest that those editors have no agency. You could just accept the reality that the community disagrees with your content choice and move on. Casprings (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


    Discussion concerning Factchecker atyourservice

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Factchecker_atyourservice

    Comment: OP refers to efforts to "insert POV" and "push POV" but does not actually claim I attempted to violate NPOV, DUE, etc.

    Is he just saying I argued a lot?

    Also, the "forum shopping" accusation under item #4 does not mention that it was a separate proposal amounting to a proposal for single quoted sentence from New York Times that was dramatically different than my previous proposal which was 30kb of in-depth coverage (see hatted section). I don't see how making a very different proposal to the same editors on the same talk page, in the face of a stalled RFC, amounted to "forum shopping". Factchecker_atyourservice 03:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    @RegentsPark: Some clarifications. Apologize for the length but I don't see how to address so many accusations without going into detail.

    1. Regarding the focus of my content arguments
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    I have no control over other editors. That bit with the alleged plant in the Trump campaign is a separate issue and I have not been arguing about that. I mentioned a source only because Slater asked for one and there has been a troubling tendency by numerous editors to claim something comes from fringe sources without checking whether RS have talked about it.

    I am talking primarily about one issue with a smaller related issue: whether to talk about fact sourcing saying there is still no evidence of collusion—and to a lesser extent the question of whether it's OK to mention any RS commentary casting doubt on the collusion claims. These arguments go back to the beginning of April, wherein I noted with irony the extraordinarily weak / biased/ SPS sourcing used to justify an incredibly lengthy series of allegations and quotations from the dossier—such great sources as , a sex-and-relationships editor for Cosmopolitan whose bio read "I’m a sex & relationships editor at Cosmopolitan.com. I’m not very serious. :)", a college intern writing for the UK edition of The Week during a 3-month stint at the magazine who is currently in her third year of college at BU. I also begged for better fact sourcing, without success. These discussion sections were "archived" by Bull in short order, frustrating the attempt to garner outside opinion.

    This strung-together daisy chain of weak and biased sourcing is used to justify 1500 words of what is essentially copy-paste from a primary source, so it's ironic to see such resistance to quoting one sentence from a multiple-reporter fact article from New York Times which is consistent with both repeated prior reports from the Times and reports from WaPo, BBC, LA Times, Reuters, NBC, etc., just as it was surprising to see so much resistance to my larger attempt to summarize fact and opinion on the subject.

    Anyway these are the only content issues I'm focused on.

    2. Regarding the IBAN
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    The IBAN was something that User:BullRangifer intentionally sought out to procure. Bull has some very peculiar attitudes towards editing Misplaced Pages: he sees himself as having a mission to maintain a blacklist of editors whom he must oppose for ideological reasons rather than discussing things with them. Specifically, he thinks Misplaced Pages is beset by "predominantly right-wing, paid political whitewashers" and that "the Koch brothers control many articles". He maintains Twitter and Facebook accounts, which I know about only because he has posted them on Misplaced Pages, which are rife with social activism hashtags that vaguely suggest marshalling of Misplaced Pages sources: "Reliable sources for #TheResistance; Join #TheResistance Promote #SocialJustice #SocialDemocracy Stop #PutinsPuppet @realDonaldTrump Luv @realDonaldTrump #PutinsPuppet; #TheResistance to #realDonaldTrump, #POTUS, #TrumpLeaks, #Putin, #PutinsPuppet, #StopPresidentBannon, #Treason, #Traitor, #Gaslighting, #MindControl, #TrumpLies, #ElectionFraud, #VoterSuppression"

    I, apparently, am on Bull's blacklist of users.

    He and User:SPECIFICO have a very specific tag-teaming strategy of using systematic dishonesty and abuse as a way of goading an editor into making angry comments that the user can then be blocked for. The strategy is outlined in this taunting comment by a sockpuppet that I believe was controlled by one of them: harass the person till they lash out, then seek a topic ban based on uncivil conduct. ("they just look the other way over and over until you're so frustrated you lash out then it's NPA! NPRA! Topic Ban! This user has a history yadda yadda. . . BTW congrats in advance on your topic ban. We're taking bets on who'll complain and who'll close.")

    Four days after I first posted at the Trump dossier article, Bull created an essay with the title (since changed) "A message for fringe political editors".

    The essay opened with the following:

    Misplaced Pages's Trump-related articles are often the subject of editing conflicts between editors who base their views and editing on reliable sources, and Trump followers and fringe editors whose ideas and editing are based on unreliable sources. This is largely due to the large amount of fake and distorted news these fringe editors imbibe. Hence such editors are on the fringe, and their views are generally rejected by the community. They are not allowed to create content based on fringe and unreliable sources. They also create a lot of disruption on talk pages because they engage in forbidden advocacy of these views and constantly criticize and oppose content which is based on reliable sources. They refuse to accept the consensus view. Some get away with a lot because they are civil POV pushers.

    It goes on, essentially, about delusional Infowars reading editors and the need to combat them, stuck in a "filtter bubble", consuming "fake news", fighting "a battle without good sources". This all perfectly encapsulates Bull's strategy for making discussion impossible: simply claim the person is referring to fringe sources:

    If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for fringe editors who push pro-Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories.

    Catch that little sleight of hand? What Bull is really saying is that if you disagree with something in the dossier article, as I had done just 4 days before the writing of this essay, then it's because you are a "fringe editor" pushing "conspiracy theories" based on "unreliable sources", thus earning the "disdain" of your betters.

    In any event—it was obvious enough that this essay was directed at me, but then when I posted about the same issue on Jimbo Wales talk page, Bull first responded that "Forum shopping this content dispute to Jimbo's page is not helpful. Misplaced Pages does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans", nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these Trump-Russia-investigation articles shows that we must be doing something right. While his words were directed at quackery and pseudoscience, they apply just as much to fringe political POV and conspiracy theories. Instead of allowing your thinking to be influenced by the Daily Caller, InfoWars, and Breitbart, get your information from RS. If the information they present becomes the subject of RS coverage, then, and only then, will we present it as sensible content, and not as fringe content with little mention".

    This was essentially a summary of his WP-space-linked essay, clearly and obviously claiming that I read those sources and I'm being influenced them. He then launched into an even lengthier diatribe against me, again on Jimbo's talk page, burying my completely legitimate question that did not have anything to do with fringe sources:

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Let's be clear about what's happening here. Those who object the most are editors who refuse to accept the RS-based conclusions that the Russians did interfere in the election, and that the Mueller investigation is a corrupt deep state plot to unseat Trump. To them it's all a nothingburger without evidence. To them, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Trump, and Putin are the only arbiters of "truth", and they use Misplaced Pages as their battlefield to fight for their "truth". Their efforts are literally an extension of Trump's real world battle against all forms of information and journalism which dares report anything negative against him. Misplaced Pages is not free from such efforts.

    They also believe that accusations against Russia and Trump are all a conspiracy theory concocted and sold by the mainstream media, which they consider fake news. They believe it's all a witch hunt against Trump and his campaign, not serious journalists doing their job, which includes documenting Trump's myriad self-inflicted wounds. They believe that the FBI, CIA, James Comey, and Robert Mueller are totally evil, corrupt, and engaged in a coup against Trump. This is the extreme right-wing view.

    These are the types of editors who object and obstruct the most on all our Trump-related articles. They are fringe political editors, many of whom should be topic banned. They operate with an ad hoc, policy-violating, "Trump Exemption" mentality, which means that anything negative about Trump, no matter how reliably sourced and notable, is fake news and must pass a much higher bar for inclusion than for any other public figure, politician, or president. This is the reality on these articles, and much of their argumentation is actually IDONTLIKEIT wikilawyering.

    It's rare that they actually make substantive attempts to present actual edit suggestions. They just complain....endlessly, and now it's spilled over to here. Mind you, there are a few Trump supporters who make serious attempts to edit collaboratively, but they are few, and they actually succeed in getting change because, rather than just complain, they use RS and follow policy.

    The intent of writing that essay and referring to it in order to shut down my question to Jimbo was unmistakeably to make a personal attack against me and discredit my question. In fact, Bull has even updated it to speak of the need to topic ban these people who "cite fringe sources" ("But between you and me we all know they're not really citing fringe sources, haha!") Yes, the latest revision of this little missive speaks of editors who "can't vet sources and know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources in real life" and says such miscreants are "unfit to edit American political subjects"

    Moving along, after I subsequently brought a bunch of fact sourcing and POV commentary for discussion, Bull and SPECIFICO took their displeasure to usertalk, where they continued with oblique snipes. That fact they kept up this canard of being beset by fringe sources—even in the face of a wall of top fact sourcing—yet still kept up with the insults, was what drove me to respond, and that's how I wound up with the IBAN. Then my block "related" to this TBAN actually arose out of my defending another user against PAs of a similar nature.

    SPECIFICO, later, engaged in a bizarre and maddening form of harassment which I detailed at his previous AE case here (have to expand the case section before the #deep link will work).

    Bull to this day protests his innocence and lack of any intent to provoke me ("I have been very careful to not engage with him or mention him"), notwithstanding the fact that he argues with me at the dossier page and then threatens me based on the TBAN when I reply. Sure, I guess maybe he has no intent to provoke. But the other day when we engaged in back-and-forth about the tban in the context of the AN discussion, and the discussion was then closed without action, his very next edit was to an article about one of the human sh**-sphincters, which just happened to have been "vandalized" by an IP. Bull showed up less than an hour later to fix this for totally innocent reasons, , then ... nothing more for 12 hours.

    So, was Bull diligently guarding against a recurrence of the previous incident of vandalism 7 years ago at that article ("i hate biology"), swooping in with lightning alacrity to fix "vandalism" just minutes before, or was he obliquely calling me an asshole hoping to provoke the Nth "iban violation" so he could demand sanctions again, since the AN filing had just been closed?

    Thank you. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    @BullRangifer: I certainly wasn't making fun of your health condition—I had no way of knowing about it. Sorry to hear it. On another occasion, in the midst of a heated argument we were having on your talk page and at the dossier talk page, you suddenly made a comment at an article you'd never touched before mentioning some handguns you own. Not an edit to an article about guns, mind you, not a comment about article content. And it wasn't an ongoing conversation with somebody. You just randomly decided you wanted to mention you own guns, so you went to the article of one of the guns you owned, and started talking about it. And then back to arguing with me. Sooo just typical everyday totally unsolicited NOTFORUM gun enthusiast comments with nothing suspicious at all about the timing? Factchecker_atyourservice 07:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Jytdog complains about various diffs without really saying that anything is wrong with them. But the Corbyn issue, and the claims of one-sided partisan editing, I've got to address. Before I got involved at the Corbyn article, it had the following to say on the subjects of Cuba and Venezuela:

    • In November 2016, following the death of Fidel Castro, Corbyn said that Castro, despite his "flaws", was a "huge figure of modern history, national independence and 20th Century socialism. From building a world-class health and education system, to Cuba's record of international solidarity abroad, Castro's achievements were many."
    • He has advocated for the rights of the forcibly-removed Chagossians to return to the British Indian Ocean Territory and is noted for his Venezuelan solidarity activism.

    References

    1. "Fidel Castro: Jeremy Corbyn praises 'huge figure'". www.bbc.co.uk. 26 November 2016.
    2. "British MP Jeremy Corbyn Speaks out for Venezuela". teleSUR English. 5 June 2015. Retrieved 20 June 2015.

    Where to begin? (1) Regarding the first bullet point, the quoted material was simply a rosy paean singing Castro's praises that didn't even mention substantial criticism in the same source it cited, which went on to clarify that Corbyn received rebuttals and criticisms for these remarks: He acknowledged "there were problems and there are problems of excesses by all regimes" but "we have to look at the thing in its totality" and Mr Castro had "seen off a lot of US presidents". But former Labour home secretary Jacqui Smith said the reason Mr Castro "'saw off' so many US presidents is because they're democratically elected". And Labour MP Mike Gapes, a former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, highlighted a Human Rights Watch report that reported "much worse than just some 'problems and excesses' in Cuba".

    (2) Regarding the second bullet point, Corbyn's Venezuela-related views and activism were described as "Venezuelan solidarity activism" alongside a mention of forcibly removed indigenous peoples, generating the misleading impression that his "solidarity activism" was just some feel-good social justice cause. This treatment of both the Cuba and Venezuela issues was totally out of line with the way RS's had discussed them:

    RS commentary on Corbyn's Cuba/Venezuela stances
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Yes, one of those sources is a blog about UK Labour party politics. It says little different from the others, which are not blogs.

    I responded by adding a quote from Buzzfeed. Not a great source but it was, again, totally in line with what other sources said. In all subsequent discussions, nobody was willing to discuss or even admit the existence of numerous other sources, because it was so much more satisfying to harp about the Buzzfeed article even after I cited mainstream news and opinion articles.

    After much discussion, I decided to take the issue to Jimbo's talk page, asking him: The question is whether, in mentioning Corbyn's activism related to the governments of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Nicolas Maduro, we should mention that his statements and associations in this area have drawn pretty substantial criticism from both inside and outside his own party, particularly after he made remarks about Castro after Castro's death.

    I pointed out that even as editors refused to allow any tiny mention of mainstream RS criticism of Corbyn's stances on Cuba/Venezuela, there were pointless puff pieces intended to portray Corbyn in a positive light, such as a fiasco over the price of a printer cartridge that was being claimed to be such a burningly important illustration of encyclopedic Corbyn virtues that WP editors were needed to go digging around in primary sources for OR analysis and figures further illustrating the tendency.

    Jimbo's response was predictable and squarely in line with my suggestions: mentioning the frugality was fine the printer cartridge issue was trivial and didn't merit much if any attention; meanwhile, in Jimbo's own words: Regarding his controversial defenses of Castro, Chavez, and Maduro, these seem virtually mandatory to include, as they are central to his political identity and to any understanding of his position in UK politics..

    The founder of Misplaced Pages could not have been saying more bluntly that the criticism I was citing was indeed germane and encyclopedic. In the ensuing discussion I didn't attempt to use Jimbo as an "authority" to resolve a content dispute—he was merely the great-granddaddy of all third opinions. And now comes User:Jytdog, a Misplaced Pages administrator, to say I am "part of the problem of politics in WP" and who asserts—totally contrary to what the actual discussion shows—that I am not "striving to bring NPOV and strong sources to a discussion".

    Jytdog also totally misleadingly implies that I only make edits that seek to present right-wing figures positively, and he cites my edits to the article on Sarah Palin as an example, but it is obvious he has just looked at one or two diffs and assumed, without checking further, that I edited in biased support of Palin.

    As a matter of fact, most of my edits and talk page comments regarding Palin involved support for criticisms of Palin and using sources that criticized Palin, e.g. comments like this. Actually as I recall, I spent most of my time arguing with User:Collect over the meaning of BLP where I was trying to add this or that criticism of Palin and he was citing BLP as a reason to keep it out. I later spoke in his defense at an AE case and that earned me some enemies. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Copied from User talk:Factchecker atyourservice on request. Huon (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Notwithstanding Guy Macon later getting mad at me for speaking out on a largely unrelated issue (bizarre accusations by admin Andrevan), nothing has changed about his assessment of the content dispute at the Trump dossier page:

    ** . . . what I see on the pages in question (a huge fight to keep in any claim that there is plenty of evidence against Trump and a huge fight to keep out any claim that there is little or no evidence against Trump) makes me more likely to believe that FCAYS was addressing a legitimate NPOV problem in a rather hamfisted way, was bullied for his trouble, reacted poorly, and is now being singled out while equally bad behavior by his attackers is largely ignored. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Anyhoo. I didn't like the suggestion by sysop Andrevan that I was a Russian troll. I went to summer school at West Point, folks. Almost went back for cadet school. And I didn't expect my additional comment was going to be regarded by Guy Macon as a continuation of the argument about Bull Rangifer, which was what he told me to "drop". Factchecker_atyourservice 01:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    Copied from User talk:Factchecker atyourservice on request. Huon (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by power~enwiki

    To repeat my statement in the WP:AN thread: I see no reason why FCAYS should not be sanctioned, but several other editors in the area (on both sides of the aisle) should also be sanctioned at the same time. I am somewhat involved and don't have time right now to provide diffs at this point to request sanctions against specific editors, but can do so if requested. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    As a separate suggestion, I continue to believe that full-protection of Trump–Russia dossier may minimize disruption in the American Politics area. I concede it is unlikely that will happen, and the past 2 weeks have been quiet enough to not need it (though it's WP:CRYSTAL as to whether that will continue). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (slatersteven)

    Firstly it is hard to provide diffs of everything as there are about three or four places where the same issue is being hashed over by him. Also many of the threads are very long and convoluted, with random changes of emphasis (not to be fair by him, all the time). (in fact it may be even more , 2 months this has been going on for). I have no idea when they first raised this issue. , second (somewhat modified) but still the same matter raised. third time (slightly re-worded and throwing in other issues as well). Note all three are running at once.

    Then we have PA's and commenting on other users , not "Here is what I disagree with", not a PA but hardly constructive followed by this edit summery . . I Will leave it to others (for now) to provide diffs for any other offenses, this has taken enough time to dig this lot out. As I said, two moths and hundreds of posts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    As to me being combative, possibly I have been. But when you have the same issue being raised multiple times, when you have insults thrown at you and when you have constant strawmaning by multiple users when ever you raise an objection (and are the told you are the problem for the derailing) it is hard to see past that behavior and try and comprise (which by the way I did, but I admit it could have been better worded, frustration is a terrible thing), as I think I said in one post "what are we actually discussing here"), it is hard to compromise when you have a user who says "facts is facts".Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    There is massive frustration at the amount of time that has been wasted on this, and (frankly) it seems to me that a wider ban will just (in effect) reward (what looks like) deliberate obstreperousness and tendentious editing whose purpose was to bludgeon through a POV by wearing down the opposition with constant argument.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Netoholic

    GoldenRing's idea has merit - a limited ban of Trump topics is the only thing on the table within the scope of this AE. A lot of the resistance to handling any single one of the users he mentions is the desire not to appear one-sided when there are multiple users with long-term BATTLEGROUND, NOTFORUM, or other behaviors. There seem to be three scenarios that really notch up drama: 1) boredom (few new updates turns to silliness on the talk page), 2) feelings of being cornered (as when there one person is outnumbered), and 3) pack mentality (taking advantage when you're in the group which has the numbers). I think people in the (1) and (3) camps should be the first excused from an article when trouble arises. Someone in the (2) position can't really help it, and we haven't really seen how they behave outside of the taunts or just general deluge of comments from the (3)'s or the antics of the (1)'s. Also, its better for article quality to keep a wide variety of viewpoints participating. In my read of the above, FCAYS seems to be in the (2) camp. In my recent report of SPECIFICO, I reviewed his edits over the last month and I found him solidly in (1) and (3). I'll leave it to more involved people to decide where they others fall. -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    To editor Casprings: - WP:CONSENSUS is "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns" - its a process, not a state of being. And a key word there is "effort" which is part of your responsibility as well as his. You need, at all times, to try and make that effort. But when instead you instruct people to "just accept the reality that the community disagrees with your content choice and move on" you aren't incorporating their concerns, you're dismissing them out-of-hand and telling them to buzz off. That is pack mentality talk. That's chasing people out of your territory. You're not making the effort. --Netoholic @ 11:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by JFG

    I am moderately involved at Trump–Russia dossier, but was on wikibreak while most of the drama unfolded. This article has been a "work of love" by BullRangifer, who set out a few months ago to document every allegation and reaction in excruciating detail. His previous attempt at creating a standalone article List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations (created on 22 January 2018) was eventually merged back to Trump–Russia dossier on 2 March (see merge discussion). Since then, the dossier article has grown to encompass a lot of extraneous information, close to being an indictment of Trump, his campaign and cited people in wikivoice. My main contributions to the article consisted of trimming down the list of allegations into manageable paraphrase, in order to avoid copyvios. When Factchecker came onto the scene, he tried to insert some mitigating information showing the other side of the coin (namely, that no collusion was found yet), and was repeatedly antagonized by BullRangifer and other editors. The "cage match" between BR and FC eventually led to the IBAN by NeilN. Given that BR is the main contributor and "defender" of the dossier article, this IBAN actually prevented FC from discussing content there (as he could not reply to BR without violating the IBAN), so that the IBAN in effect amounted to a TBAN on this subject. (IBAN did not apply to article talk pages, so my inference here was invalid.)

    The drama and battleground reported here are mostly localized to this particular article, and I am sympathetic to GoldenRing's idea of imposing restricted TBANs on some of the most vocal editors. I would oppose wider restrictions, be they for FC, BR or other involved editors at this article. I would also remind BR of our WP:OWNERSHIP policy to prevent recurrence of similar issues. While I have managed to edit constructively with BR even when we disagreed, he does have a tendency to only "allow" content that fits his own view of the world. He also tends to dismiss fellow editors as "Trump apologists" unworthy of contributing to the encyclopedia (see his essay User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources), and that attitude taints his judgment when confronted with editing disputes. For example, FC has presented content backed by very reliable sources such as The New York Times, only to be rebuffed as if he had cited some fringe publications. Such behavior understandably angered him. — JFG 11:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    Reading some comments by others, it is unclear whether there was any IBAN violation because FC only commented on BR's edits at article talk pages or on noticeboards. This non-standard sanction created confusion for both editors, and unwitting violations should not be retained as cause for a block in these proceedings. — JFG 22:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    @Jytdog: Many thanks for your detailed research in FC's habits. Most of what you unearthed looks to me like exculpatory evidence. As you noticed, this editor is interested in hot political issues, and the diffs show him questioning edits in light of policy, especially trying to uphold NPOV, balance and good sourcing, even when that goes against the grain. See for example the thread you quoted, that he started at Trump–Russia dossier. The only issue I see is him being a bit verbose, however I've seen much worse blathering from others. In recent threads, he also tends to turn combative when his fellow editors do not listen to what he says or misrepresent his arguments. This case should be dismissed with a warning to keep AGF and CIVIL even in the face of hostility, and to try and make his points more succinctly. — JFG 06:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    @Aquillion: Your diffs sure look compelling, but have you looked at the statements FC was responding to? That would be another set of compelling diffs… Are we going to hand out blocks like cookies to any editor deemed "abrasive with anyone he disagrees with"? Such an option was suggested in earlier threads here, and that would quickly decimate the field of editors who dare work on controversial topics. Way to turn the community into a ghost town! — JFG 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by SPECIFICO

    I urge the Admins to shut down any discussion of broadening this complaint into a festival of Whataboutism and deflection. If broad consideration of the entire topic area or dozens of editors' conduct is to be done, that should happen at an Arbcom AP3 case. AE is where we give straightforward documentation of DS violations. Casprings has attempted to do that and this thread will deteriorate into an ANI-like tangle if we don't stay on topic. Any participant who has specific concerns about other editors can by all means file separate complaints. Also, I think it's clear that the Admins can see that the same editors who tend to align with Factchecker in his content disputes now present theories of why this complaint should be recast into some entirely different and impossibly broad issue unsuited to this forum. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    I was pinged here to this diff ] in which, under the heading "IBAN...", Factchecker makes a disparaging and false accusation to me that's either WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence or some other category of WP:NPA relating to me and an apparent sockpuppet or SPA. I hadn't planned to comment further in this complaint, but I'd be very disappointed if Admins did not sanction for that kind of behavior under their noses. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    Regarding the IBAN: @NeilN:'s terms state: "This ban does not include article talk pages or threads on admin boards or admin talk pages where BullRangifer's edits or behavior are specifically being discussed -- So the talk page carve-out does not extend to pages where Factchecker insinuates BR-related comments into a discussion where BR's edits or behavior were not under discussion prior to FC's appearance. If I have this wrong, NeilN, please correct me. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Following up on PackMecEng's comment above, I think that Factfinder's response is indicative of his general approach to editing and site norms, so I am linking to the entire thread here:. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Galobtter

    A quick comment, Trump–Russia_dossier has 9000 not 19000 words, (19000 would be ridiculous while 9000 is within reasonable limits) and there is a lot of coverage about this, so I wouldn't call it a blatant violation of NOTEVERYTHING; though I looked through it and it does need to be cut down. But all this is offtopic I think. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Mr Ernie

    I would encourage uninvolved editors and admins to simply read the Trump-Russia dossier article. Among many issues, the article just really isn't a piece of quality work, and is way too long. I wonder if admins or Arbcom could delete the article per TNT and request a group of experienced, uninvolved editors to research the issue and write a new article. This was requested numerous times for the Gamergate article, but was not followed. Allowing entrenched editors to stay on a topic does not lead to good articles. The AmPol topic currently has nearly the same conditions as Gamergate - two distinct sides, neither willing or able to meet in the middle (disclosure - I am on one of these sides). On the path we are on right now this topic area will continue to bleed off editors via sanctions until one of the "sides" has more survivors. There are a few editors who have proven to be able to successfully collaborate in this area, but they do not number very high. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    I've just noticed NeilN's proposal below, and it is somewhat similar to what I proposed. I believe this approach should be tried before more sanctions are handed out. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Atsme

    I am dismayed to see that Casprings filed this case but not surprised - he opposed the material Factchecker proposed. He first tried to eliminate his opposition over at AN. My apologies if I've misunderstood, but I'm hard pressed to see it any other way based on what I've seen unfold at the Trump articles. We are dealing with a highly controversial topic; one that has created division, not just on WP, but around the world. We have editors editing Trump articles who have proudly displayed their political affiliations and animosity toward Trump on their user pages, all the while denying partisanship or bias when editing. Having been in the foxhole deflecting direct fire in the form of condescension and derogatory comments that totally misrepresent things I've said, I am not convinced that some editors are able to leave their biases at login, so yes, I sympathize with Factchecker, although he does tend to be far more verbose than I. To the admins who have to deal with this time sink, I extend my utmost respect because you damn well deserve it - but please don't expect me to name names of editors I believe are disruptive in this case because I've reached the point where it's best to just stop arguing and let them be wrong, especially when things are going nowhere fast. We are all forced to work under DS with very tight restrictions - we all know consensus is needed when material is challenged and we have also learned that any material attempting to bring proper WEIGHT & BALANCE to any of the anti-Trump coatracks will be challenged. Ironically, any editor who does their best to work within the DS restrictions in order to present a common sense proposal citing diffs to high quality sources as what Factchecker has done will be challenged, and either obliquely goaded or outright bludgeoned and denigrated by the opposition. It has become the norm and if admins would reflect back on all the editors who have been brought here because of DS vios, it's pretty obvious who is and isn't gaming the system. The opposition simply doesn't want opposition, and that is what this case is truly about - it has little to nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with content, and that's why admins are not seeing any diffs to support the complaints. Just read the comments in the following 2 sections and you'll see what Factchecker and other editors who are trying to get the article right are having to deal with on a regular basis:

    Please keep in mind that Factchecker's iBan (my bold underline for emphasis) does not include article talk pages or threads on admin boards or admin talk pages where BullRangifer's edits or behavior are specifically being discussed. I'm not seeing anything that indicates he violated the iBan despite the accusations. 13:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    • GoldenRing - before you propose a TBan for me, you need to provide some diffs that warrant such an action. I am truly disheartened that you would even suggest it. 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Masem - I tried to avoid doing this, but the way the discussions are progressing below, I feel obligated to do so. I'll start by saying I made a total of 10 edits to Trump-Russia dossier, and 251 edits (some being tweaks & fixes to my initial comments) in Nov 2017, Jan & Feb 2018, and April 2018 to the TP mostly because of the constant challenges and DS restrictions, and having to spend more time on the article TP avoiding/defending bludgeoning, PAs and misinformation, not to mention participation in numerous local consensus discussions and RfCs. To say editors are bludgeoning when trying to reach a consensus for inclusion against WP:OWN behavior and STONEWALLING is just plain ludicrous. I'll provide diffs to demonstrate what typically occurs in a call for consensus over a simple sentence or two:
    My iVote to the proposed material by Factchecker
    BR's response to the reasons I gave
    My response to the wrongful claim that was made against me.
    Muboshgu's response to my suggestion to delete/merge
    BR's PA against me using a TP discussion he took completely out of context, editing out my comments to fit his agenda to denigrate me;
    Speaking to no publicly known evidence
    O3000's umpteenth misrepresentation
    Muboshgu's Wikilawyering comment
    My response that I would not take the bait.
    Keep in mind that the above goading came about because I supported inclusion of well-sourced material. It pretty much represents my routine involvement with Trump-related articles since very few edits I've suggested ever make it into the articles - I just give up and go edit other things - and if you think that's fair and a reason to TB me, then WP has a serious problem. I typically don't even respond to PAs and false accusations, and there are many. If admins truly believe that my behavior is deserving of a TB, then all I can say is that I have much better things to do with my time, and don't need to be editing any WP articles anymore. You can just strip me of all my user rights and I'll wish you all "happy editing" because this is the most ludicrous charge against me, yet. 15:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • RegentsPark - you are suggesting a TB based on some enabling of that on the part of Atsme Why do you think I have any influence at all to "enable" anyone and why is that worthy of a TB? When did attempts to defuse disruption and make suggestions become an offense worthy of a topic ban? If you believe that my few comments in that lengthy discussion justify a TB, then you might as well include my "enabling" of SPECIFICO, and BullRangifer, not just Factchecker. As for your confusion over my statement, you should have asked me to explain if you didn't understand it, and I would have been happy to oblige. Perhaps it was one of those you had to be there situations, I don't know - but in short, it simply pointed out the irony in their reasons for denying Factchecker's proposed NYTimes material. IOW, they denied inclusion of "there's no evidence" while at the same time they created an entire article based on unsubstantiated, no evidence claims that comprise the bulk of the dossier. In summary, your suggestion to TB me is based on my attempts to defuse a situation by following the rules of DS consensus only, participating with civility in some of the discussion by responding to questions, avoiding any response to the goading and PAs that were made against me, and for making a simple suggestion for editors to allow Factchecker to present a proposal after that root canal of a discussion we all had to endure. I do hope you will reconsider your position because it certainly comes across as a punitive suggestion. 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • RegentsPark - it saddens me that you would summarize my years on WP and stuff it into a thumbnail capture of a brief moment in time that I tried to help another editor see things from a different perspective or at least try a different approach. The following diffs will example my attempts. I also realize there are many influences and issues to overcome, but that never stopped me from at least trying. You're going to have your own POV, and there's nothing I can do about it except express my feelings. Change doesn't happen overnight...but I've worked with a lot of people over the years, and I have no regrets over helping anyone.
    May 20, 2018, advised him it’s time to stop digging;
    cont. discussion, and attempted to divert his attn to a different article;
    May 21, 2018, provided examples, and even referenced Masem
    RP, you really don't know anything about me or what I was trying to accomplish as an editor who believes in editor retention. Perhaps one of my biggest faults is that I care too much about the people I collaborate with - the ones who give freely of their time to help build this encyclopedia - many of whom have exceptional talents. I see them all as fellow human beings despite the fact I'm unable to see them, and will probably never know who they are much less meet them in RL. That's just who I am, and that isn't going to change. 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    PS - I also know when it’s time to walk-away...which I did.

    Statement by MONGO

    The only thing (long winded perhaps) FCAYS is guilty of is trying to restore balance to some of the most lopsided coatrack articles that exist on the website. Anyone wanting to bring forth a third arbcom case about these political articles better be prepared to get topic banned as I expect arbcom is getting tired of this ongoing free for all and anyone lacking a near perfect track record is likely to be editing butterfly articles for the foreseeable future.--MONGO 15:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    I doubt anyone here will read this but I hope for the sake of fairness we allow FCAYS to have a least a final opportunity to address the many many concerns raised here and offer some sort of olive branch and affidavit that they are willing to editing much more collegially.--MONGO 16:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Objective3000

    @JFG: I agree that BR has put an enormous amount of effort into the article. But, I don’t think it makes sense to suggest this is BR vs. FCAYS. A dozen editors have added substantially to the talk page discussions with many others stopping by for commentary. I’m afraid I also must disagree with your description: , FC has presented content backed by very reliable sources such as The New York Times, only to be rebuffed as if he had cited some fringe publications. No one objected to the Times or said anything along the lines that it was fringe. The problem was that the tiny snippet FCAYS wished to quote from an excellent, highly detailed article was out of context. Even if extended to an additional sentence, it misrepresented the article suggesting a conclusion at odds with the details of that article. And this was the feeling of many editors, not just BR.

    @Netoholic: I understand your concern that all editor concerns are taken into account. But, there comes a time when an editor has obviously failed to gain consensus and just endlessly repeats arguments that didn’t work. At that point, one must drop the stick to avoid becoming a disruptive time-sink.

    @Mr Ernie: On the length of the article. If you look at the history of articles related to heavily covered, recent news, a pattern emerges. There is a phase where the article grows too long. It can then be trimmed of fluff that didn’t stand the test of time. TNT is drastic and unneeded. IMO. I fear as long as editors ignore RECENTISM and NOTNEWS, we are stuck with this phase. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    The statement by Mr. Daniel Plainview should probably be stricken as he has been blocked as a sock of Hidden Tempo. O3000 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    Done. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Beyond My Ken

    I am almost completely uninvolved with Talk:Trump-Russia dossier and other articles about Trump, so I'd like to focus on Factchecker's behavior in the WP:AN discussion which it generated , especially the sub-section proposing sanctions, which I started. . The proposal section was closed by Guy with the recommendation for the issue to move here. Since diffs are preferred, I will do my best to provide them, in chronological order.

    • Factchecker claims that my participation in the thread was based on my still being "mad" about a past dispute we had
    • They repeat this aspersion, saying "you are just mad at me over some stupid content disputes from years ago and are taking this opportunity to seek sanctions against me"
    • Factchecker claims that another editor has "Very poor reading ability"
    • Factchecker demands that another editor "Justify your vote or strike it please."
    • Factchecker calls the proposal for sanctions an "attempt for revenge" on my part. and then says that I am "A sniper with a grudge"
    • Factchecker says to another editor "You're flat-out lying in order to manufacture "evidence" to get me blocked." (emphasis in original) . He then doubles down on the statement.
    • Factchecker says that another editor's description of events is "not...honest".
    • Factchecker says of me that I have "repeatedly surfaced in discussions to recommend I be blocked". . When challenged to provide diffs backing up this aspersion, he refuses to do so unless I specifically deny that his claim is true, the exact opposite of requirements, which is that an editor casting aspersion needs to provide evidence. (See WP:Casting aspersions)
    • When Factchecker does provide "evidence", it is of a single incident 3 years ago. I had already acknowledged that we had had a dispute in the past. Factchecker never provides evidence of my "repeatedly" appearing to call for sanctions against him.
    • Factchecker responds to another editor's comment with "Have you stumbled into the wrong discussion? Looking for another user, perhaps? Not paying attention to what is going on?"
    • Factchecker responds to BullRangifer -- with whom they have an IBan -- that BR's comment is "transparently false". This long comment from Factchecker is a clear violation of their IBan. (see WP:Banning policy, especially "Exceptions to limited bans")


    In the AN discussion, one can see some of the types of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviors which Factchecker engages in:

    In addition, they violated their IBan with BullRangifer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    I'd like to make it clear that my proposed sanction on Factchecker in the AN thread was a topic ban on Donald Trump, broadly construed,nothing more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    I have struck out the parts about violating the IBan with BullRangifer. I had mistakenly thought it was a standard IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Regarding the IBan imposed on Factchecker by NeilN, as BullRangifer comments on my talk page, the way it is structured seems to give Factchecker too much leeway to game the intent of it. I think that a normal one-way IBan would be preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Is Factchecker really going to be given the freedom to continue to lash out at other editors and re-litigate the IBan that NeiLN imposed on him? His latest comments are an example of howhe uses BATTLEGROUND tactics to try and get his way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Lionelt

    Two issues have been submitted for consideration:

    1. IBAN violation with BullRangifer

    I applaud NeilN's efforts to allow editors to edit while striving for creative solutions to maintain a productive editing environment. However, as pointed out by others, there may have been confusion surrounding the specific provisions of the IBAN due to this creative wording. We should not block an editor under these circumstances. My recommendations: (1) I support the suggestions calling for a standard two-way IBAN be implemented and (2) Factchecker be issued a final warning with respect to prohibited interactions with BullRangifer.

    2. BATTLEGROUND at Trump-Russia Dossier

    It has also been pointed out that there are several editors in addition to Factchecker whose conduct at Trump Dossier can only be described as unbecoming. With all due respect to our admin corps, it is the failure of admins to enforce DS in the first place that has led to the disruption at the article. DS will only work if admins enforce the restrictions outlined in the talkpage notice. If editors are immediately blocked for personal attacks and civility violations then the conduct of the remaining editors will improve. I recommend that (1) all active editors be issued a final warning and (2) admins be instructed to keep vigilant and be aggressive in handing out civility blocks.

    I have made a total of two edits to Trump-Russia: (1) tagged for Wikiproject (2) !vote. – Lionel 03:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by BullRangifer

    This is about FCAYS's "glass house" built on a "bad faith foundation".

    The "glass house" means he's described a whole series of excuses he uses to justify his personal attacks and aggression. Many of them rely on blaming his targets/victims (I'm not the only one) for supposedly provoking him. The glass in that house is totally fractured. If FCAYS can't control himself, and is so easily triggered by anything less than complete agreement, he has a problem. The behavior of others is not an excuse for such behavior. It might be an explanation, but it's not an excuse. To excuse it is to justify it.

    The "bad faith foundation", at least in regards to his relationship to me, is a completely mistaken belief that I wrote an essay about him. That's not true. It was started nearly a month before he came on the scene at the Trump-Russia dossier article talk page, and immediately treated me in a rather nasty way.

    The history of the essay

    The only thing true about FCAYS's allegation is that I did quote a small part of the essay in a thread he started at Jimbo's talk page. There I described how the thread was a spillover from the contentious environment of the Trump-Russia dossier article, where a number of pro-Trump editors fought to keep anything negative about Trump out of the article, and Factchecker seemed to share many of their POV.

    I was speaking about a group of editors who used unreliable sources (the main theme of my essay), and never named Factchecker specifically, as I had never seen him use bad sources. Several of the other editors had done so. Although the essay was inspired by two other editors, some of it applied to these editors as well.

    From then on, Factchecker insisted I had written the essay about him specifically and personally, and he believed I was accusing him of using unreliable sources. He personalized the essay as if it, and every detail in it, was all about him. That's BS.

    That essay was inspired by contacts with AmYisroelChai, and then PZP-003, and I started it exactly ONE MONTH BEFORE April 13, when Factchecker posted his thread on Jimbo's talk page.

    The following history, with diffs, should completely debunk his false accusations and show his glass house is built on a "bad faith foundation" which has led him to stray far from facts quite often.

    His false belief about the essay caused him to interpret all my actions using "bad faith eyeglasses" which colored his perceptions. He has misinterpreted much of what I have said and done, and it got so bad he was iBanned and blocked.

    History of the essay, with diffs
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    My essay started on March 13, 2018 as a comment in response to AmYisroelChai:

    20:22, March 13, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+659)‎ . . User talk:AmYisroelChai

    If my essay was inspired and directed at anyone, it was AmYisroelChai. It grew from there.

    I used it as the start of the essay on my talk page on March 13, 21:47

    21:47, March 13, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+719)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎Message for fringe political editors: new section)

    It was one short paragraph for some time. Then I mentioned it in replying to such an editor, and even more which became part of the essay was written there:

    20:50, March 17, 2018diffhist. .(+2,721). .User talk:PZP-003

    PZP-003 inspired me to develop what later become my essay:

    22:06, March 17, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+387)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (develop)

    I then added a lot more to the essay:

    02:30, March 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,467)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (develop)

    PZP-003 created more problems, so I left another comment and referred them to the essay because it contained advice for them:

    23:39, March 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+898)‎ . . User talk:PZP-003 ‎ (→‎Discretionary Sanctions block: reply)

    I once again referred them to the essay.

    After editing the Fake news article, I used some of that content on my talk page:

    06:29, April 1, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+4,769)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎Trump, his supporters, and fake news: new section)

    A few minutes later that content became part of the essay.

    06:36, April 1, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+4,830)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎A message for fringe political editors: A message for fringe political editors about Trump, his supporters, and fake news)

    FCAYS first arrived on the scene at the Trump-Russia dossier article on April 4, my first, and very unpleasant, encounter with him began at this time period.

    16:33, April 4, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+3,214)‎ . . Talk:Trump–Russia dossier ‎ (→‎Sourcing and POV problems: new section)

    The essay had been in existence for about three weeks by this time. I had never had any interactions with Factchecker before this time, AFAICT.

    On April 8 I copied/moved my essay to its own subpage. It had been created some time before.

    15:59, April 8, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+9,275)‎ . . N User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources ‎ (start essay)

    FCAYS has repeatedly claimed I "created" the essay on this date.' NOT TRUE.

    On May 21, at AN/I, he made several more comments and repeated that false claim:

    "... just 4 days later you wrote up this essay blistering essay declaring "If your personal ..."

    A glass house built on a bad faith foundation... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Parsing the one-way iBan.

    The iBan reads:

    You are banned for six months from mentioning, pinging, or otherwise discussing BullRangifer or their edits, either specifically or obliquely, in any post related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. This ban does not include article talk pages or threads on admin boards or admin talk pages where BullRangifer's edits or behavior are specifically being discussed. Gratuitous insults, personal attacks, and casting aspersions are still prohibited on any page.

    Atsme has commented on it:

    Please keep in mind that Factchecker's iBan (my bold underline for emphasis) does not include article talk pages or threads on admin boards or admin talk pages where BullRangifer's edits or behavior are specifically being discussed. I'm not seeing anything that indicates he violated the iBan despite the accusations. Atsme📞📧 13:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    I believe the underlining leaves the wrong impression, and still ignores "Gratuitous insults, personal attacks, and casting aspersions are still prohibited on any page." Only the second part (about "specifically") should be emphasized, not the first. That's what NeilN did. If my "edits or behavior are specifically being discussed", then such comments are off-limits "on any page" at Misplaced Pages. All "post-1932 politics...broadly construed", are covered by the iBan, unless my "edits or behavior are specifically being discussed" on "article talk pages or threads on admin boards or admin talk pages".

    "Specifically" is the key word emphasized by NeilN, for good reason. It would be gaming the system for FCAYS, or any of his friends, to mention me, and then FCAYS to use that as an excuse to start "mentioning, pinging, or otherwise discussing BullRangifer or their edits, either specifically or obliquely".

    OTOH, if a thread on such a page was started "specifically" about me (if I was the subject of this AE proceeding), not tangentially or "obliquely", it would be a different matter, and FCAYS should still stay away if at all possible. He should NEVER use it as an excuse to resume the behavior which got him in trouble. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Bizarre aspersion about my edit on an anatomy article on my watchlist

    This was my immediate reaction:

    "Holy shit!! Now I feel sick. At the end of this diatribe, he tries to invent some weird attack on himself by me, just because I'm a medical professional who is studying the anatomy of where my possible colon cancer is located! I had just gotten a colonoscopy and I have a 1x3 cm mass in my cecum. Now I have to get surgery to remove it and get a better biopsy result. I'm scared...."

    Here I'm facing some really dark life and death shit in my life, and this is what happens here. SMH. I'm pretty sure he didn't intend to make fun of a possibly dying man. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Reply to FCAYS's comment

    Like I said, I'm sure you had no intention of making fun of my health. No problem. The timing just happened to be bad.

    I happen to have a thing called a "watchlist". I actually use it on occasion. Right now it says this: "You have 842 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." It once reached 10,000 items. I watch a lot of different subjects. Most of the items on it have been articles I have edited, but not all.

    When something pops up, like the vandalism I fixed on the ileocecal valve article, well, that just happened to be an article I had used during my searching for information in relation to my new, and still uncertain, diagnosis. The same for the gun article (I don't own any handguns anymore, only one Ruger 10/22 rifle for plinking.) That sarcastic/humorous comment was written because that article popped up on my watchlist. Neither situation had anything to do with you or other things I was editing or discussing. If one of the articles for some handgun I had previously owned, for example a Colt Python .357 Magnum, or Ruger Blackhawk 9×19mm Parabellum/.357 Magnum Convertible, popped up on my watchlist and I suddenly edited it, would you really have gotten worried? I owned those guns about 47 years ago! I'm not really a "gun enthusiast" and am very much for stricter gun control measures. I have done quite a bit of hunting in Greenland when I lived there. We all did. Reindeer/caribou is delicious.

    Not everything I do here has to do with you. You're seeing phantoms. I'm quite harmless. I hate to disappoint you, but I think about you far less than you may realize.

    Many of the things you wrote above about me are in the same "phantoms" category. Your 100% false belief (that I wrote that essay about you, debunked quite thoroughly above) has colored your perceptions about everything else I have done here, and thus you interpret it all wrongly, and make some things about you that have nothing to do with you. That's what happens when we fail to AGF. We then place our own false interpretations on things.

    I didn't write the essay about you nor accuse you of using bad sources. The two editors who inspired me to write the essay (written before you came on the scene) use bad sources, and some of your current fellow travelers also do that. You just got a little splatter on you because of your close proximity to them. When I complain generally about editors who use bad sources, I'm not referring to you specifically. I'm not even referring to you at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    A correction about timing

    An inaccuracy in my hatted comment above has been pointed out. I wrote:

    FCAYS first arrived on the scene at the Trump-Russia dossier article on April 4, my first, and very unpleasant, encounter with him began at this time period.
    16:33, April 4, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+3,214)‎ . . Talk:Trump–Russia dossier ‎ (→‎Sourcing and POV problems: new section)
    The essay had been in existence for about three weeks by this time. I had never had any interactions with Factchecker before this time, AFAICT.

    It has been brought to my attention that we had actually met a year previously. At that time he edited using the handle of "Centrify". My "AFAICT" showed my uncertainty and an obvious memory lapse(?).

    He commented until April 8, 2017, and then disappeared for a year, returning ("first arrived on the scene") on April 4, 2018, as "Factchecker atyourservice". So my timing was not completely accurate. In reality it was his "return", not "first arrived". It was still the same person behind the two handles. It would have been more accurate to write "that after "Centrify" was absent for a year, he returned as "Factchecker atyourservice" on April 4, 2018..."

    Otherwise, the important point is that all the diffs above documenting the timing of the creation of the essay, and the two editors who inspired me to write it, are still solid proof that the creation of the essay had nothing to do with FCAYS. He wasn't even around at the time I was writing it. Most had already been written by the time he returned. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by My very best wishes

    I agree with Regentspark below. And this not really about two "ideological camps", but about what people actually do for the project. For example, Factchecker atyourservice produces a lot of unhelpful and highly divisive comments on article talk pages. On the other hand, contributors like BullRangifer produce high quality and well sourced main space content. A topic ban for Factchecker atyourservice would be completely appropriate, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Jbhunley

    @RegentsPark: While someone could present a case for topic banning Atsme the justification you put forward - that her "defense for FCAYS in the ANI thread added by BMK () does mean that taken ownership of some of FCAYS's behavior" has no basis in policy, common sense or, dare I say, justice. Politically I disagree with just about everything she has to say on Trump. Nor do I agree with her analysis of the FCAS situation but to say that standing up for an editor or, similarly, contesting a complaint/evidence/assertion brought by one editor against the other somehow means one now owns that editor's behavior is far outside the norms of Misplaced Pages. Defending an editor is not reinstating a reverted edit and the suggestion it is would be chilling to dispute resolution. For example, I would never have spoken for Atsme here if it would somehow imply I thereby own her behavior or views. Yet by not speaking up she might face a TBAN based more on another editor's behavior than her own, which would just be wrong. (no implication her behavior justifies a TBAN) Jbh 15:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by PackMecEng

    Just a comment here since Awilley has not made mention of it here for some reason, FCAYS has been blocked for 1 week for purportedly violating his IBan and "personal attacks" here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Awilley

    Just a note that I blocked Factchecker to put a quick stop to what I saw as an ongoing problem of battleground behavior, casting "aspersions", and iban violations. I hope the block doesn't interfere too much with the process here. I'm happy to unblock if Factchecker shows some awareness of what the problem is and makes a commitment to fix it. ~Awilley (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Jytdog

    I generally steer clear of politics and especially matters Trumpian.

    This AE filing prompted me to review FCAYS work here.

    • edit count
    • Opened account August 2007.
    • The account was originally called "Factcheck 4uwingnuts"" and was changed in this diff in September 2007 to the present name.
    • Their first edit was, unsurprisingly given their username, this, where they added {{Fact|date=August 2007}}] 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC) to some content that said that the government fabricated evidence against someone. The source for that statement was bad and the tag was apt, but I think the pointyness of that is very clear.
    • They went on to amass 8,423 edits. Looking at the bar charts, they have an odd cycle of editing for a couple of years, taking a year off, then coming back, which they have done 4 times.
    1st cycle was 2007-2009
    2nd cycle was 2011-2013
    3rd cycle was 2014-2015
    4th cycle is 2017-2018.
    • Their most edited pages are
    703 to Talk:Sarah Palin
    663 to Talk:Occupy Wall Street
    581 to Talk:Trump–Russia dossier
    331 to Occupy Wall Street
    291 to Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown
    157 to Talk:Fascism
    149 to Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
    104 to Copwatch
    102 to Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
    85 to Sarah Palin
    85 to Talk:The Federalist (website)
    85 to Talk:Cecily McMillan
    78 to 99 Percent Declaration
    75 to Sherman Austin 1st cycle.
    74 to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
    60 to Illegal immigration to the United States
    59 to Cecily McMillan
    59 to Timeline of Occupy Wall Street
    breaking that down by their "cycles"
    1st cycle
    Copwatch. They are the #1 editor there. contribs. 1st edit, changing The video, which shows the apparently restrained Cardenas repeatedly punched in the face by officers, to The video, in which Cardenas struggles to prevent the police from handcuffing him, shows the officers repeatedly punching him in the face while trying to force his hands together.
    Sarah Palin. not in top 20 editors. contribs there. First major edit was this, changing She talked about her foreign policy experience in sharing borders with Russia and Canada as governor of Alaska to When asked during that interview to explain how sharing a border with Russia and Canada enhanced her foreign policy experience, she reminded Couric that Russia shares a border with Alaska and that she is the chief executive of the state of Alaska, as well as the fact that Vladimir Putin passes through Alaskan airspace when entering the United States. When specifically asked if she had ever been involved in any negotiations with Russian officials, Palin responded that "We have trade missions back and forth" but did not specify whether she had personally been involved in any of these trade missions
    Talk:Sarah Palin. #5 editor. contribs there. First major edit was this, asking (good question IMO) about using her authorized biography as a source
    Talk:Fascism. #9 editor. Contribs. 1st edit, discourse on WP:SYN in trying to define fascism.
    2nd cycle
    Occupy Wall Street. #5 editor there. Contribs. 1st edit, edit note WTF OR ??), removing link to crytptome.org
    Talk:Occupy Wall Street #3 editor there. Contribs. First edit. is supporting removal by someone else of section called "Alleged excessive use of force"
    Timeline of Occupy Wall Street. #2 editor. contribs there. 1st edit added a bunch of {{fact}} tags, removed some sourced content.
    99 Percent Declaration. #3 editor there. contribs. 1st diff appears to be a carryover from arguments at Occupy Wall Street
    Sherman Austin 1st cycle. #1 editor. contribs there. 1st edit there was his 1st edit to !P mentioned above. This is sourced to cryptome.org also, btw.
    Illegal immigration to the United States. not in top 20 editors. contribs there. 1st edit removed content that failed verification and was OR.
    3rd cycle
    Cecily McMillan. #2 editor. contribs. 1st edit series created the page; content is worth looking at. Please do.
    Talk:Cecily McMillan #2 editor. Contribs. first edit, just making a note. Interestingly the signature there has been customized to be "Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)]"
    Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). #6 editor. contribs there. 1st edit, adding POV tag with edit not This article is a shameful advocacy tract rife with innuendo and unsubstantiated criminal accusations)
    Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) #7 editor. Contribs. 1st diff was responding to a question about a POV tag on the page: "The article was incredibly one-sided and POV pushy when I placed the tag (see here) and then I just never removed it. I've gone ahead and removed it now, though."
    Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. #10 editor. Contribs. 1st edit, removes a sentence from another editor's comment with edit note Rm NOTFORUM comment; user should know better.
    Talk:The Federalist (website) #2 editor. contribs. 1st edit, objecting to "pushy language"
    4th cycle
    Talk:Trump–Russia dossier #2 editor. Contribs 1st edit, a long post starting with a ping to MelanieN, Volunteer Marek, and BullRangifer about policies and guidelines.
    Talk:Jeremy Corbyn #5 editor. Contribs. 1st edit: Without even commenting past your ludicrous first sentence, do you really expect me to take seriously the claim that Champion's comments were not "about" Corbyn?

    This is all very politically "hot" stuff. They seem to have come here specifically to address what they perceive as left-wing bias, from what i have seen. There may be diffs of them tamping down POV editing from the right, but I haven't seen that....

    Just wanted to present this context. Given their chosen subject matter and approach, that they are in some hot water is unsurprising. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    User:JFG in my view, they came here in a very POINTY way and they have not stopped being pointy since they got here. If you have significant diffs of this person serving as a "Factcheck 4uwingnuts" with respect to anything ring-wingish, they would be somewhat exculpatory. It is hard for me to see past the glare coming from the very shiny ax that this person has carried into WP and the sparks that are flying from grinding it.
    One reason I teed up all that background and links to contribs was to enable review with a solid foundation of context.
    I pulled out some larger diffs from Corbyn-talk (hoping that this would reflect experience here (unlike taking diffs from the 1st cycle where we might expect newbie issues)
    • here they are arguing that Corbyn's comments upon Castro's death should be given a lot of WEIGHT in the article. (reviewing the discussion, which is for the most part hyper-partisan, it is hard to find anybody making the common-sense argument sources should be found that discuss Corbyn's stance over time on Castro and Cuba; instead there is complete locked-in engagement with "the news" of Corbyn's comments on Castro's death. This is not bringing neutrality as we define that here in WP.
    • diff ends with a bang: And that's so even if the controversial figure is only an illiberal think tank and not a population-starving, opposition-murdering autocrat. (Where do you come up with these comparisons, by the way? Did you study the concept of proportion under Picasso?
    • diff they present a list of what they call "RS" for criticism of Corbyn that includes a bunch of opinion columns and a very obvious blog. This is not an edit that is striving to bring NPOV and strong sources to a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • here they appeal to the list presented above, and cite Jimbo's authority....
    What i am seeing, is part of the problem of politics in WP. Not part of the solution. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Aquillion

    Since more diffs were requested (and apologies if some of these were mentioned elsewhere, but I couldn't find these exact diffs in a quick search of the page):

    Either say why it is incorrect or unfruitful or shut your incorrect, unfruitful mouth

    Oh quit your iterated nonsense

    Well that's great news sunshine, but you can kiss my peephole today. Later deleted, but only after SPECIFIO responded, and the edit summary is its own problem. Also edit-warred to keep a comment on SPECIFIO's talk page.

    And as per usual with this user and User:BullRangifer, they were dressed up as encyclopedia-related comments in an effort to provoke an angry response while still providing a (flimsy) pretext for insulting me.

    "MOMMY! MOMMY! MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE NEWSPAPER PEOPLE SAY! THEY ARE WRONG!"

    Is that what I deserve for trying to cite real grown-up sources only to be shouted at dishonestly, with no effort to even pretend the accusation was honest?

    It was a "personal attack" to add a colon ":" to your comment to thread it one level deeper? That's downright insane. Don't post on my talk page again.

    Coffee's stated rationale for leaving is quite interesting in view of the abusive sniping favored by so many editors at this page ... It would be grand to be able to talk about stuff without having ignorance and venom spat at you, including by site admins.

    On a scale ranging from "highly pointless and wrong" to "utterly pointless and wrong", how pointless and wrong do you think your comment was? I'd say "utterly".

    @Scjessey: your comment is ignorant and insulting. Please strike it and apologize for your offensive wrongness.

    In what fantasy make-believe world is that a "misrepresentation"?

    Just consider that for a moment before sneering further, OK?

    I'm only playing along with edit warriors here because they're edit warriors and there's little choice but to cooperate; also generally shows their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

    You clearly have some problems with reading comprehension.

    Really, the only thing you're adding to this "discussion" is your own anger. It seems you are having trouble keeping a level head.

    Without even commenting past your ludicrous first sentence...

    Before saying another fucking word about how this other use is supposedly ignorant of policy... This is from three years ago (shortly before his two-year break); it's included just to illustrate that this is a long-standing problem with this user in particular.

    Note that these are not isolated cases, and that (including the last few) it goes across several pages; FactChecker is constantly, repeatedly abrasive with anyone he disagrees with if he perceives their politics as being on the left, rapidly taking offense and escalating tempers. He is also sometimes fairly outspoken about what he sees as left-wing bias on Misplaced Pages and among its admins, which he clearly sees himself as fighting against. Note his exit message when he left three years ago; nothing, to me, indicates that his views of Misplaced Pages have changed, merely that he feels strongly enough about this topic area to use it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Aquillion (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Some people have suggested that others are guilty of as bad or worse in this topic area. While it's true that it's a hot-button issue and that many people are on short fuses, I don't feel that this level of consistent abrasiveness across interactions with multiple editors on multiple articles is remotely normal. (He is worse on Trump articles, yes, but these diffs show a consistent, long-standing pattern that goes well beyond any one conflict.) WP:CIVIL is policy and is absolutely essential both for retaining users and for reaching any sort of constructive compromises; it's even more important in a hot-button topic area, not less. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Mr. Daniel Plainview

    I have personally told FCAYS of the virtues of making friends and maintaining a collegial atmosphere, but unfortunately it looks like my advice has not been heeded. Is their manner of speaking a bit bellicose? Probably. But proposing a ban for this behavior, such as the examples provided above by Aquillion, is a prime example of what many point to as a double standard in the handing down of disciplinary action based on perceived partisan leanings . I have been witnessing much worse behavior than the examples provided thus far, but from people on the other side of the political spectrum, and I see no punishments being given for that same (or worse) behavior. FCAYS should be let off a stern final warning, or the penal standards should be adjusted to be dealt equally to editors, regardless of what we think their political views are. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC) User blocked as a sock of Hidden Tempo. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Guy Macon

    Please consider the following series of edits: , , , , , , , , , ,

    (I also commented on a complaint about his username, and was generally supportive of FCAYS in that thread.) `

    I believe that the above sequence of edits is enough to demonstrate that FCAYS lacks the ability to walk away from a conflict and let others deal with it. Because of this, my opinion is that he should be forced to cease his current pattern of behavior through a block and/or topic ban, which should be lifted only when and if he makes a compelling case that he understands what he did wrong and makes a commitment to change his behavior.

    I have no opinion on the behavior of anyone else involved in this, because I have not examined the edit history for myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

    Related: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Factchecker atyourservice. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by MelanieN

    (Disclosure: I am WP:INVOLVED at many of the articles under discussion here.) I’d just like to say that I am dismayed at the suggestion made here that Atsme might be sanctioned or tbanned - apparently just for defending FCAYS! This thread contains a mass of evidence against FCAYS, not just for violating the IBAN but for being disruptive and uncivil, and absolutely none against Atsme. The idea that we should impose some kind of guilt by association ("taking ownership of their behavior"?) merely for commenting on the behavior of others is really disturbing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Factchecker atyourservice

    @Guy Macon: "walk away and let others handle it" was actually exactly what I tried to do in April.

    But letting others handle something presupposes an ability to communicate with others, which is not really possible when POV-pushy editors simply remove talk page sections they don't like as well as removing, without even a pretense at discussion, every single maintenance tag needed to signal article problems to other editors.

    Thus I got sucked in to doing the research and writing myself—then defending it against an endless array of stupidly dishonest claims. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Factchecker atyourservice

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Maybe I'm just lazy, but I do need diffs to evaluate. I'm not reading pages and pages of discussions. Other admins may see this differently. Sandstein 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking, I agree with NeilN below that no AE actions should be made based on an admin's opinion about whether the article is too long or not; that is definitively a content issue outside the scope of AE. Sandstein 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Based on Slatersteven's diffs ("Are you nuts?" etc.), there does seem to be at least a prima facie case for sanctions against Factchecker atyourservice for battleground-like conduct, but I'd prefer more diffs to be able to determine whether this is a longterm pattern of conduct. As to the other editors mentioned by GoldenRing below, I have no opinion because of a lack of diffs. Sandstein 14:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree, though, with Masem and RegentsPark below that we have a violation of the (unusually worded) interaction ban, which merits a block. Sandstein 15:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I've read most of Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. I agree that Factchecker atyourservice has been a bludgeoning influence on this page and also a couple of other threads I've seen around. I'd suggest that they take at least six months off AP2 (ie a tban).The IBAN between Factchecker atyourservice and BullRangifer seems to me overly complicated and I'd like to hear NeilN's reasons for not just imposing a normal IBAN, either one-way or two-way. At this point, I'd like to consider converting it to a normal two-way IBAN.I agree with power~enwiki that some others could use a break from the Trump-Russia dossier, though I'm less convinced a wider ban is warranted in these cases; I'm thinking of BullRangifer, Slatersteven, Atsme, and SPECIFICO, who I think have all been unnecessarily combative on that talk page (though I realise that most of SPECIFICO's involvement has been reviewed here already) and also Phmoreno, who seems to consider the talk page a forum for spreading rumours. Topic bans for at least this article, and possibly anything related to Donald Trump, seem to be in order.I think that indefinite full protection of the article, as half-suggested by power~enwiki, is also a tempting possibility worth considering, but the problem is, protected in what state? As it stands, it's 19,000 words which probably ought to be cut down to a few paragraphs (seriously, the article has considerably more detail on some of the people involved than their own biography articles do), but I can't quite see how the process of doing that would work without admins basically dictating the content (not somewhere I want to go). WP:TNT is another possibility, though it would have to be done in concert with the topic bans discussed above to prevent the same train wreck happening again. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: It's not particularly complicated. The two editors can still interact on talk pages but Factchecker atyourservice was constantly complaining about, pinging, and posting on BullRangifer's talk page despite being told not to. If they want BullRangifer's sanctioned then they need to bring it to an appropriate venue. Also, given you have expressed an opinion on content strongly favoring one side ("it's 19,000 words which probably ought to be cut down to a few paragraphs", "WP:TNT is another possibility") I would ask that you not take any AE actions with respect to the article. --NeilN 13:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @NeilN: My point re the IBAN is that their interactions, at least on that page, are still not great, and I'm not convinced it's one-sided. But you're obviously much more familiar with the situation; do you think a two-way IBAN would be a bad thing?My point re the article itself is that the coverage therein seems to me to be such an obvious violation of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and so thoroughly unencyclopaedic that any action that preserves the status quo would be counter-productive; I don't see that as a content opinion but as a policy opinion. That said, I'm not about to wade in here and act without trying to build some sort of consensus for the action. GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: I have no objection if you make it a two-way IBAN outside of article/article talk space. I would strongly object if admins try to dictate content. If admin AE action is necessary, ask the sides to prepare two versions, hold a community RFC as to which version best meets policies and guidelines, and be done with it. The consensus required provision should be able to control the future direction of the article. --NeilN 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I have several other thoughts on the larger problem, which, as suggested above, are better suited for a very likely AP3 case as it involves many more editors and larger selection of articles (or as NeilN and GoldenRing speak above, an admin-enforced solution). If we limit it just to FCAYS, while many of the talk page diffs are questionable, and I've seen a lot worse language used by others that have failed to merit any type of enforcement remedy, so it's hard to work on that. There's clearly WP:TE from FCAYS happening, and barring any AE action taken here, I would strongly recommend a voluntary break from the topic area, and work on other non-AP2-related topics (I speak to experience on this in relationship to GG). But we do have a clear IBAN violation that was placed in the AP2 topic area, and this warrants a short term (3-6 month) TBAN from the AP2 area simply to get them away from any likely interaction with BullRangifer, which would equivalently help with the TE aspects. --Masem (t) 14:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Atsme: There is absolutely a larger issue here, with many more editors than just FCAYS involved. But AE is absolutely the wrong scope for trying to address this unless we are going to take a very harsh approach and block every editor with more than X edits on Trump-related pages, or do a WP:TNT on these pages. (Neither solution I recommend). I feel we should focus this AE only on FCAYS here, and the only behavior that sticks out as a problem that we can fairly address is the IBAN, which was clearly violated. --Masem (t) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • This is about as confusing as it gets and, like Sandstein says, it would be nice to see more diffs and fewer links to long discussions. But, cutting to the chaff, there does appear to a clear violation of NeilN's iban on FactChecker and that needs to be addressed. On the broader issue I'm not in favor of handing tbans all around unless it is clear that there are behavioral issues on all sides and, to me, that is not evident. Rather, it looks like we have aggressive editing on the part of FactChecker and some enabling of that on the part of Atsme (the discussion here is a good example of that. It starts with a specific question (collusion), meanders all over the place as more issues are added (democratic spies, etc.), before, when slatersteven asks "what is the content I should be sticking to" we move back to the original question, with Atsme, rather bafflingly given the context, calling for factchecker to be allowed to write a due & balanced (in unfortunate uppercase) npov version. I don't know the background enough to know whether this is pervasive across other discussions but it doesn't seem to me that across the board tbans is the appropriate response. I'll defer to NeilN as to whether topic bans for Factchecker and perhaps Atsme are needed. --regentspark (comment) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      @Atsme: Unfortunately, your defense for FCAYS in the ANI thread added by BMK () does mean that you've taken ownership of some of FCAYS's behavior so some of what, if anything, comes down the pike for FCAYS will affect you as well. I have a limited perspective on this and my take is that some action is necessary for the iban violation, some sort of tban may be necessary, and an across the board tban is not a good idea unless evidence of broad misconduct in the Trump area is forthcoming. Perhaps the simplest way forward is to topic ban FCAYS and leave it at that but I'm hoping someone else can figure out what is appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 19:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      @NeilN: A three month topic ban is, imo, the absolute minimum but ok. @Jbhunley: There is nothing wrong with coming to the defense of another user. My comment was more at the nature of the nature of the defense on the two threads. To be clear, I have some concern with the way Atsme is going about their support for FCAYS but am uncertain whether it is problematic or merely over enthusiasm. I'll let others figure that out. --regentspark (comment) 21:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      @NeilN: Looking at the comments made by FCAYS here and on their talk page, I think the proposed 3 month topic ban is too little. I suggest an indefinite topic ban from post 1932 AP, reviewable after a minimum of six months with evidence of interests outside American politics and evidence that they are capable of working positively in disagreements. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
      @RegentsPark: I know I tend towards leniency (sometimes too much) if I think an editor can contribute constructively but has trouble controlling themselves when things get heated or ramps up the drama for little reason. This may be one of those cases. The three month topic ban would serve as a final wake up call but I certainly would understand if you want to impose an indefinite topic ban. --NeilN 15:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
      @NeilN: I'm the one who usually gets accused of leniency :) Looking at the editing history of FCAYS, I'm not sure a wakeup call will help - my guess, they will stay away for three months and then return as combative as ever. But, ok, no harm in giving it a shot, so sure. --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I am leaning towards a three month topic ban from post-1932 AP and invite admin comments. GoldenRing, do you still want to implement a two-way IBAN between BullRangifer and Factchecker_atyourservice? --NeilN 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement

    Protection log for Jordan, discussion at

    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by Makeandtoss

    Edit notice template should be removed as the page is not protected as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The page should also not be protected to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it is illogical to do so. Jordan gathers around 6,000 views/day-it is a high level article. 5 out of 95 paragraphs in the article discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this somehow makes it part of the conflict? If we want to apply the same criteria here then why aren't the United Kingdom and United States articles protected? The protection is intended to quell disruption, which does not exist on the Jordan page. The protection would only prevent IPs and new accounts from contributing to the article-which is what I am mainly concerned about. I was advised to take this issue here by @Alex Shih: after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

    @Sandstein: why not apply the same criteria to UK? The country that gave rise to the conflict, or the US that is nowadays directly involved? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: Isolated incident that could take place in any article. Again the question that everyone here avoids, why not also UK and USA articles? If the protection wouldn’t be accepted there then it should not be accepted here. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Primefac

    In general I have no opinion on this matter, but as background I did ten of these requests in a relatively short timeframe, and all ten seemed reasonable (and still seem reasonable). Given how much nonsense was thrown around at the time (with certain admins quitting over DS notifications) I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and place (and later keep) the notices. It's not a hill I feel the need to die on, though, and I'll respect any consensus reached. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

    In hindsight, I should have asked Makeandtoss to get a consensus somewhere, as is usually my reply; I'm not in the habit of making an edit for one editor, then immediately reversing it because another asks (i.e. I don't edit war with myself). I suppose Maile66's responses kind of did that. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by BU Rob13

    I just want to comment narrowly as an arbitrator on this. Discretionary sanctions are applied to the topic area "broadly construed". None of the restrictions in that edit notice are discretionary sanctions, so we don't need to talk about that anymore. All the restrictions in that edit notice are only applied to the topic area "reasonably construed". This difference in wording was very intentional. Since these restrictions are more draconian, they are intended to apply to a smaller set of pages than the discretionary sanctions. It is ultimately up to uninvolved admins to decide what "reasonably construed" means. Whereas you only need to look for some connection to the topic area, however small, to meet the "broadly construed" standard, you should ideally be evaluating an article more holistically for "reasonably construed". The exact placement of the line is ultimately up to you. ~ Rob13 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Makeandtoss

    Result of the appeal by Makeandtoss

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'd decline the appeal, which I understand is directed against the existence of the edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jordan. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 provides that restrictions apply to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Jordan is an Arab country that borders Israel. The countries have been officially at war until 1994, see Israel–Jordan peace treaty, and I understand based on our article Israel–Jordan relations that bilateral relations remain shaped by the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. In my view, therefore, Jordan is very much an article that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit notice is correct. Probably extended confirmed protection should be enabled also, as provided for by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sandstein 11:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Ideally, the template should be excluded from the Jordan page because the Arab-Israeli conflict is, presumably, only a small part of what defines that country. With apologies for editorializing, this is the problem with blunt instruments like the DS notice requirement. A few edits in the sanctioned area that could easily be handled by templating users becomes a big notice on a peripheral article that probably scares away legitimate editors. In this case, I say toss out the notice. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Per Sandstein, the 500/30 prohibition applies regardless of whether or not ECP in enabled, and we will block editors for violating it repeatedly on numerous articles that are unprotected. In terms of ECP, I think our recent practice has been to enable when there has been a violation of the restriction that is noticed. This would seem to qualify. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Also, per Seraphimblade below, if we find that the article is not part of ARBPIA, and I can see an argument either way on that, the template should be removed with all of the restrictions removed, not just 500/30. If it is within the scope, then I think ECP should be applied as this is a confusing situation for new editors as to whether or not they can edit an article, and comes from the difficult situation we are in with this area now, where protection isn't mandatory but the restriction as worded applies whether or not protection does.In terms of the article itself, while I did link the above issue, I'm not currently sure as to whether or not it is reasonably within the scope. As Sandstein noted, until 1994 they were at war, but tensions have died down recently, and the majority of the article isn't about it. The tricky thing here is that the prohibition applies to pages, not sections. How to enforce that is a difficult question. From a philosophical standpoint, I don't like the idea of entire countries being under ECP. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure how you enforce something like this on a section by section basis. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Makeandtoss: I actually think your point re: the USA and to a lesser extent the UK are valid, and were one of the main reasons along with Seraphimblade's comments that I expanded further here. I'm less convinced that the diff I linked above could happen in any article. Having reread the article I'm inclined to say that the article as a whole falls outside the scope both given the developments since 1994 and the fact that the article is not, as pointed out below, primarily or solely within the conflict area (i.e. Jordan is currently at peace with Israel and it covers the conflict as a historical part of the country rather than being devoted to the conflict itself.) To go off a point being made at the ARCA, this falls within the sanctions broadly construed, but not necessarily reasonably construed, and after further thought, I'd be inclined to remove the template and rule that the article about the country as a whole falls outside of the scope (which, in my mind, would also mean the 1RR bit would not apply). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
        • A final note here: if no consensus is reached or if consensus is that this is part of the scope, I support restoring ECP immediately. I think the current situation we have in this topic area of "Wait for disruption until protection, it might bite the newcomers, but we'll block your for editing articles we knew were eligible for protection if you aren't extended confirmed and you continue to do it." is ridiculous and is one of the most confusing parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict from both an enforcement standpoint and for new users. As I said above, I'm leaning that the article on the entire country is not in scope, but whatever the case, the status quo should not stand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I think, generally speaking, to apply discretionary sanctions to an article like that, the article should be primarily or solely within the conflict area. A geographic area certainly could fall within ARBPIA in that way (I would certainly say, for example, that Gaza Strip almost certainly would), but I'm not so sure in the case of Jordan. Reading through the article, I'm trying hard to find very much in it that falls under ARBPIA, but I certainly wouldn't say the majority of the article content does. There's information on Jordan's structure of government, an outline of its legal and justice system, history from antiquity to present, climate, whatever else have you. I think application in this case is too broad, and that we should instead handle editing problems on the covered sections of that article as such. So I'd lean toward granting the appeal insofar as "300/50" has been applied to the entire article, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm undecided whether I think Jordan should fall under the "reasonably construed" language of the remedy or not. In a sense, every nation is involved in this conflict in some way, as they all vote on UN resolutions etc. There is a spectrum of involvement, from Israel itself, through to nations whose only involvement is voting on non-binding resolutions at the UN. At some point on that spectrum, a nation becomes "reasonably construed" to be related to the conflict. On the one hand, Jordan's geographical proximity to Israel; the historical war between them (formally ended more than two decades ago); and Jordan's ongoing involvement in the relations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (our article Israel–Jordan relations describes peace between them as a "major priority" of Jordan) are factors arguing that Jordan should be included. On the other hand, Jordan is one of only two (out of 21) Arab League members of the UN who recognise Israel and maintain diplomatic relations; Jordan has given up its claims to territory lost in the 1967 war; Jordan has historically co-operated with Israel, even when a formal state of war between them existed; there is considerable economic co-operation between them; and so on. I'm still thinking about where in all this the line should fall. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    The Rambling Man

    No violation of remedy. --NeilN 12:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning The Rambling Man

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#Amendments :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 30 May Clear-cut reflection on my general competence as an admin
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Several earlier enforcement measures
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    N/A

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by The Rambling Man

    The posting admin already has a grudge here against me, but that notwithstanding, he has erroneously posted two items to the main page in the past few days against consensus or when clearly not ready. This is a direct (and ongoing) dereliction of duty. Per WP:ADMINACCT, anyone is free to question the actions of admins and in particular those who demonstrate "repeated or consistent poor judgment". Asking for another admin to post ITN items is common sense in this situation where we are seeing inappropriate use of admin tools time and again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Masem I'm not "attacking" anyone, if so that would be subject to WP:NPA. I'm arguing strongly, but actually I'm usually the one on the receiving end of NPAs, which I rarely do anything about because I rise above them. We disagree on the approach to some items at ITNC, but then I'm not alone in disagreeing with you either, yet that goes unnoticed... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    And actually, Black Kite makes a good point. I made no general comments on anyone’s competence, I made some very specific comments relating to a Kimberly of bad judgements made by one specific admin in one very specific part of the project. One of these mistakes has been rectified but the other remains. And this comes on the back of other such errors that nearly led to the admin in question being stopped from making such edits in the past (especially after turning the text purple when Prince died). The issues are very specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Unfortunately Masem, trying to control what people can and cannot say is censorship. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Masem

    Unfortunately I have to agree this is a clear-cut violation. I have seen TRM getting more out of line lately at ITNC, of which some I would chalk up to some poor interactions towards TRM by at least one user LaserLegs (talk · contribs) who is very ornery with TRM; I was attempting to mediate that through this section (diff of last added comment to that section) on WT:ITN. But TRM has gotten more out of line and there was no reason at all to jump on ed17 here in the manner spoken. This alone is a problem but I would also consider that TRM's attitude outside of of this specific incedent makes it moreso . (See this ongoing discussion WT:ITN#Do away with significance as a criterion altogether where TRM is pretty much attacking anyone disagreeing with their stance) While TRM's behavior in that convo is not directly covered by the AE remedies, they are very hostile and one small step away from what the modified AE remedy covers. Add to this statement towards ed17, and something needs to be done. There's no collaboration happening here. --Masem (t) 14:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    @Black Kite: That brings up the question of where do we draw the line. I agree the restrictions on TRM do not prevent them from stating that an admin misposted ITNs before and so may want to recheck their work in this specific posting. But where does one draw the line between "specific" and "general" competence that TRM should not discuss? The last think we want is any user under an AE restriction to toe that line, hence why we consider AEs to be broadly interpreted. I don't think we can draw that line in any clear way. --Masem (t) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    I have gained a thicker skin so I wouldn't have brought these up in isolation (and as I noted, in the midst of conflict with LaserLegs), but I will point out, in the WT:ITN discussion above, that TRM accuses me of trying to censor discussion and which itself is a violation of "posting speculation about the motivations of editors". (My whole point of the discussion was to diffuse the problem). I've trying to support TRM before, but this is the behavior they were cautioned about at the ArbCom case. --Masem (t) 17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    To be clear, I see no conflict between myself and TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by WBG

    • Much of TRMs points were superb in the ITNC discussion (as is evident by those who have argued along his lines) and I'm afraid that I don't see anything other than somewhat-heightened levels of bludgeoning in the discussion.
    • As to Ed17's original diff, it's usual TRM-stuff and IMHO, TRM's statement does not qualify anywhere close to a personal attack.For one, I would agree that there was not any consensus to post.
    • Overall, the encyclopedia would be miles better, without any remedy being enforced here.At best, an admonishment, nothing more than that.~ Winged Blades 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Dweller

    The restriction was against TRM's "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence". He was not commenting on motivation or general competence, rather the admin's specific lack of competence in this area, which was demonstrable, fair comment and not covered by the Arbcom restriction. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    I'm also concerned that Sandstein involves himself below in the space for uninvolved admins. He and TRM have considerable history and his comments should be above the line. I could also have posted below, as I'm uninvolved in this dispute, but I regard myself as involved because of my longstanding collaborative work with TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Guy Macon, in what way is it a "clear violation"? There's no speculation about motivations and there's no comment about general competence. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Sandstein, Arbcom were careful to prohibit comments about "general competence", not comments about "competence". If you can't appreciate the difference, that's a problem with your comprehension, not TRM's actions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    BU Rob13, re INVOLVED, Sandstein rushed to impose a one month block on TRM, following a complaint by the same admin at AE in March 2017. That action was heavily discussed and criticised by many at AN. In a triumph of diplomacy, The Wordsmith stepped in and reduced the block to a week. Here again, we have Sandstein going for (at least he didn't enact this time) a heavy-handed option, despite no blocks for the best part of a year and despite his lack of comprehension of the terminology used by Arbcom. There's a history. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Eggishorn

    I'm really hesitating to say anything here but I feel there are editors that hover in the Main Page areas and wait to see if they can provoke TRM into violating this sanction so he will wind up here as often as possible. I don't think the initiating editor of this complaint is one of them but that this does stem from such interactions. It makes the ITNC and MPE and similar areas feel like exercises in eggshell-dancing, sometimes. At the risk of wikilawyering: There is nothing in TRM's statement that reflects on The ed17's motivation and the latter makes no complaint of that so this is only about "general competence." There are three parts to the statement TRM made about ed17: that changing an ITN blurb was a "rogue admin action", that ed17 had made a previous error, and that other admins were more experienced in ITNC. While all of those statements might be perceived as slights, none are reflections on "general competence." At the most expansive reading of TRM's statement, the first two parts are characterizations on actions and the third is talking about topic area experience. Experience and competence are not synonymous and any admin should be prepared to admit they are not, in fact cannot, be experienced in every area. In the absence of evidence that ed17 is objectively experienced on overriding a developing consensus on ITNC blurbs, to sanction TRM for this statement is broadening the restriction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Laser brain

    No comment on the interaction but Sandstein should not be weighing in here as an uninvolved admin. He and TRM have had negative personal interactions (for example, arguing at ITNC and on other users' Talk pages) unrelated to this filing and I don't believe he can neutrally make judgments on this situation. Also, anyone who wants to collaborate on a proposal to nuke ITN and DYK permanently, let me know. There's a remedy for you. --Laser brain (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    @BU Rob13: A block of a month is on the table for this user. I don't see any harm in deferring this decision to truly uninvolved admins who aren't likely to have an emotional horse in this race. Maybe you have a thicker skin than I, but I doubt my ability to render a neutral opinion about sanctions on someone after they'd called my contributions pointed, irrelevant, unhelpful, and terrible in multiple unrelated discussions. These are "direct interactions", so please look again at the links I provided. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Guy Macon

    To answer Masem's question ("But where does one draw the line between 'specific' and 'general' competence that TRM should not discuss?"), statements like "...another rogue admin manoeuvre from an admin who has just recently made an error here, and who, in the past, has demonstrated that they should perhaps leave this part of Misplaced Pages to other, more experienced admins..." is clearly over the line. It is a clear violation of "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    After reading the other statements again and thinking about this for a while, I have` changed my mind and that decided that I agree with Dweller and NeilN on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Gerda

    What Dweller said, better than I could. Factually pointing out that another error was made, and how even more could be avoided, is nothing I'd like to see sanctioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by BU Rob13

    Commenting only on the involvement issue, the diffs posted above regarding Sandstein's supposed involvement are obviously not diffs showing involvement. Merely participating in the same discussion, without any substantial disagreement or direct interaction, does not make one involved with respect to an editor. Neither does an admin acting in their administrative capacity and being insulted for it, without any response. An editor cannot make an admin involved with respect to them merely by being rude to that admin. If they could, very, very few admins could act with respect to TRM. If there's additional history regarding Sandstein/TRM that I'm not aware of, maybe there's a discussion to be had, but Laser brain's diffs are utterly unconvincing. ~ Rob13 15:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    @Laser brain: If calling an admin those things leads to that admin being automatically involved, any editor could just insult every admin willing to sanction them, becoming literally unblockable. Absolutely not. ~ Rob13 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Mr Ernie

    As a follow up to Laser brain's comment, the disruption caused by this incident is enough that Sandstein ought to let other administrators handle this case. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by LaserLegs

    I got pinged from another user, so I guess I'll comment.

    This is a ridiculous way to handle dispute resolution, something that Misplaced Pages utterly fails at. Completely and utterly fails. You have WP:NPA but you have no method to deal with the kind of low-level hostility that we get from users like TRM (who, btw, adds a lot of value to the project as well). Misplaced Pages is a social project, it has to be with this kind of mass collaboration, and all you can offer people is "turn the other cheek". Fail. How the hell is this at "ArbCom" in front of a panel of "supreme admins" (or whatever). This is low level municipal court business. We lost an admin who actually DOESN'T go off the rails and post crap articles with dubious consensus over this. Fail.

    I'd written a whole other thing, and decided this situation was so absurd I'd rather comment on that instead. Let me know later if I'm t-banned or i-banned or something. FFS. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    PS: If I had a problem with the way TRM interacts with me, I'd take it here, or to his talk page -- and I expect he'd do the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Gamaliel

    What's the point of even having an ArbCom if we are going to ignore a clear cut violation of a sanction? The rest of this nonsense about allegations and counter allegations of provocations and involvement is just a sideshow. Either the rules apply to everyone or we scrap ArbCom and just admit it's all just a popularity contest. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Vanamonde93

    Posting here as I am uninterested in taking admin action in this case. Sandstein, with respect, I think you should leave this to other folks to act on. You aren't INVOLVED, and policy does not require you to stay away from this, but it would be the wise thing to do. The ultimate purpose of this board is to help the community spend its time productively, and I believe that purpose would be better served if other folks adjudicated here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Lepricavark

    TRM's remarks to Ed were unpleasant, but I agree with those who have argued that he did not violate the provisions of his editing restriction. To me, the larger issue is Ed's hastiness in immediately opening this AE thread. In my opinion, he should have been more focused on undoing his error at ITN. This should be closed with no action, and I will object very strongly if Sandstein issues any sanctions whatsoever. Lepricavark (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by 331dot

    I call on Sandstein to recuse themselves, even if by the letter of policy they aren't required to, as the appearance of being involved is what matters. I don't really see a violation by TRM here,(he was responding to a specific action, not speaking generally) and I am dismayed that there seem to be those who are waiting to jump on every move he makes that potentially may be a problem. Don't we have better things to do? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Davey2010

    It's rather sad that editors sit and wait for TRM to say something and then immediately without delay pounce and open a thread the moment he says something they disagree with, Sad state of affairs really, The comment wasn't a violation of the ban and infact this whole case is try and further censor TRM from saying anything .... Similar to Cass tbh. –Davey2010 22:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by JFG

    This is a run-of-the-mill disagreement about a specific issue under discussion. Not actionable. — JFG 06:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    Result concerning The Rambling Man

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I agree that this is a violation of the restriction that "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." Based on the principle of escalating sanctions, I think that a block of one month, following up on the previous blocks of one and two weeks, is appropriate. Sandstein 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • In my view, even if WP:ADMINACCT applies here, the specific restriction against The Rambling Man overrides the more general provision of WP:ADMINACCT. This means that The Rambling Man may still question or criticize admins, e.g. in the form of "hey, I think you made an error at X", just not in the form prohibited to him, i.e. by way of "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence". It's quite possible to hold admins (or other users) accountable without imputing nefarious motivations or questioning their competence. Sandstein 14:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • In response to Dweller above, to my recollection my previous interactions with The Rambling Man were in an administrative capacity, including the first block for a violation of this restriction. Per WP:INVOLVED, this does not require me to recuse myself. Sandstein 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I think there's an obvious difference between "you've made a mistake with this action at this page, and it's not the first time either" and "Your admin actions are wrong everywhere", to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • As per the text of the sanction, I don't see this as a violation. The text prohibits TRM from two things "speculation about motivations" and "reflections on the general competence ". There is clearly no speculation about motives here and the competence part seems to be qualified by applying only to admin actions in ITN (and not to, say, editing competence or admin competence in other areas). --regentspark (comment) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • TRM walks a fine line sometimes but I don't see a clear crossing over into sanctionable territory in this particular instance. --NeilN 01:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • There is no speculation, and the reflective commentary is regarding specific admin actions around ITN, not general competence. Stephen 02:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No violation here, lean instead toward WP:ADMINACCT. The statement in question was about a "rogue admin manoeuvre" and suggestion on what "they should perhaps" do. No need to wield baton here.—Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • While there's nothing to do here as the restriction was in no way breached, TRM usually makes his points without being tetchy, and gets a better outcome when he does so; I'd ask him to remember that. Fish+Karate 09:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

    François Robere

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning François Robere

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Article under "consensus-required" sanctions for any changes: Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Change in editing restrictions - please read
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 14:53, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
    2. 14:55, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
    3. 15:47, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. —12:03, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
    2. — 12:21, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
    3. —17:58, April 23, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
    4. — 09:38, May 13, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User François Robere has made these three changes, even though the article is under strict consensus-required prior to any changes sanctions. This follows a pattern of editing by François Robere, where he continues to BLANK-OUT entire sections of text even though many of the statements have been agreed to on the talk page, such as this example here: Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG, yet user François Robere goes in and blanks the text as in this edit listed above , or REMOVES text, which was restored after he removed it previously, several days back. In short, these three edits were made without gaining a CONSENSUS on the talk page first, as required by the discretionary sanctions, and follow an pattern of disruptive editing.

    Extended content
    • One quick note in response to user Icewhiz's comments below regarding me — the talk page comments Icewhiz listed in his statement below, have NOTHING to do with the edits made by François Robere on 2 June 2018, and are simply a red herring. They do not pertain to the same text and are UNRELATED, so I'm a bit perplexed as to why user Icewhiz is bringing them up. Also, it is not breaking the rule to revert edit which was made without consensus, pls see here: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. and Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. --E-960 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • A second note regarding Ealdgyth statement, it is NOT TRUE that the article statement in question contains "self-published and non-mainstream" references as she states, and most certainly not the text that user François Robere REMOVED in the three edits above, as a matter of fact here (below) are the two sources which backed up the statement that François Robere REMOVED , this statement was also agreed on in a discussion Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG:

    Winstone, Martin (2014). The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi rule in Poland under the General Government. London: Tauris. pp. 181–186. ISBN 978-1-78076-477-1 and Winson, Chu (24 July 2015). "Review of M. Winstone: The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe". H-Soz-Kult. Retrieved 2 June 2018

    So, if this statement had RELIABLE SOURCES, why did François Robere just REMOVE it, without initiating a discussion on the talk page first, and without gaining a consensus. The comment by Ealdgyth, is a red herring, because it distracts from the fact that user François Robere just BLANKS-OUT text without initiating a DISCUSSION and gaining CONSENSUS as the article discretionary sanctions now require. --E-960 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Note to Slatersteven, there is only ONE editor who BLANKS-OUT text and it is François Robere, the discretionary sanctions are clear you DO NOT remove text unless you initiate a discussion and get CONSENSUS. So, to argue that this AE is only singling out one editor is an unfair statement, because it is François Robere, who continues to remove text without getting consensus.--E-960 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    User François Robere was notified of the AE here:

    Discussion concerning François Robere

    Statement by François Robere

    Few points:

    1. Several days ago User:E-960 reverted a series of edits of mine en masse . The edit summary made a false claim about removed material, which leads me to believe that, once more, the user reverted someone's changes without actually reading them.
    2. I started a discussion about the reversal . The user made no policy-backed claims, and at some point stopped replying. Now, eleven days later, they file this AE request.
    3. Change #1 was never out of consensus. It looks like someone's linguistic mistake, and a petty, petty thing to bring here.
    4. Change #3 isn't something I changed before, as I just today finished reading the relevant material. Again a false claim, which suggests the user is more preoccupied with making a claim than with its accuracy - WP:BATTLEGROUND.
    5. Change #2 isn't a new edit, it's a reversal to an old revision that was not challenged, as much as "cheated away" by a third user (This goes all the way back to March, where the same user changed quotes of sources to suit their POV . Note the edit summaries).
    6. I'm not sure what the user is citing under "relevant sanctions". It's not "sanctions", and it's all from before the page policy was changed.
    7. We're left with one edit that supposedly violates the policy. If it does - my apology. I would RFC more of these changes, but there are already 2 RFCs open on the page.
    8. An important question on the application of this policy is whether an editor is allowed to refuse consensus by performing a mass reversal, or whether they must reverse specific revisions? If an editor reverses multiple changes in one go, then there's no way to tell which change/s they object and which just got "caught up" with the others; the policy seems to require the reversals to be self-explanatory.

    @GizzyCatBella: First of all, drop the lingo. This isn't a trial. Second, since May 13th the page went through 150~ revisions. Am I supposed to keep up with a minor linguistic change? François Robere (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    Apparently Bella thinks restoring an RS to an article and correcting a source quote she changed is a "massive assault" mandating a retaliation . WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? François Robere (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Ealdgyth, @Beyond My Ken: I would very much appreciate more administerial involvement on that topic, and I said and asked as much in several ANI/AE cases. That topic is toxic, and Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to have a solution. And no - a global block that will indiscriminately punish editors, and leave dozens of articles damaged, is not the way to do it. We have over 500 active admins - surely there's one who's willing to take that up? François Robere (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    On sourcing (I'm not collecting {{diff}}s, so these should suffice):

    • The Winstone book User:E-960 is referring to above seems to have been included based on a reading of a review . The reasons I removed are explained in this thread, where the user twice accuses me of "forum shopping" because I opened the thread.
    • Point #5 above refers to a blatant distortion of a source, performed by User:GizzyCatBella several times .
    • Here's a list of sources brought to one discussion, where I marked the sentences that were quoted by the editor along with their surrounding text, to demonstrate "cherry-picking" (in some cases in blatant contradiction to what the source actually says). It's followed by some short notes on misattribution and unreliability of sources follow.
    • Here's a discussion on whether Facebook posts by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland are RS on WWII history.
    • Here's a discussion on a source that's so bad, it has only two reviews on Google Books: from the subject's children, urging readers not to believe it.

    Just a few recent examples (plus one not so recent, but major). How many hours have we spent on these discussions? François Robere (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by GizzyCatBella

    I would like to clarify - “3 Change #1" FR is using as an excuse. In that past I did dispute the word “fighters" replacing it with word "soldiers" that had been reverted today by FR. here It is not a “linguistic mistake,” but a fundamental change and accused is well aware of that. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    In response to Icewhiz comment below --->

    This:

    • “Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don’t make the edit."

    Does NOT say:

    • “Consensus required: all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits made after May 26 that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don’t make the edit."

    So no, your line of defending FR is wrong.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    @François Robere We have to stick to the new rule, so what makes you unique? And also, it just "happened" that you used the exact word "fighters" again? Having the alternatives such as combatants for example or partisans or even belligerents/warriors? No, it seems to me that you knew precisely what you are doing.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    @NeilN:,@Ealdgyth,@Sandstein: please take your time to read this, it may help you correctly assess the situation and help to understand what VM meant by saying "blatant misrepresentation and manipulation". I'll stick to very latest interactions with Icewhiz but comparable circumstances go back 2-3 months.

    A quick background first: In occupied Poland, the Nazis imposed a death penalty for every Pole helping Jews, including the family of the helper. This information is universally acknowledged by anyone familiar with Polish WW2 history and easily referenced. Data about the death penalty imposed on Poles in the article about Nobel peace prize nominee Irena Sendler was there for years and read like this:

    • "This work was done at huge risk (helping Jews), —since October 1941—giving any kind of assistance to Jews in German-occupied Poland was punishable by death, not just for the person who was providing the help but also for their entire family or household"

    On June 3rd, I noticed a tag requesting reference for that statement so I went ahead and inserted the citations trying to match the exact wording. ,, (I have read one of these books) So what happened next? Icewhiz removed not only the sources I supplied but also the entire information with edit this summary:

    • "POV pushing. SYNTH - coverage not on Sendler. First source is cited twice (duplicate) and doesn't mention Sendler in this context. The second source is about the death penalty for printing newspapers, not helping Jews."

    Icewhiz then commented on talk page :

    • "Misuse of sources - In what appears as a POVish hagiography, the following was entered into the article, the google-books search term rather betraying the intent. The first source, cited twice for some reason, is not about Sendler - so it is WP:SYNTH. The second source mentions the death penalty for printing newspapers, not for helping Jews, and is thus not connected to the sentence at all."

    Well, so I restored the information and attached 5 further references ,,,, plus an image of an actual German poster from 1941 announcing such policy. All in English, all published books by historians, clearly backing the information.

    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Icewhiz

    As presented, not a violation, as the prior diffs presented (some over a month ago) were prior to the "consensus required" provision being added. FR's edits were not challenged by reversion since the consensus required provision was enacted on 26 May following an edit warring report filed against E-960.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    Further note, following being challenged by reversion, FR took it to talk.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    I will also note, that E-960 has -
    1. Supported content (Revision as of 15:18, 25 May 2018) about Jewish actions against Poles sourced to a blog by Jan Bodakowski - a fellow who has "interesting" views on feminism and who has received some coverage in research literature in regards to a blog post on "Jewish Nazism" Uprzedzenia w Polsce (Prejudice in Poland).
    2. Revision as of 09:48, 2 June 2018 - suggests inserting content based on a WP:QS WP:SPS (described as propagating a myth and anti-Jewish tract in RSes who mentioned this briefly) - of an example of " Jewish agent provocateurs, and simple snitches" - based on the words of a Polish policeman, who collaborated with the Nazis, who was convicted for murder - and who attempted to justify his act murder with this claim regarding the victim prior to being convicted.
    Repeatedly suggesting/promoting such sources raises serious NPOV/CIR questions.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    In regards to GCB stmt above - if FR broke the consensus required provision on material that was apparently disputed between the two of them over a month ago (prior to this provision being enacted) - then E-960 broke the consensus required provision when he reverted FR today - Revision as of 16:12, 2 June 2018 and Latest revision as of 16:16, 2 June 2018 - as the content was challenged by reversion by FR.Icewhiz (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    Some examples of the use of WP:SPS / blogs / questionable sources by GizzyCatBella:
    1. - opinion piece or blog on defunct web site (but is available on personal website of author) - connecting a BLP to Russian agents, and communist secret police collaborators. No engagement on Talk:Peter Vogel (banker).Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    2. - letter published on Glaukopis website after History refused to publish it. Challenged as BLPSOURCES, and reverted. See subsequent BLP/n discussion.
    3. - Use of self-published documents by Mark Paul. See RSN on Kurek and Paul, and subsequent RfC opened on this matter.
    4. - iUniverse book by Ewa Kurek. See RSN on Kurek and Paul. The statement (Poland being the only country with...), incidentally, is false and has been demonstrated (refutation by examples from other sources) as such in discussions with GCB going back to April at least - discussion in Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland, in the RSN discussion linked, in Talk:The_Holocaust_in_Poland, following attempts to insert this on Revision as of 05:57, 11 May 2018, Revision as of 16:15, 11 May 2018 - the same content (more or less), the same false claim - was inserted into three different articles (The Holocaust in Poland, Collaboration in German-occupied Poland‎, and Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust). over a space of a month - each time necessitating a new discussion on why the sources weren't appropriate (self published, or other reasons) and a refutation of the content itself.
    5. - restoring references to personal website of Anna Poray. See BLP/n discussion (for Zegota), and Fringe noticeboard discussion for the article on Poray herself that was up for AfD.
    6. revdelled 22 May 08:10 (so no link) - restored copy-pasted content from Mark Paul's WP:SPS.
    7. - use of "Haf Books" - a young company founded in 2017 that doesn't seem to have done much else. The book itself is very heavy on graphics and illustrations.
    Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Beyond My Ken

    Is anyone keeping count of the AE actions brought related to Germany and Poland in WWII, generally with the same cast of characters? And this is despite the fact that there are already discretionary sanctions in place which cover this subject area (i.e. ARBEE). Is it possible that the number of AE complaints would be lessened if administrators started to take advantage of the additional powers they have under discretionary sanctions to help quell disruption? I am in general a supporter of the work done by our admins, but I think that they need to step up their games in this area, and do so quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Ealdgyth

    Unfortunately, I'm too involved in the area to take admin action (even though my editing has been very minor), but I'd like to note that there is a lot of usage of self-published and non-mainstream sources that definitely needs looking into. There is also quite a lot of personalizing of disputes and casting aspersions against other editors. While it probably isn't yet to the point of "ban them all" ... it's rapidly approaching that point. Certainly, there is little incentive for non-involved editors or admins to wade into this to give opinions, because the tone of editing by those most heavily involved is so poor. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    E-960 - my statement was in general across the entire editing area, in response to Beyond My Ken's statement above. And, as an aside, I'm a she. I'll just note that this sort of instant-accusation/jump on the other editor is an excellent illustration of why third party uninvolved editors and admins are likely avoiding the area of German, Polish, and Jewish interactions in World War II. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    @NeilN: - I'd prefer not to say "sides", but rather there are some users definitely using too many SPSs and they do tend to edit from one viewpoint at times. But, not all of the editors from that viewpoint necessarily are trying to use SPSs, but all sides tend to be doing entirely too much "editing by google search", if you know what I mean. There's also a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH happening, where one incident in history is being used to generalize about an entire aspect of history, without actually having sources that make that generalization. There's a lot of hyperbole, a lot of aspersions, and, yes, it's toxic. The whole topic is complex and subject to a lot of real world angst, so it behooves us to be especially careful and discuss from the best sources, rather than internet web sites, self-published sources, and sources that are generally not in the mainstream of academic thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    I'll point out I don't read Polish so I've stayed out of evaluating Polish language web sources - no matter who has brought them to the table. Yeah, I can use Google Translate, but too much nuance is lost so I've stayed away from those sources ... which all editors seem to use a bit too much instead of academic sources. We really should be avoiding news reports in any language as a source in this area - there is so much academic writing on the topic that it's hard enough to master that. And I'll reiterate - the ideal method of editing should be to ... read the foundational academic sources. Even a Google Scholar search is no substitute for reading entire sources, so that the background isn't lost. I'm afraid that too many folks editing in this area do not appear to be even trying to do that background reading. (And I'll freely admit I'm still working on it... just got in several more books on the subject area ... am trying to get through them in my copious free time.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by slatersteven

    As an involved ed I agree with the above. It is becoming very toxic over there. It is not just one ed or one side, and I feel at this state that any action that singles out one ed it what is a content dispute will be unfair. I think therefore (I cannot remember where it was said to be take last time AE I thunk) this needs to be looked as a general issue now. It is getting to the stage where it is hard to tell what is being argued over, and DS have not really solved the problem.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Volunteer Marek

    I'm somewhat involved though I've tried to limit my participation to situations where I see only the most blatant abuses of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP, and other Misplaced Pages policies. Unfortunately there's been quiet a lot of those and yes, most of these have come from the Francois Robere/Icewhiz team, though since they are much better at the "civil" part of WP:CPUSH and more familiar with Misplaced Pages lingo and procedures than those on the other side, they're much better at getting away with it.

    I've also tried to stay away from the drama board drama, but I wanted to comment here to respond to User:NeilN's question below: "With respect to article content, is it your opinion that both sides are using questionable sourcing or is it mainly limited to one side?"

    So here is my opinion. First, quickly, on one side, the "pro-Polish" side (like GizzyCatBella and E-960), yeah there's some use of borderline sources. In particular, when it comes to the issue specific to the use of this Mark Paul guy I haven't said anything (don't know him) and regarding Ewa Kurek I believe I've expressed the opinion that she should not be used as a source given some of her statements in the media (although I can see how someone can hold a different opinion since she does have academic credentials). I generally agree with User:Ealdgyth that these are sources better to be avoided. However, disagreement over this issue is not something that someone should get sanction over.

    However, on the other, "anti-Polish" side represented by Icewhiz and Francois Robere, the matter is more serious. To answer NeilN's question specifically: the issue is not so much the use of questionable sources, as it is blatant misrepresentation and manipulation of sourced material. The source may be reliable. But Icewhiz in particular (I'll try to find an example for FR as well shortly), just keeps claiming that they say what they don't say.

    Here's one example, which is also a straight up and quite serious BLP violation (ironic seeing as how Icewhiz keeps running to WP:BLP to forum shop non-BLP issues constantly). This is on an article related to the general subject of discourse, the BLP of Marek Jan Chodakiewicz:

    In this edit of March 21, 2018, Icewhiz added the text:

    In 2018, Chodakiewicz warned that the 50 year anniversary of March 1968 events would be used by American Jews to "launch another anti-Polish campaign of hatred". (my emphasis)

    He provided four sources: , , and . (The order he provided them in was different but I want to single out the last one)

    Two of these sources are right to far-right publications (fronda.pl and prawy.pl). I don't know what the other two are. This is strange, since Icewhiz keeps insisting that he only wants to remove "fringe" and "far right" and "nationalist" sources. Yet here he is ADDING exactly these kinds of sources. To a BLP. Why? Because he wants to make the BLP subject look bad, so he's got no qualms about using obviously non-RS, ideologically suspect sources that he claims to abhor.

    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by K.e.coffman

    I've been involved in these disputes, specifically around the use of works by Mark Paul, whose academic credentials are unknown. He seems to be exclusively published by "KPK - Toronto", which is the Polish Educational Foundation in Canada, an advocacy group. There was an RSN discussion about Paul (RSN:Paul & Kurek), but certain editors, such as GizzyCatBella and Tatzref were not convinced. To the point that

    • I inquired with Tatzref about his affiliation with KPK, to which he did not respond: KPK Toronto.
    • I asked GCB to elaborate on the credentials and views of Mark Paul. The response to the first question was not convincing ("Some think he is a monk") & there was no answer to the second question.

    My conclusion is that Paul's views are borderline fringe, yet his works are aggressively promoted throughout Misplaced Pages. I support the suggestion by NeilN here. For example, some of the disputes have been around Zegota, the Polish underground organisation to aid Jews. There's an English-language source available, by Gunnar S. Paulsson, Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945, which mentions Zegota 30+ times. And that's just from a cursory search.

    In addition, the works of many Polish scholars have been translated into English by this point, such as The Warsaw Ghetto: A Guide to the Perished City, Yale University Press, 2009 by Barbara Engelking and Jacek Leociak (800 pages). The bottom line is that many high-quality sources on these topics are available. Why not use them, instead of arguing about questionable, self-published and / or fringe sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Tatzref

    Since Tatzref's name has been invoked, one must look carefully at and assess the activities of the invokers. There appears to be concerted, in tandem, ideologically driven enforcement activity going on involving the issue of Polish-Jewish relations. For example, the “Bielski partisans” article, where Icewhiz, K.e.coffman and Pinkbeast keep removing an acclaimed book by Bogdan Musial, a professional historian with academic credentials, yet retain books by journalists (Duffy) and freelance historians (Levine). Why? According to Icewhiz Musial's book is a “fringe work”. According to Pinkbeast, "it's part of the same POV-pushing exercise”. The impugned book is Sowjetische Partisanen 1941–1941: Mythos und Wirklichkeit published by Ferdinand Schöningh (2009), a highly regarded German publishing house. According to Yehuda Bauer, Musial's book is “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia. (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). Dutch historian Karel Berkhoff stated that the book will likely remain a comprehensive description of partisan warfare in Belarus due to its large source base. This is “fringe”? Similar deletions of references to information found in Marek Chodakiewicz's The Massacre in Jedwabne, of primary sources, and of an authorized statement by prosecutor Radoslaw Ignatiew occurred in the Jedwabne pogrom article. Chodakiewicz's book is one of a very few (of very many publications on the topic) that was mentioned by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his 2010 book Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press). In the article Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944-1946, text referring to the findings of a pioneering recent study property reclaiming under the 1945 law on abandoned property, Klucze i Kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950, published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and edited by Jan Grabowski and Dariusz Libionka, was also removed. Do such comments and activities have any validity or credibility? Are they supposed to dictate the content of Misplaced Pages? What is the affiliation of these users? How are they connected? They appear to be pushing the same agenda. As Misplaced Pages points out: "Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own."Tatzref (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Result concerning François Robere

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Just noting that I am not reading the "Additional comments" by the filer because the combination of an aggressive tone with ALL-CAPS SCREAMING and a wall of text gives me a headache. The request is borderline disruptive. Sandstein 18:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Taking into considerations recent submissions I am of the view that the whole complex of issues involving POV and sourcing in Poland-related articles is too complicated to address at the editor level here. This seems to be a mixture of good-faith content disputes and possible conduct problems on the part of several editors. I'd support a page-level restriction as outlined by NeilN below. Sandstein 07:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Before I read Ealdgyth's latest post on the subject I was mulling over adding restrictions analagous to WP:MEDRS. That is, requiring the use of higher quality sources. This and related articles document decades-old past history. There's no reason why editors need to go to glorified blog posts or questionable partisan publications. I'm aware of François Robere's sometimes problematic editing in this area but as seen from past AE reports, they're not alone. So, two proposed restrictions:
    • Only the highest quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers.
    Independent of this:
    • Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans.
    --NeilN 18:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree and would consider limiting this to English-language academic sources. A recurring problem in this topic area seems to be a reliance on fringe sources. Sandstein 18:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC) – To be clear, I don't think that Polish-language sources are inherently unreliable, but they can't be evaluated by most admins here, including me. That impedes arbitration enforcement insofar as source reliability is concerned. Sandstein 18:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sandstein: I am sympathetic to your sentiments and share them, along with the concern that source misrepresentations will try to be passed off as "differences in translations". However I won't personally impose a restriction that supersedes a policy, guideline, or BRD (as opposed the strengthening them) without prior evidence that it's needed and I don't think we're there yet. I think we should just reiterate WP:NOENG ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance") and stipulate that we will go to Google Translate if we really have to if source misrepresentation is alleged. --NeilN 20:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've cut down all the statements to the allowed maximum of 500 words because this is not the forum in which to address all the possible sourcing and conduct problems in this topic area. That would probably need a full ArbCom case. Limited to the specific conduct at issue, I myself would take no action but leave it to NeilN whether he considers his restriction violated and wants to take action, and whether he wants to impose an additional sourcing restriction such as the one proposed above. Sandstein 12:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Netoholic

    No action at this time. Netoholic has also been made aware of discretionary sanctions for BLP and pseudoscience. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Netoholic

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBAPDS; logged AE warning: "not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Misplaced Pages per this AE thread. Diff of notification: "
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. had a content dispute with Guy, which Netoholic discussed with Guy at his talk page, in this section. This was fine, with respect to the warning.
    2. this diff at ANI, 21:10, 25 May 2018, continuing that content dispute (whole thread, permalink as it is now).
    3. this diff at COIN, 19:37, 2 June 2018, continuing that content dispute
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Previously brought an action here, and was given a warning under the discretionary sanctions for conduct in the area of conflict, linked above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Guy's OP at ANI said:

    Netoholic has spun out a section from criticism of Misplaced Pages. He is rather determined to include an off-wiki personal attack by Brian Martin (social scientist), a promoter of conspiracy theories, the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and anti-vaccinationism, who was upset that I edited our article on him .... He asserts that "Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Misplaced Pages", but the section on Martin does not appear to be anywhere else, but instead to have been written by Netoholic himself.

    He's also pushing criticisms by the Discovery Institute and Conservapedia. There is a clear lack of consensus on Talk for including this stuff, but he seems to think it should go back in "per WP:NPOV" (). I disagree.

    I also commented on an AE case he raised against SPECIFICO, noting that the case, combined with an earlier one, might amount to vexatious abuse of process - as a result of that thread he was restricted from abuse of noticeboards. So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea.

    In my view, Netoholic's response to that at ANI (linked above) was solidly in the territory of the AE outcome linked above, and I noted that at the ANI here (initially wrongly characterizing the AE action as a TBAN, as noted by User:Bishonen, and which I corrected here to reflect the warning)

    Netoholic did not respond to that, as you can see at the ANI thread. In my view Netoholic pushed that content dispute with Guy further in the comment at COIN, which was also pointless as I pointed out here.

    I just want to repeat what Guy wrote at the end of his comment: So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea..

    And he has now doubled down on this strategy of finding ways to use noticeboards to attack Guy.

    As somebody who who works a lot on COI issues, I find their crying COI as a bludgeon to be pernicious. In any case, they have completely ignored the warning about using noticeboards to win content disputes.

    • Netoholic's response was not what I was hoping for. Instead of reflecting on the warning and stepping back at all, they have gone deeper into "combat mode." And deeper into la la land; the "entrapment" thing is just weird. I have no more to say here unless asked: Netoholic has shown you their approach to the project. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • DS alert for ps; DS alert for blp per User:TonyBallioni. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • User:Sandstein, the locus of this complaint is the page Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages, which Netoholic created in this diff on 22 May 2018. If you look at their contribs from around that time, there is a strong focus on the "liberal bias" in the American news media, academia, and with the creation of this page, WP, analyzed from the perspective of American politics.
      • liberal bias in American media
      • On May 20, Netoholic filed an EWN case about edit warring over the content created by an IP in this diff series at the page of New York Times journalist Nellie Bowles, which includes this blp-flagged diff, about a correction issued on her reporting about "far right conspiracy theories" on Facebook. (Netoholic did not participate in the edit war nor on talk). It is worth reading that whole thread to see how this was clearly a thing about "liberal bias" for Netoholic. See comments by User:DougWeller here and about the poorness of the sources for which Netoholic was arguing on behalf of the IP, and their explicit relationship to contemporary politics was commented on by User:Bishonen here.
        liberal bias in American academia
      • On May 15 Netoholic created Passing on the Right a book that said there is liberal bias in academia. Big long discussion at Talk:Passing_on_the_Right#Sentence_in_lead with User:Tryptofish about whether the lead should say that there is liberal bias in academia and the book describes it (Netoholic's stance more or less) or whether the book says there is liberal bias in academia.
      • diff on Political views of American academics
      • Their last edit, two hours before this diff creating]] Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages, were to that talk page, here.
        liberal bias on Misplaced Pages
      • so we have the creation of Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages and quite sure the key bit of that is "Misplaced Pages articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased"...."The implication, per the authors, is that "many contributions are needed to reduce considerable bias and slant to something close to neutral""
      • On that same day, they posted this comment at AE with respect to Factchecker at your service, in which they placed FCAYS in their "bucket #2 which is "2) feelings of being cornered (as when there one person is outnumbered)"
    The purpose of showing you that, is to show that there is a strong line through Netoholic's editing - even clear on a single day of editing, about "liberal bias" in the media, in academia, and here on WP. That falls squarely in the realm of American politics, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    For some background here, Martin describes calling anti-vaccination pseudoscience "pseudoscience" as "suppression of dissent" source and source) which is indeed a fringe view on medicine.
    It is utterly unsurprising that he considers the WP article about him "biased". I am quite sure that any academic reading that paper will read it with Martin's clearly disclosed conflict of interest in mind; because the source is so deeply conflicted I am rather surprised to see anybody here wanting to give it much WEIGHT.
    But it never fit in the article on ideological bias in WP and its inclusion there does seem very POINTY.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Netoholic

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Netoholic

    Per discussion with the TonyBallioni, he and others provided extensive clarification that the warning was to encourage me to "think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards". He also said in response to "Do you disagree that, as worded, even posting to a board to defend myself in a report someone else created would be a violation of the warning? -- Netoholic" that "I do disagree with that reading, and I don’t think any admin would read it that way." Also, per Legacypac - "Even a recent topic ban proposal from Admin boards allowed the exemption for replying to filings". I'd like to point out that my concerns about the wording of that warning have been prophetic as demonstrated here.

    In both cases, the ANI and the COIN, I was mentioned by name (pinged) there and, as is appropriate and acceptable, gave a minimal response directly to the point of concern. I did not ask for or imply that any specific admin action be taken against anyone.

    I believe Jytdog is WP:FORUMSHOPPING in regards to COIs - a subject area he has previously been TBAN'd from (later lifted with a stern warning). I would also offer that it seems likely that Jytdog, who has already once tried to mistake or misrepresent this warning as a TBAN, might have created that COIN post in order to entrap me and give justification for his filing of this AE. -- Netoholic @ 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    Another point I'd make is that COIN is not, strictly speaking, an "administrative board" (not an Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard subpage), which I think also illustrates a second time Jytdog's lack of competence (or intentional misstating) has been an issue in relation to the warning. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    TenOfAllTrades gave a lengthy comment based on things I didn't say - first, my simple grammatical choice not to explicitly mention AE as an admin board for brevity (which I would think be obvious and not need to be stated here on AE), and second, speculation that I am "wikilawyering". That's not the case - I have learned from this warning. Certainly, the point of all discussion boards/pages is to try to resolve inter-editor conflicts, so how does one distinguish attempts to "further inter-editor disputes" and genuine attempts to resolve them instead? I would say "furthering" is when one asks for negative consequences against the other editor (win-lose), and resolving is when one seeks a win-win outcome. In the ANI and the COIN, I participated, when directed there, to seek win-win resolution for the editors involved for the benefit of the project. -- Netoholic @ 06:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Pudeo

    The ANI thread has stood for 9 days and no admin wanted to take action, why bring the exact same issue here? The WP:BLPCOI issue here is really difficult to interpret. The source in question comes from Social Science Computer Review which is peer-reviewed journal and has an impact factor over 2, and it criticized JzG's editing mentioning his nickname. The author has had some controversial views regarding vaccines and autism, and in the paper he was unhappy how JzG covered the issue in Misplaced Pages. The actual editing of his BLP happened in 2016. I doubt ANI or AE are the best places to discuss BLPCOI, but it's fair to say the claim that "he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute" is untrue. Also admins don't have any privileges in BLP or content disputes.

    Jytdog called the source a "lunatic fringe paper" at ANI. Way to treat a BLP issue.

    However, unlike Netoholic sees, COIN is an "administrative board" for all relevant purposes. But the warning for Netoholic wasn't really well-thought. Only disputes are brought to administrative noticeboards. So, obviously when Netoholic responds to someone else's filing there someone could say he's "furthering inter-editor disputes" in pretty much all instances because the boards deal with disputes. --Pudeo (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Tryptofish

    Well, I think that there is a problem here, but I also think that there are significant ways in which this is not "ripe" for AE. (Put another way, Jytdog, in my opinion you jumped the gun a bit.) My interactions with Netoholic have been primarily at Political views of American academics and Passing on the Right, and those pages do fall within the scope of American politics. Netoholic's characterizations above, of how Jytdog has treated him and of how dispute resolution works, are clearly off-base. And I do get the clear impression that he has been cherry-picking material from sources to push a US-conservative POV: in multiple parts of society – academia, Misplaced Pages, etc. – there is a bias against conservatives. And he can get somewhat battleground-y when challenged about it. But, all of that said, I've been seeing evidence that he has been making a good faith effort to take on board the criticisms that have been made of him, and that recently he has been trying to do better. That's why I think that this AE filing is premature. For one thing, I would cut him a little slack about the times when he has not replied at noticeboards, given the warning he got. More importantly, I'm seeing some significant evidence of him making an effort to work collaboratively at fixing content that needs fixing. Please see Talk:Political views of American academics#Representative presentation of sources (permalink). It begins with my raising the concerns about cherry-picking. Then in the "Source examination" subsection, I spell out what I think the sources really say. But see how Netoholic responds to me in the source examination: exactly the way we would want an editor to do. In the next several days, I plan to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of that page. In the past, that would likely have led to edit warring. But let's wait a couple of days, and see whether that happens now. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Netoholic

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Aside. Netoholic asserts that his behavior on WP:COIN is outside the scope of the warning he received at (and for) his behavior at WP:AE (this page): diff of warning. That warning cautioned him "not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Misplaced Pages" (my emphasis added).
      His assertion is based in the presumption that "administrative boards" must be interpreted to mean "exclusively WP:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages". As WP:COIN is not a subpage of WP:AN, the warning he received must therefore not apply to any of his conduct there.
      This selective interpretation of "administrative" is clever but fails in at least two key respects. The first is that WP:AE is not a subpage of WP:AN, yet that is where the behavior leading to Netoholic's warning occurred. It is implausible and inconsistent that the closing admin, on observing misconduct at WP:AE, would both warn Netoholic to avoid the same type of misconduct and circumscribe that warning to avoid application to WP:AE: the noticeboard where the most recent misconduct had occurred. The only reasonable inference is that "administrative" includes WP:AE (and other process pages dealing with user conduct), and is not intended to narrowly specify WP:AN and its subpages.
      The second is that using Misplaced Pages's administrative processes – on any page or noticeboard – to further inter-editor disputes is generally a bad idea. Avoiding such conduct shouldn't require explicit, page-specific warnings anyway; an experienced editor who has received such a warning should know to tread carefully—especially if that warning is less than two weeks old.
      TLDR: Wikilawyering about the scope of the warning is an irrelevant red herring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This looks a bit convoluted, but since TonyBallioni issued the warning, I'd defer to their decision about what to do here. Sandstein 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Having briefly looked at the diffs, I don't think this is enforceable as an AE action as they were not related to AP2, which is the only area Netoholic is formally aware of (they are covered by BLP and likely pseudoscience, but they haven't received alerts for that, Jytdog, given their apparent editing in both of these areas, you may want to make them aware).In terms of the substance of the warning: it was primarily intended towards filings, but as I told them it could be factored into sanctions if they were acting in another disruptive way at a noticeboard (a part of my quote they left out). On that point, I can only say I'm underwhelmed by the wikilawyering here (yes, COIN is obviously an administrative board), and accusing Jytdog of entrapment without any evidence or diffs seems like aspersions to me. It's been established by this point that admins can issue regular admin actions based off of complaints at AE if there is grounds for it, but they don't fall within AE's scope. Because of that, I'd like to here more opinions from other administrators and editors on this matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm closing this now per Tryptofish. The diffs in question are in DS areas they weren't aware of, so weren't actionable as AE in my view, and Tryptofish gives a strong enough analysis that I'm find not taking any admin action at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Talatastan

    Talatastan blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Talatastan

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Talatastan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 03:09, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics
    2. 13:00, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics
    3. 15:40, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    For the record, I warned the user he is not allowed to edit in ARBPIA per 30/500, but he ignored me and continued with his behaviour.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Talatastan

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Talatastan

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Talatastan

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

    יניב_הורון

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning יניב_הורון

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    יניב_הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 20:47, 2 June 2018 Partial revert of this, specifcally the removal of (including food and medicine)
    2. 18:04, 3 June 2018 revert of this
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Blocked for 72 hours for violating discretionary sanctions in the topic
    2. Blocked for 48 hours for violating 500/30 rule in topic area
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, still on this page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Talatastan
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Straightforward 1RR violation. Note the user has still not commented on the talk page for the revert on the food and medicine (see here)

    @Sandstein:, the user still has not commented on the talk page about his or her repeated reversions, and says on his or her user talk so what about that. Almost every edit made by this user is a revert and there is nearly no talk page justification for any of them. I think a reminder that they need to justify their reverts would be useful. nableezy - 18:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notified

    Discussion concerning יניב_הורון

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by יניב_הורון

    Sorry, I'm not aware of "partial reverts". Obviously it wasn't my intention to revert this. I simply removed this small information which seemed superflous and POV. Everybody can see it was an honest mistake (this, on the other hand, was an intentional and full revert). In any case, with a simple message in my talk page explaining the problem and asking me to revert myself would have been enough. It's not necessary to make a report at AE because of something that can be easily solved with dialogue.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Huldra: Yeah, I also knew this was going to happen again. That's because people like you keep making lousy reports to get rid of a competitor. Unfortunately such behaviour is very common in ARBPIA. BTW, everybody can see the so-called "partial revert" was not intentional or motivated by bad faith. It's pure nonsense, just like your last report against me (when I didn't break any wiki rule or policy, remember?). As a matter of fact, I'm not the user edit-warring in this article, and definitely I'm not the only one challenging your extremely POV content. But for some people is easier to make reports than debate. I can't understand how it's possible to make unjustified reports at AE without consequences for the accuser.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    @NeilN: I'm not making mistakes on a regular basis. Please, look at my contributions and see if "I'm not here to contribute" like they say (which is nothing more than a subjective opinion to begin with).--יניב הורון (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Nishidani: Pay attention to your own edits before judging others. As I explained you here, you broke third ARBPIA bullet. As you can see, everybody makes mistakes. Make sure you don't do it again.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Nishidani

    Hasn't this user been reported for vagrant editing before? As far as I encounter him he appears to read down a number of editor's contribs and then revert many at sight without an intelligent edit summary, or indeed one that shows he hasn't even read the source. Just today see this. He's not here to build anything or collaborate constructively, and pleading for 'honest mistakes' when you turn a deaf ear to requests for an explanation is a contradiction in behavioural terms. Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by TheGracefulSlick

    Sandstein a quick glance at this editor's talk page shows they have been making these "honest mistakes" since March. What makes you so sure they will suddenly self-remedy their behavior?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Huldra

    I reported him about 6 weeks ago: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#יניב_הורון...User:Huon prediction that we would end up here or at AN/I again soon turned out to be 100% correct, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Davidbena

    From what I see by the current diffs, the issues at hand merely involve "content dispute" and should be resolved on the relevant Talk-Pages. Moreover, Yaniv Huron should also take greater responsibility when reverting, to make sure that he does not infringe upon the 1RR rule in Palestinian-Israeli articles. No need for punitive measures.Davidbena (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by OtterAM

    It appears that the usual gang of partisan editors is combing through יניב הורון's edits to try to find anything they can to get him kicked out. If you look at Nableezy's block log, you can see what I mean about the long-term partisan edit warring over the same issues stretching back to 2010.

    Obviously different editors come to Misplaced Pages with different points of view. However, it would be more productive for different editors to work together to build an encyclopedia, rather than expending their energies trying to get each other thrown out.

    From יניב הורון's explanation above, it's pretty clear cut that this was simply a mistake. Given the large number of edits that יניב הורון has made recently, the majority of which are quite good, it would be hard to avoid occasionally make mistakes like this. OtterAM (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Debresser

    Partial reverts are sometimes controversial. An edit can be made as a simple improvement to the text, and turn out to be a partial revert. Especially in view of the fact that the usual camp of editors is reporting this, I'd keep it to a warning to be more careful in the future. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    Result concerning יניב_הורון

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

    Debresser

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

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Debresser

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    Source distortion
    1. 15:28, 4 June 2018 Wholesale distortion of a source cited to insert something made up into the article, see below for explanation
    1RR violation
    1. 21:05, 3 June 2018 Straight revert of this is the 1st revert at East Talpiot
    2. 16:22, 4 June 2018 Straight revert of this, along with this contiguous partial revert of this is the 2nd revert at East Talpiot
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Banned from B'tselem for two weeks 13 January 2018
    2. Blocked for two weeks 15:51, 25 January 2018
    3. Topic banned for two months 17 July 2017
    4. Blocked for 72 hours 2 August 2017
    5. Topic banned for three months 05:28, 27 July 2016, adjusted on 28 August 2016 to a 0RR restriction for the remaining period of the initial ban
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, listed above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The first edit noted, that at Beitar Illit regards Debresser inserting into an encyclopedia article material that is completely invented. The source cited discusses a legal battle about whether or not land used to expand a different outpost was legally registered as the private property of a Palestinian farmer. It says nothing, I repeat nothing, about whether or not the land used 30 years prior at the founding of the settlement Beitar Illit was appropriated from two Palestinian villages, which again has nothing to do with whether or not the land was privately owned. Debresser has invented a dispute about one topic using a source about a completely different topic.

    The second set is a straightforward 1RR violation.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notified

    Discussion concerning Debresser

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Debresser

    Don't know how I missed this. I checked like 10 edits back to make sure that I was not violating any rule, but my previous revert was edit number 11. :( Self-reverted now that I saw the diffs. If Nableezy would have provided them on my talkpage, as I asked him to, this could have been avoided. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Debresser

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

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Darkfrog24

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Initially topic banned from quotation marks, later all style issues.
    WP:AE/Archive188#Dicklyon_and_Darkfrog24, logged at
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2
    But the best summary of this multi-chapter story is probably this comment
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Thryduulf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    There is currently no enforcing admin; the initial enforcing admin quit and no successor was appointed. I have notified the initial enforcing admin nonetheless. If his wishes are still to be left alone, please respect that.

    Statement by Darkfrog24

    I want to rejoin my colleagues at WT:MOS and resume work on writing-related articles. I've also got some essays that have been on hold because they cite examples from articles that deal with style issues. Over the past several months, I've updated the Euryarchaota subcategory, earned a barnstar, done some work at 3O and WP:RSN, and helped compose articles that made In the News and Did You Know, in addition to Wikinews. I am currently in the weird position of being allowed to make corrections to any article's grammar and punctuation but not to explain those corrections if asked.

    I also want you to acknowledge that this punishment was never necessary. I didn't do any of the things I was accused of. I'll address any specific one, but the original complaint violated the length limit by over 9500 words after a previous attempt got the accuser boomeranged, so it'll have to be point-on-request or we'll be here all month. I wasn't ready for a case that size, and I can believe your colleagues weren't either—one of the admins later said something to the effect that he didn't even read the complaint—but I want my name cleared. For now, just the big ones: When I asked the then-enforcing admin why I was t-banned, he said, "Because you falsified an ENGVAR claim—you lied when you said British and American punctuation styles are different, just to make trouble" exact words here. No I didn't: Among the many sources that address this, here is an easy-to-read chart and formal style book. Whether you think I'm right or wrong, I am absolutely not fabricating anything. There are times when you can get punished on Misplaced Pages for saying water is wet, but "Water isn't wet; you made that up!" does not benefit the project. But what if the admin didn't really mean it like that? My best other guess as to why I am being punished is what SlimV said, that the volume of my and the accuser's and a third party's conversations was the actual problem.

    • This was the first I'd heard that anything like that could even affect third parties, let alone bother them.
    • My relationship with the accuser has changed. Back then, I thought we were two people enjoying a spirited discussion about something we both liked. I no longer think so. Our interactions since then have been few. He has been ordered to leave me the hell alone, and, mostly, he has.
    • Five years ago, I adopted a personal policy of not initiating a discussion about lifting Misplaced Pages's ban of American punctuation unless I had a previously undiscussed source or other evidence to present. Repeat: I have not initiated such a discussion since 2013. The fact that other Wikieditors who don't know me or each other keep doing so is not misconduct on anyone's part. I've been staying away from WP:MoS entirely, so for all I know, WP:LQ has already been replaced.

    If the enforcing admin was being serious/literal, then lift the topic ban and expunge my record because I can prove I didn't do it. If he wasn't, lift it for the reasons provided. If you feel the need for some kind of transitional period, then lift it for article space for now (allow me to return to articles about writing) with an automatic total lift (allow me to return to Wikiproject MoS) in two months. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    You want to know how I've changed? SMcCandlish is trying to bait me into writing a long, boring post, refuting every fib he's telling one by one so that everyone's eyes glaze over. I'm not going to fall for it this time. If any admin asks me to, I will refute SMC's post in whole or in part. Just allot me the necessary time. He's betting that you'll skim his post without looking into what actually happened.
    I am not the first person he sicced with a false misconduct complaint after disagreeing with him at WT:MoS. The fact that I defended that other guy may be one reason why he targeted me in 2015. When he can't convince someone that he's right, he abuses the disciplinary system.
    Dicklyon, Tony1 and SMcCandlish are three MoS regulars who are in favor of keeping the British-only rule. They are not unbiased or representative of the crowd at WP:MoS. I've done some okay work with all of them over the years. I request permission to neutrally publicize this appeal, call in character witnesses, or both so that you get more than just their side of the story. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    @Slatersteven:, if that's really the problem, it has such a simple solution: Just tell me. I have had to dig through reams of disinformation to figure out why those admins made the decision they did. If the real problem is that none of my guesses are right, if you know something I don't, then do Misplaced Pages a service and state it plainly here and now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Thryduulf

    @Sandstein: as noted in the appeal, I resigned from taking an active role regarding this sanction months ago. I did this because I did not have time to deal with the endless relitigation framed as clarification requests. Post my topic ban, she was blocked until she acknowledged she understood the reason she was topic banned and agreed to stop disruptively relitigating it. Appeals were declined by arbcom twice based on no evidence of understanding why the topic ban was placed, no acknowledgement that her actions were disruptive (none of the edit warring, the battlegrounding, or the relitigation), and a desire to carry on where she left off. This appeal is just more of the same. Either this is deliberate WP:IDHT or it is a severe case of WP:CIR.

    At minium this appeal needs to be declined with prejudice, but I'd be very tempted to reblock indefintely under the same conditions as last time with no appeals permitted for 12 months. If an appeal is just more of the same, then the interval until the next would be doubled.

    Darkfrog exhausted my patience long ago and so I do not intend to contribute further to this request. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by User:Dicklyon

    DF24's troubles escalated to an indef ban because of inability to hear or admit what she was doing wrong. That obviously persists in this appeal. WP:OFFER suggests that she should "Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." By denying that such behavior ever existed, she is going the opposite direction. Dicklyon (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Also note that where she links "exact words here", no such words are to be found. WTF? Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Laser brain

    Please lift these sanctions and let this editor get to whatever they want to be working on. If they go right back to litigating LQ and other disputes at WT:MOS, their behavior can be re-examined. I feel that they got caught in a quagmire of bureaucracy and a no-win situation. There's no need to continue punishing them. --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Tony1

    I think a lot of the "colleagues" Darkfrog refers to were put off by her relentless and disruptive campaigns at style-guide talkpages, pursued with a battleground mentality. At least to me, she appeared to be determined to drive a wedge between what she sees as US style and other styles. This was very destabilising, coming after the site had spent many years developing a trans-Atlantic style guide—a tricky task requiring international collaboration and a willingness to engage in practical compromise. If MOS has had successes, this must surely be one of them. The German Misplaced Pages has an annual brawl over German vs Austrian varieties, I'm told, but rather less destructively; our MOS ended up being locked several times due to squabbles in which I believe Darkfrog was a protagonist. Tony (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by SMcCandlish

    More relitigation and "trying to get justice", and dwelling on me in particular. No acceptance or recognition of why the bans and blocks were imposed. Same as in the previous rejected ARCA requests, and in the four nearly back-to-back AE reports, and all the argumentation with admins over the terms and reasons for the sanctions. It's Just an unbroken cycle of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Literally nothing has changed in DF24's understanding or approach, despite a thick stack of stern warnings.

    • 2017-12 Same projective accusations, while trying to appeal her indef (this was actually a TBAN violation). Same reason for this block and almost another.
    • 2018-01 Claims MoS is (not was) " normal editing"; eager to get back into it. Feigns (really has?) confusion that she is allowed to muck with quotation marks, just not allowed to cite offsite sources for her changes. This bears no resemblance to any remedies in any of these actions (or common sense). Talking about MoS was another TBAN breach.

    We're now deep into WP:CIR territory. It's a "long game" to return to her PoV stuff, as admins have suggested (e.g. ). Or it's a constitutional inability to accept things she doesn't agree with or like. Or DF24's ability to understand plain English is too poor to be constructive in MoS and punctuation matters. Any would be a CIR issue in and of itself, though that last one topically localized.

    DF24 keeps claiming I've been administratively warned to leave her alone, and implying I'm harassing/stalking her. Total fiction.

    • What actually happened: an admin suggested that others should stop talking about MoS/quotes stuff on her page ; so we did.
    • We two had a couple of brief unrelated interactions after that, which stopped quickly due to her negative reactions.
    • I let her know I'd blanked my evidence stack since it seemed to be a source of stress to her (see edit summary for prophetic words). Her angry response.
    • I offered a retraction of and apology for something (which she'd demanded repeatedly – as well as in AE and ARCA). DF24 reacted negatively, with the "admins told you ..." fiction again . I emailed ArbCom about my peace-offering (not her response).
    • No interactions since then (2017-09) until this AE.

    WP:DR won't work if one party will brook no resolution. "Stay off my talk page" cannot be used to thwart DR attempts. I and some admins suggested a oneway IBAN before. This stuff is just really inappropriate, the more so the longer it goes on. If DF24 can continue to publicly focus on me, it'll be impossible for her to get out from under her self-made cloud. Editing under my real name, I'm starting to have concerns this might escalate offline, too, but that won't be a WP/ArbCom problem.

    The request should be denied. Timespan until next appeal should be lengthened (2 years?), for everyone's sake. Forbid relitigation. And add a long-overdue, oneway IBAN. Whatever DF24 says next time, I don't see a return to style-related editing ever being viable for this editor, because of the activistic, deep-convictions nature of the behavioral problem. It's a stick the editor doesn't appear able to drop. happened back in 2016.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    PS: Word-limit extension requested. Since DF24 has (again) tried to put me on trial in her staid, I've had to both respond to her request, and defend myself. I got this to under 700 580 words.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    In response to Laser_brain: Did you actually read all the "I just still don't understand" stuff she's been doing with every admin who'll listen for 2+ years now? The remedies in this case are entirely preventative, not punitive. This is someone who really badly wants to get back to what got them into the hot water to begin with (even aside from the years of increasingly creepy projection about being harassed, which is a different issue). I can't think of a request like this which has been answered in the affirmative without a really detailed justification (about the specific good it will do for the project), a showing of understanding of the problem and how it will be avoided in the future, a plan to ensure that it won't, and clear evidence that the person is long "over" the matter, doing great work, and highly unlikely to be problematic in this regard again. Here, we have the exact opposite of all of these things. And this hijacking of the appeal to again make her WP:SYNTH arguments about "American" this and that – the entire reason she's in the boiling kettle – is not just self-defeating of the request, it's actually another TBAN violation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, something I missed: The "smoking gun" boomerang DF24 links to (because if I ever did anything wrong, everything I say must be ignored) – WP:AN lifted it (retroactively to when it was imposed) as an invalid admin action . And we all already know that, because she brings it up again and again and I point this out again and again. So, more WP:IDHT and WP:GAMING and WP:WINNING. When have we have enough of this?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    Darkfrog24 has added: "SMcCandlish is trying to bait me into writing a long, boring post, refuting every fib he's telling one by one so that everyone's eyes glaze over." More strange, ad hominem handwaving; that's a literally impossible interpretation, since it cannot be the case that I want DF24 to relitigate in detail when my entire point (for a long time) is that she won't stop relitigating. More importantly, it's been the point of everything every arb and admin has been telling DF24 since 2016. I'm just going to ignore all the aspersions and accusations and conspiracy theories in her posts about me, above; I don't get particularly undies-bunched when clearly angry people say something that sounds angry. However, it does all clearly demonstrate the untoward dwelling on a personal vendetta half of the problem, and similar material has been why several of the administrative actions were taken against DF24 in this sorry saga. I've seen plenty of AE commenters get sanctioned on the spot for less hostile but equally unproven allegations as hers. This is a behavior case, not a MoS-as-topic content case; this could as easily have been about Game of Thrones or any other topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkfrog24

    • I cannot help but note that the user still does not get what they did wrong, and seems to even by telling porkies about what happened (well at least what it was they were blocked for). I am not seeing any reason to grant this appeal, as the user looks as if they will go right back to the editing style that got them the block in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with Slatersteven. Darkfrog24's appeal is a call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's no longer necessary. The evidence appears to show that it was necessary at the time it was imposed, and the statement of appeal itself indicates that there's been no change of view by Darkfrog24, meaning that the sanction remains necessary. I suggest that this appeal should be denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by Darkfrog24

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • This appeal appears to be precisely the behaviour that the Tban is designed to prevent. Instead of a clear explanation of how the sanctioned behaviour will be avoided we have relitigation of the rights and wherefores of the ban. I also am unimpressed by the use of the appeal as a platform to attack DF's opponents in this area and on its own this should be enough to doom the appeal. While reasonable latitude has to be given around a Tban to allow someone to appeal it properly this seems so far beyond that line that I wonder whether a further sanction or block should follow. Spartaz 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I haven't read the appeal in detail yet and would first like to hear from the sanctioning admin, Thryduulf. Sandstein 07:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)