A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section: Request a new arbitration case Request clarification or amendment of an existing case This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case Arbitrator motions Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Shrike at 08:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

According to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 any edit done by new account in the area could be reverted according to ARBCOM decision.Recently I stumbled in two cases:

1. AFD created by a new account Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force_(3rd_nomination) (talk)
2. Article Issa Amro (talk)

What should be done in such case?Should they be speedy deleted according to G5 or there are some other procedure?

@Ryk72:@BU Rob13:Your proposition is good as it clarifies that talk pages could be edited but it still didn't answer my concern about new article creation and AFDs.--Shrike (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: @BU Rob13: According to this clarification [3] the sanction is not only about articles but about edits too and I think its good practice because it should stop socks to disrupt the area.The wording should be changed accordingly to be conclusive about every Wiki space(article,talk,new pages and etc)--Shrike (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

The provisions of 500/30 allow, but do not require, edits by users who do not meet the threshold to be reverted or removed. If the edit in question benefits the encyclopaedia (I haven't looked to see if the listed ones do or not) then it seems silly to revert for the sake of reverting. At most a friendly note on the user's talk page informing/reminding them about the 500/30 restriction seems most appropriate.

For any AfD I think following the guidance at Wikipedia:Speedy Keep point 4 is best: If subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's [...] status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

As it stands now, non-extendedconfirmed accounts are prohibited from editing "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". While we're here talking about this remedy, can you amend that to exclude talk pages? It's clear the committee didn't intend to bar IP editors from making talk page requests in this topic area, but that's technically what it's done. In a topic area like this, it's only a matter of time before some "clever" wikilawyer tries to make that argument.

I will not comment on the substance of the original issue here other than to say that, as always, common sense should be exercised everywhere on the project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Ryk72: Respectfully, I disagree with restricting this to just articles. I've seen extremely personal and contentious edit wars break out over the color of a heading on an Israeli-Palestinian conflict related navbox. I think this restriction should extend to templates, categories, modules, etc. Additionally, your proposed change significantly weakens the remedy from an actual prohibition on editing to mere eligibility for 500/30 protection (something that is already allowed via the usual protection policy). If the intent is just to rule out the weird talk page edge case (and perhaps project space, while we're at it), I'd suggest the following amended remedy instead.

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. This remedy does not apply to talk pages or the Wikipedia namespace.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Shrike: Yes, my issue is a complete tack-on, since it doesn't make much sense to handle two concurrent ARCA requests for the same remedy. I don't have too much of an opinion about your issue, but if it's determined an amendment needs to be made to correct something about that issue, it would have to be on top of my proposed one. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: I don't know that the remedy is as confusing as you believe it is. I read "may enforce" as a statement of what tools may be used by administrators to enforce the remedy rather than a statement that administrators may choose to ignore the remedy at their discretion. The statement is a bit antiquated, as we now have extendedconfirmed protection as the obvious tool to enforce the remedy, but I suppose reverts are always appropriate and blocks would also be appropriate if an editor continuously hopped to new pages in blatant disregard of the remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: Obviously, I can't speak for the Committee in terms of how they want that to be enforced, but I can speak as an administrator who has been protecting many pages related to this remedy. I don't think remedy #1 of this case is relevant here, and as written, remedy #6 in WP:ARBPIA doesn't apply either. In the past, the Committee has worded discretionary sanction remedies to specify any edit in a topic area is covered. See here. Perhaps such a rewording would be sensible here? I certainly have noticed that this conflict tends to find its way onto pages I'd struggle to confidently place within the topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• @DGG: Given the statement that the ban is not optional, applying it to talk pages prevents non-extendedconfirmed editors from filing edit requests. Is this the committee's intention? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72

Suggest amending to:

2) All articles pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, excluding pages in the Wikipedia and *Talk namespaces, are eligible for extended confirmed protection. Editors may request this at WP:RFPP or from any uninvolved Administrator.

or similar. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thank you for your kind reply. I accept and agree with your comments about namespaces other than mainspace. My intent was to cover only the namespaces containing content which appears in the encyclopedia itself, and (as you rightly point out) this does include more than just articles. Share your concerns about limiting access to Talk pages. I have amended my statement above.
I maintain, however, that the remedy is better phrased as a restriction on pages (with a process for technical implemention) than a restriction on editors - a topic ban, without notice, of all new editors isn't a practical solution, nor is it warranted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shrike: Thank you for your question. I don't think that either the AfD or the new article creation are sufficiently innately disruptive as to require restriction. The AfD closed with no consensus; so it doesn't seem like a disruptive nomination. The article subject, on a cursory inspection, appears notable; so it doesn't seem like a disruptive creation. We also have well developed processes (and enough eyes) on deletions & creations which deal with disruption well. I do think that the best way to implement the intent of this remedy is for any editor to be able to request ECP on a page in this topic space (as defined above), without having to demonstrate disruption of that page. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Note that the question of whether the 500/30 rule applies to talk pages was addressed here before, see the second I/P case here. (That's the page version before the case was archived but I cannot locate the archive.) The response then was that talk pages are included. However, it would not be a disaster if talk pages were excluded. On the other hand, it would definitely be a bad idea to just change "pages" to "articles", as pages like categories, templates, AfD discussions, etc, need defending just as much as articles do. BU_Rob13's suggestion is good.

Regarding Shrike's questions, I think that new articles created by non-500/30 users should be speedy-deletable, unless substantial improvements have meanwhile been made by a permitted editor. Similarly for AfDs.

Either way, dear arbitrators, please don't leave these matters for the community to sort out. Please make a decision so we can get on with writing articles. Zero^talk 13:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I believe this came up at ANI, and it was a bit of a strange case, with the HumanRightsUnderstanding account coming out of nowhere (and disappearing back into that void). In both cases I'm with Thryduulf, which means that, in essence, I completely trust the community in taking care of these issues on their own merits. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• The wording of this remedy has confused me for a while now. We say that under 500/30 edits are prohibited, but then say that prohibition may be enforced. It sounds like a very confusing signal. I've been asked quite a few times at other offwiki venues how this is supposed to be enforced including thoughts on the mass page protection of the entire area. I don't think we are being fair to throw the work to the community in this case and say figure out how it's supposed to be enforced, when we can't even be clear on how it should be enforced. What exactly that means the committee should modify or change this to...I have no idea at this time. It's worth the discussion though to me. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• And I've just run into an odd problem at Ancient maritime history. Maybe I should be asking for a clarification. The article isn't obviously related to the PIA area, but the edit is. A new editor changed "The Phoenicians were an ancient civilization centered in the north of ancient Canaan, with its heartland along the coast of modern-day Lebanon, Syria and northern Israel." to say "northern Palestine". I reverted him a while ago as the coast of northern Israel isn't part of the Palestinian territories and, because his only other edits, in 2010 and 2015 were similar, changing Israel to Palestine, gave him a DS alert. Just now he's reverted me saying "Palestinian boarders never changed prior to occupation, while zionist/Israeli boarders expand by annexation and are an unreliable reference". So is he allowed to make such edits, and if he is, how is that different from editing a page clearly within the area covered by the DS? Doug Weller talk 19:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Shrike: Although User:Callanecc stated that "500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles)." the wording is still "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." Doug Weller talk 19:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13: Yes, rewording to make it clear that "any edit in a topic area is covered" is a good idea, as I'm pretty sure that's what we meant. As I see the 500/30 as akin to a topic ban, I'm not convinced that talk pages should be excluded. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding the wording issue DQ raised, I've always read that as an acknowledgment of the reality that enforcement is never 100%, either because things slip by or because someone makes a deliberate choice to let an otherwise constructive edit slide. Of course, I don't know that last year's arbs actually meant to parse that finely. (This wasn't the part of the text that was updated earlier this year.) Last time this came up I think the general consensus was to use common sense on talk pages and in areas where editing can't be managed by technical means - ie don't throw away a new editor's new article if it's otherwise good, or revert an otherwise useful comment, but don't feel obliged to keep crap or put up with POV-pushing. If there's a preference for spelling that out in a motion, though, I'm on board with Rob's idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• The may allows admins to use the tool they think is best for the job. The ban itself is not optional --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• I think the purpose is best served by including talk pages in the ban, as previously. But for edge cases, Thryduulf's comment seems exactly right. With respect to may, the comment just above by Guerillero says all that needs to be said. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation

Initiated by Darkfrog24 at 04:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment and clarification are requested

1. Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24
2. Block of Darkfrog24
3. Topic ban of Darkfrog24

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24

• Reject/repudiate

• Block of Darkfrog24

• Unblock

• Topic ban of Darkfrog24

• Revisit

Statement by Darkfrog24

I request that discussion, if any, of SMcCandlish's misconduct take place in a separate thread.

Part I: Gaslighting

This is first because it is necessary.

Is it Wikipedia's position that I tried to gaslight SMcCandlish?

Gaslighting is the attempt to convince someone that they're crazy using systematic psychological harassment and torture.

Here are the accusation and links cited: [4] [5] [6]. Last summer, he was acting weird, like something bad had happened off-Wiki. I asked another editor to go easy on him. I asked him (on his talk page, not in front of everyone) if he was okay. I dropped the matter immediately after reading his reply. That is not gaslighting; that is what people should do.

Why this accusation

• It's extremely serious. Gaslighting isn't just misconduct. It's real-world evil. You'd have to almost not be human.
• It's similar to the other accusations in that, for it to be true, I would have had to have meant the exact opposite of what I said and my accuser offered no proof of this.
• Kindness is cruelty because it came from me? This is wrong on every level.

Why this is worth ArbCom's time

In addition to the harm this has done me personally, Wikipedia is bleeding talent and the #1 reason people give for leaving is the toxic environment. The idea that editors can be punished for being nice to someone on the other side of the aisle is the second worst thing I've seen on Wikipedia. We're supposed to be a community.

If you do think that I actually did this, say so.

Part II: Block

Other activity

I come bearing zero attempts at block evasion and, per instructions at Meta-Wiki, months of meaningful contributions to other parts of project Wiki.

I have translated much of Category:Euryarchaeota into Spanish and added new content to most articles, with corresponding updates to Wikidata. Any content disputes were resolved through discussion.

As a result, I was sponsored for autoverificado status, unsolicited. (not the same as autoconfirmation)

I've also worked at Idea Lab, participating in the June anti-harassment drive and other projects. [ I have been thanked].

Solution

I had a different text ready, but a recent conversation gave me some highly useful perspective.

Clarify: 1) I was blocked for volume, not for "talking about other users." The reason I can't figure out why you think my February post to Thryduulf violates WP:BANEX is because you don't. 2) You consider asking about how topic bans work, which I did several times, and attempting to renegotiate my topic ban, which I did once to be the same thing or at least to draw from the same well, the way some employers combine sick and vacation days but others consider them separate. Is that it?

Here's the problem, though: I was targeted by a complaint with excessive volume. "10,000 words" is not hyperbole. I did not even get to finish reading it before I was sanctioned, and when I did, I found it was heavily falsified. I don't think anyone here believes "Accusers get as much time as they want to write statements as long as they want and say whatever they want and if the accused can't handle that in days, into the trash with them" is okay. That invites abuse. There's got to be a non-disruptive place between my actions and not being allowed to climb out from under the bus.

...that place is clear guidelines for long complaints, and I am in an excellent position to be part of that solution. I've worked out some strong ideas:

• Reject without prejudice all accusations over a certain limit (the come-back-with-something-shorter rule).
• Allow qualitatively different complaints to be filed consecutively. Instead of rolling eyes at accusers who file a second complaint if the first one fails, encourage it. Admins could spread the weight, and it would be much easier for sanctioned editors to figure out why they were sanctioned. From what I've seen at AE "You were guilty of WP:X but not WP:Y" is often what really happened, and saying so makes the accused less likely to suspect anything fishy.
• Give the accused sufficient time to prepare a response, perhaps with a stay-off-the-page-in-question-in-the-meantime requirement (for all parties) and commit to reading the whole thing. EDIT: Since drafting this appeal, I've seen Bishonen and Sagerad work out something similar [7]. I'd say at least a day and a half per 500 words of complaint (mine took a month). Downside: This one is the most work.
• Read only part of the complaint and tell the accused to respond to only that part. Dismiss the rest without prejudice. This is what I attempted. Frankly, I don't believe the admins did read the whole complaint, and one admitted that s/he had not. Upside: This is highly time- and effort-efficient.
• More.

I wasn't ready for a complaint twenty times the limit, and I can believe the AE admins weren't either. Over this year, there's been a growing awareness at AE that the accused shouldn't be expected to respond on the spot. Those efforts should be supported.

Part III: Topic

The source of confusion here is that the AE admins issued the ban for the reasons Thryduulf gave in February, none of which are true and some of which can be easily disproven, but the Committee upheld it for a completely different reason, discussed over email last April. Again, it looks like the issue with my actions at project MOS is closer to volume than to content, and you would consider qualitatively similar participation acceptable so long as there were less of it, per SlimVirgin and my own voluntary offer back in January (NOTE: At the time, I thought "1RR" meant "one talk page post per day.")

I request that you state this. "Darkfrog24 is topic banned for [phrase as you prefer] and nothing else." I would like it if you explicitly rejected the other accusations: "Darkfrog did not call people names, battleground, falsify ENGVAR claims, push POV..." but that's what I want. What I need is up top.

Opabinia, that is the first time that anyone has said that to me. I am not and have never contested topic bans must be obeyed while in force. I've obeyed mine, and if you guys lift the block but not the ban I will continue to do so. But there should be some recourse for people who are targeted unfairly or whose accusers spam or abuse the system. If pushing someone under a moving bus is not considered disruptive, then trying to climb out shouldn't be either.

If you mean, "Sanctioned editors must only contest the accusations against them at the designated appeal date, no matter the circumstances," then say that, but say it. It should be added to WP:TBAN.

It is absolutely imperative that the committee officially endorse or reject the accusation of gaslighting. Whether or not I'm an evil person is not minutiae. I'll explain further if you need, but I'd rather not. Can you do me this favor?

The only words needed from you, SMcCandlish are "I'm very sorry for lying and I promise never to do it again." Or even just that last part. You may leave now. You will be notified of any proceedings regarding your misconduct.

If you want proof that SMcCandlish knowingly and deliberately lied at AE, I will provide it. However, that and his other misconduct should be handled in a separate thread and appropriate venue. I am not the first person he has targeted. Frankly, it bothers me a great deal that some individuals on Wikipedia seem to care more that I called him a liar than that he lied. He's called me a liar and worse things, with no proof at all, and no one batted an eye. (And yes his statement was just under 10,000 words. 1800+ in-thread and about a 7000 linked-in portion. Even if its contents had not been grossly fabricated, its length alone made responding in the normal time frame impossible.)

As to which way the interaction ban should go, well, I didn't Wikistalk through seven years of his user history and spend months writing an eighteen-page treatise full of fabrications about him. I didn't call him slurs. I didn't speculate about his job and make fun of what I thought it was. I defended his right to hold whatever belief he wanted so long as he stopped his hostile behavior toward people who don't share them. I did not mock and bait him while he was topic-banned. And I absolutely did not say that "Are you okay" was gaslighting if he was the one who said it. He's the one who shouldn't be allowed to talk to me. But yes, if he weren't allowed to talk to or about me, that would knock out a lot of the problem at WT:MOS. Take his creepy obsession with me and shut it down.

@Drmies: I will repeat to you my statement that I will continue to obey the topic ban while it is in force, but yes I will still seek to have it lifted either on schedule in February or at some earlier time of the committee's choosing. It is simply a matter of doing so in a way that has been established as nondisruptive—which is why the committee, community or both should establish procedures for dealing with very long complaints regardless of what else happens here. If you guys think I have to prove myself on some other part of the encyclopedia before going back to project MoS, well, I don't think that's necessary, but I'd still do it. (NOTE: I am under the impression that topic bans, including this one, are meant to be temporary.) About my ability to follow the topic ban, well, I have been reading AE threads from January through October to internalize patterns of what is and isn't allowed. I don't see why they can't just be written down at WP:TBAN, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish speculated that I was "[only] a community college professor" and talked about how CC profs are stupid or something. I can find this or any of the diffs if necessary, but I don't think this is the right venue.

Again, this should really be addressed in its own thread, but I worked with SMcCandlish for over five years, and this is a pattern with him: Accuse the other person of doing the thing that he's doing so they look stupid if they counter-accuse. Calling names, slurs against my mental health, ignoring sources. Only difference is I called him on it first this time.

Do not let SMcCandlish confuse the issue of whether I should be unblocked. What if anything should be done about his actions is a separate issue, and it it should be handled in the right way, with diffs and enough time to read any statements made against him.

Point a, but is there more?

I have a concern. I've agreed to Opabinia's point a), more than once, but it looks like you guys want me to agree to something else too. I have an idea of a few things it might be but I am concerned that if I ask you "Is it this?" I will end up making some big sacrifice only to have one of you say months or years from now "I never told Darkfrog24 they had to do that. They did it on their own." I've had people do that with me before. Maybe none of you have any intention of doing that and this is just a matter of hard communication, but that is why I do not want to voice any guesses about what is required of me, regardless of whether they'd be right.

Please state explicitly, "Darkfrog24, in addition to continuing to obey the topic ban and appealing it only through official, nondisruptive channels we want you to do/not do [action]" or "Darkfrog24, we do not generally require sanctioned editors to [do this] but we are asking/telling you to do it anyway. We feel that it is what is best for this specific case."

If it is that topic-banned editors are not allowed to talk about the topic ban or their accusers, even if they do not mention the banned topic itself, then you need to talk with this guy at WT:TBAN because not everyone's on the same page.

Statement by SMcCandlish

In a user talk post concurrent with this ARCA, Darkfrog24 opens with a renewal of this user's pursuit of vengeance against me: "My own case is complicated. Short version: It started when I was targeted by a liar with a grudge" [8]. Nothing has changed, and this self-defeating ARCA is not "complicated" at all, but essentially identical to the last one, in April [9]. DarkFrog24 was instructed in no uncertain terms to stop beating the dead horse of her personalized campaign against me (Laser brain, [10], among other admonitions), and failure to do so was one of the main reasons the very narrow t-ban became a broader one, then a block, then an indef. The direct tie between abandoning this vendetta and perhaps being allowed to return to edit again was made clear, not just repeatedly at AE but also by admins at DF24's own talk page (multiple times, this is just the latest one, from June):

• "[T]he time binding is around your own understanding of the restriction and willingness to drop the stick. Indefinite is not infinite unless you fail to work out how you can edit without touching on anything to do with your topic ban." (Spartaz [11].]
• And later by someone else: "You've been told by admins to stop relitigating, and yet you keep relitigating (as with pretty much your entire reply, immediately above)." [12] (Elvey, October, from a series of posts that are clearly stated to be responses to Wikipedia e-mails DF24 had been sending to pursue involvement in the topic-ban issue and against other editors associated with it.)
• See also: "[W]hat is argued here is that everyone else was wrong, and a wall of text about minutiae is offered as proof. As for the block, you are blocked until you 'understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it'; neither of these conditions are met, obviously." (Drmies, in April ARCA [13]).

Now here we are again, with DF24 not asking to return to WP to work on something else, but dwelling entirely on the general topic of the topic ban, continued pursuit of a hounding effort against me that stems directly and entirely from that topic, and why everyone else is wrong. This editor is clearly not getting the point, on a long-term if not permanent basis, and equally clearly is just biding time restart the same fray. Both of these were the other major factors in the escalating series of sanctions against DF24, who pestered AE admins incessantly with an "I just don't understand" act and constant border-testing for weeks until indeffed, and resumed the same behavior when allowed to edit her user talk page again (cf. the threads I just cited from June and October).

Also, most of DF24's post above is the user trying to appeal things that cannot be appealed until the twelve-month mark, in Feb. 2017. Only the indef was subject to a six-month review.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: I just remembered that Thryduulf warned DF24, "There was some support for an interaction ban prohibiting you discussing SMcCandlish though, so I would think twice before doing so and make sure that you are not harassing them." [15]
I ask that this one-way i-ban now be imposed; that will provide me relief from DF24's vendetta, while also preventing a repeat of this sort of pointless request from DF24. A future one by the editor would necessarily have to focus on something else, like DF24's willingness to work on entirely unrelated activities at en.wiki, and acceptance of and movement beyond the t-ban, its topic, and anyone involved in it.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And now this illustrates clearly why DF24 needs to be banned from interacting with me; this projective vendetta stuff is clearly never going to stop otherwise. (I'm assuming that DF24 will eventually return from the block, though the MoS t-ban being lifted seems unlikely.) Much of that anti-SMcCandlish rant doesn't even make sense. How could I be "speculating" about DF24's professional background if it's self-disclosed at User:Darkfrog24 and frequently mentioned in the user's own posts? Etc. Whatever. I don't have any further time to waste on this stuff. There's only one "creepy obsession" that needs to be "shut down" here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Robert Walker

My aim with this statement is to find a way forward to help Darkfrog24 to move on to become a productive wikipedia editor. First, full disclosure, I'm semi-involved. I have collaborated with Darkfrog24 with a proposal for the Inspire initiative on meta, I can vouch for them as an editor with a great deal of insight who did much to help shape the proposal. I feel that they have a lot to contribute to wikipedia and it is sad to see them blocked in this way. I want to help them to move on. Also I know from conversations with them via email that they also want to move on and put this behind them as much as the rest of you.

They feel that they have a lot they could contribute to wikipedia, including special interests in the topic areas of

• Methanogenic archaea (they have been working on this in the Spanish wikipedia)
• Game of Thrones

So how can this be moved forward? I understand that you are saying that they need to agree to certain conditions first, for the block to be removed but am not at all clear on what those are. Here is a suggestion as a starting point. Would this be agreeable to you if it is agreeable to them?

• Ask them to agree not to take SMcCandlish back to this board for anything he has said prior to today's date
• Ask SMcCandlish similarly to agree not to take them back to this board for anything said prior to today's date
• With one exception. these past comments can be discussed in the appropriate venue in any future appeal against their topic ban, if that is necessary for a successful appeal.

Would such an agreement suffice for lifting the block? If not, can you suggest what conditions would be sufficient? Please be specific, about what exactly you would require of Darkfrog24. I'd also appreciate being told what the reasoning is for those requirements.

Before we put it to bed I wonder if I can be permitted to say something about the gaslighting charge as well - again not in an attempt to change decisions, but rather as a way to try to promote mutual understanding here. I think it may be due to a difference in use of language. As someone from the UK, just reading the diff (I haven't asked them what they meant), I found your reactions to it bewildering. To me "slightly more than his baseline" means such things as a bad week at work, domestic issues, financial troubles or the like.

With that background the rest of the diff[16] reads to me just like them asking other editors to go easy on SMcCandlish because they may be going through a rough time at present. It suggests nothing at all about mental impairment, never mind the far more serious charge of gaslighting which SMcCandlish made in January [17]. As I read it, that diff is not directed towards SMcCandlish at all, it is just an attempt to evoke sympathy towards them with the other editors. I can't see anything in that diff that remotely suggests gaslighting to a UK reader. Nor do the other diffs he supplied when read in context. I am sure that their only objective here since then has been to clear their own name in the records of what would seem to be a serious charge against them that hasn't been cleared. But it hasn't worked well, and it is best for both sides, I think, if the past is treated as the past and both sides begin with a fresh slate.

The aim of this post is to find a way forward that you can both agree to. It is not an attempt to influence the debate, and neither has Darkfrog24 asked me to do so. I am aware of wikipedia guidelines on WP:CANVAS. I believe that this post is in accord with those guidelines. If this post is thought to infringe them in any way, I will of course remove it.

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Darkfrog, we are running out of ways to tell you this. Your choices at this point are a) agree that your future participation on the English Wikipedia will be contingent on staying away from the MOS and style issues, and ceasing to endlessly re-argue the circumstances of your topic ban, or b) find a different hobby better suited to your interests. A decision to topic-ban you means that an admin found that you were being disruptive in your editing on that topic, and no more. "Wikipedia" has no position on the specific motivations underlying that disruption, and there's no reason to think the admins involved ever did either; the fact of the matter is that you have demonstrated in abundance your ability to argue minutia to exhaustion, and the pattern of arguing minutia to exhaustion is itself disruptive. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• In light of this, my vote is to reinstate the block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree. Darkfrog's behavior convinces me that the block needs to be reinstated. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Where to begin? It's not even clear what is being asked. "Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24"--that's ambiguous already, but we're talking about the accusation that this and other comments by DF are considered gaslighting by SMcCandlish, no? Well, I don't know about gaslighting, but if the claim by DF is that that comment is somehow the normal way in which folks in a collaborative project should interact, well, that claim is just absolutely wrong. And what else is there? Is ArbCom supposed to rule that SMcCandlish is indeed a liar? No, we are not going there. I was happy to unblock DF for this request, possibly against my better judgment given past requests, and I have no desire to see DF blocked again, but I don't know what else we can do EXCEPT for to offer Opabinia regalis's item a, again. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • After this and this, I think we're done here. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with OR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• There seems an obvious inability to drop the stick. The block needs to be reinstated. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: WP:ARBPIA3

Initiated by Huldra at 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 1RR restriction

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• General 1RR restriction

• A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period.

Statement by Huldra

In the Azzam Pasha quotation, Editor1 makes an addition, Editor2 removes it, Editor1 then makes the very same addition a few hours later (which Editor3 removes), and Editor1 argues they did not break 1RR as "the first edit was an edit, not a revert".

• If Editor1 is correct, then I would like the 1RR rule amended, so that such disruptive behaviour is disallowed.
• (If Editor1 is wrong, and they did indeed break the 1RR, then I withdraw this request)

Statement by Ryk72 - 2

I believe that the issue raised is not only limited to ARBPIA3, but is more generally applicable. I respectfully invite the committee to make general comment on "first mover advantage" in revert wars (described more fully at WP:WINWAR#Intermediate tactics and gambits), particularly as applied to contentious topic spaces; and on if & how this should be addressed. I also respectfully invite the committee to examine the impact & effectiveness of the combination "1RR/consensus" restrictions applied to multiple articles in the ARBAP2 topic space. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

WP:ARBPIA3: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

WP:ARBPIA3: Arbitrator views and discussion

---

Motions

Motion to modify removal of advanced permissions ArbCom procedure

When an account with administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser and/or oversight permission(s) seriously or repeatedly engages in conduct harmful to the project or contrary to the expectations of advanced permission holders, the Committee may authorize removal of these permissions. If the account has multiple permissions, removal will generally apply to all of them. Nothing in these procedures prevents prevents the Committee from imposing sanctions, such as restrictions on certain uses of the permissions. Permanent removal Criteria This procedure may only be used when there is overwhelming evidence of egregiously unacceptable conduct that makes the examination of patterns of conduct superfluous. Examples include, but are not limited to: "Bad faith" adminship, for example abusive sock puppetry, or using advanced tools when obviously involved Serious or repeated breaches in basic policies (such as outing); Serious or repeated inappropriate use of advanced tools. This includes wheel warring or breaches of policies core to the permission, such as the deletion, blocking or protection, oversight or CheckUser policies Procedure Before removing permissions, the permission holder should almost always be given an opportunity to explain their actions through contact on their talk page, by email with the Committee or discussion on one of the Committee's Wikipedia pages If a satisfactory explanation is not provided and the situation not resolved within a reasonable period of time an arbitrator may propose a motion to remove the permission(s). The motion shall be proposed at the most appropriate location, such as in response to a clarification request, a standalone motion or in private if required. If a majority of active, non-recused arbitrators support it, the motion shall be enacted by posting a request to remove the permission(s) at the bureaucrats' noticeboard (an arbitrator or clerk may remove the permission themselves) or the Meta-Wiki permissions page. The text of the motion is also to be posted to the user's talk page and the Committee's noticeboard. If requested by the permission holder, or if at least three arbitrators support it, arbitration proceedings will be opened to examine the removal of permissions. The motion to remove the permission(s) will specify how they can be reinstated. Generally, the user will need to reapply for the permission by a new request for adminship or bureaucrat or appointment as a CheckUser/Oversighter by the Committee. Interim removal in emergencies If an account with any of the permissions listed above (a) appears to be obviously compromised, (b) is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (c) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring and blocks have not worked, any of the following processes may be used to remove the permission(s). Bureaucrat action In an emergency, English Wikipedia bureaucrats may temporarily remove the administrator permission without the authorisation of the Committee. If a bureaucrat determines that an interim emergency removal of the administrator permission is required, they must: If a compromised account is suspected, contact the stewards so that the account can be globally locked. Note on the user rights management page the reason for removal and include a link to this procedure; Leave a message on the user's talk page and the Bureaucrats' noticeboard indicating the reason for removal, link to this procedure, and ask the user to contact the Committee; File a new case request and include in their statement the username of the account in question and detailed information describing the reason for the interim removal. If the interim removal was based entirely on private information, this step will be skipped and the bureaucrat will email the Committee. Committee action If a compromised account is suspected, contact the stewards so that the account can be globally locked. An arbitrator will send a message to arbcom-l (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue and providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and (c) specifying why interim emergency removal is required. A request for removal of permissions is approved once at least three arbitrators have indicated their support and no arbitrators have opposed emergency removal. Once removal has been approved, an arbitrator will (a) directly request removal from a bureaucrat or steward as appropriate, (b) make a formal statement on the bureaucrats' noticeboard or Meta-Wiki permissions page to confirm that the request is based on the authority of the Committee, and (c) post a notice to the Committee's noticeboard and the user's talk page, including a brief explanation of the reason for removal and the names of the arbitrators who voted on it. Steward action These procedures do not constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions (including the administrator permission) pursuant to the global rights policy and other relevant policies. Review and return of permission(s) The full Committee will review the removal of permissions and determine any further action to be taken. This action includes reinstating the permission(s), making the interim removal permanent for one or more of the user's permissions or applying further sanctions. Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are resolved. If requested by the advanced permission holder or if the Committee wishes, arbitration proceedings (such as a full case) will be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Thank you to everyone for their comments on this proposal. I feel that we're at a point where we can move forward with approving this change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. On concerns of forcing a crat to open a case, act first instead of discuss first, and circumstances of a mandated review. I will expand as requested, though highlights are on the review page I created. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• This proposal aims to fix a couple of the things which have been discussed by both the Committee and community about the current procedure. Primarily it provides a policy basis for the people with the ability to desysop to do so in emergencies (see the incident in November 2015) and to provide a clearer criteria for the removal of permissions both by Committee action and in an emergency. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Arbitrators may wish to take a read over the proposed changes and an analysis of them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • See also #Desysop motion analysis from DeltaQuad. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • And it's been updated to reflect current changes. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: Regarding forcing the crat to open a case, I'd point out that ArbCom would likely be the only body authorised to give the right back (since the reason for removal would almost certainly be controversial, hence user a cloud) discounting a new RfA. Decratting could occur whether or not a case request was filed. As well as reviewing whether to give the right back or not, yes it also checks for abuse. I assume you mean by "the community takes it up" that a community member files a case? Since there's no current provision for the community to decrat or return the permission without a full RfA/RfB/ArbCom decision, having the crat file a case put the discussion where the people with the authority to do something can, saves time and angst (of waiting for someone to file) and, if nothing else, saves time since we'll almost definitely have to look at it anyway.

Per community policy (which ArbCom cannot overrule) the stewards cannot act except in "emergency situations where local users are unable or unavailable to act". The global page says "except in an emergency or when action across multiple projects is needed, stewards generally do not exercise their powers in a project that has local users with the required rights". If "there is aggressive abuse of admin tools on 2 or more other projects" (your point) then the stewards are already empowered to do whatever they need to do and this procedure let's them do that (I'd guess they'd lock the account for cross-wiki abuse, then let local projects deal with it from there).

Regarding the Committee action for permanent removal, I don't get what you mean by "individual arbitrator can now initiate this procedure without contacting other arbs in any form" (emphasis added), the current procedure says that the initiating arbitrator (single) contacts the account before contacting the rest of the Committee, the proposal doesn't specify whether an individual arb contacts the user first or the Committee first. I won't go into in detail (and I think I have done so already, either below or on the list) unless someone asks, but I can absolutely see situations where an arb (individual) contacts the user before the Committee and vice versa. A number of comments here say the procedure is already too long, is adding text about this really solving a problem or possibly creating one...? Having said that, I don't mind either way, if the majority of arbs want it to specify that the contacting the Committee comes first then I'm fine with that.

As I said below (somewhere) "normal arbitration proceedings" gives options for a public or private case, "case" implies public only. Regarding being able to force a case, I agree that we shouldn't make a special rule for this (and it should be normal). However comments in the mailing list discussion indicated that a number of arbs wanted there to be a way for the person whose permission(s) had been removed can have it reviewed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've got a couple of other concerns before I could support this.

In the permanent removal section the motion says "active, non-recused arbitrators". In the "Review and return of permission(s)" section, which presumably applies only to interim removals, the motion says "full committee". I know we had a problem recently with interpreting a statement a bit like that, I think both sections should say "active, non-recused arbitrators".

I would also like to see a deadline for review of interim removal. Eg "Within a month after the removal of permissions the committee will initiate a review..." Doug Weller talk 16:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Community comments

• If an arbitrator is also a bureaucrat, he'd thus have two choices: do it right away and THEN inform ArbCom, or put it to an ArbCom vote and only desysop after a net four vote. This also gives the impression of putting 'crats judgement above Arbitrators. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think that's much of an issue. Crats are specifically selected to be boring and not go rouge. We haven't had a crat boldly do something controversial like that since 2004 or 2005. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• One would expect "Bureaucrat action" to occur in situations that are more urgent than allows for "Committee action". I think the policy should say that - i.e. that bureaucrats should only take action if they judge the situation to be too urgent to follow the procedure under "Committee action". We can perhaps contrast the three scenarios in which this is said to apply:
  (a)/(b)"appears to be obviously compromised" or "is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion" - likely to go down the "Bureaucrat action" route. And I suspect a non-bureaucrat Arb would just flag a bureaucrat or steward to do the emergency desysop based on their own judgment. Why wait for three other Arbs, and then have to find a bureaucrat or steward to do the desysop?
  (c) "wheel-warring and blocks have not worked" - may vary in urgency depending on where the wheel war is happening, the speed of the wheel war, and how much harm it is causing. May not require immediate action.
  WJBscribe (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• @WJBscribe: Yeah that's how I look at - actions by crats would generally be done when urgency is important and there isn't time for the Committee to act. Committee action would be in cases where the reasons are private or there is a little more time (such as wheel warring). Personally, I'd actually prefer to make it less prescriptive in this area (and just leave the definition of an "emergency" up to discretion, than more prescriptive so that it can better cover the situations we don't think of now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding Bureaucrat emergency actions, I strongly suggest that a similar posting requirement to WP:BN be required as is for committee actions, to have a central communication that an action has taken place and referring follow up to the case opened (or in the event of private information that follow up is to the arbcom mailing list). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Xapsflux: Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - the section on emergency removal is a bit outdated. While removing permissions from compromised accounts and then blocking them does stop the outward abuse, it doesn't do anything to prevent the abuser from going into the account preferences and changing the password/email so that the holder of the account can no longer recover it. The current best practices for stewards when it comes to dealing with compromised accounts are as follows:
  1. Lock the account. This logs the person out, and prevents them from logging in again anywhere on Wikimedia. This means that there is no way for the potential attacker to change any of the user information if they haven't already, and because they cannot log in there is no need to remove permissions at this point.
  2. Work with local users to investigate whether or not the account was compromised through CheckUser and through doing our best to contact the account owner.
  3. Ultimately, it's up to the local community to decide whether or not the account was actually compromised. For the final step of deciding whether or not to remove permissions, it's not up to us since there is no longer an emergency, though of course we will remove permissions for groups that local 'crats can't remove.

So I would propose the following workflow for dealing with accounts suspected of being compromised: Identify --> contact stewards through IRC, email or on Meta-Wiki --> they will work with local users to resolve the problem. This way can lead to the abuse being stopped faster, because there is always at least one steward around rather than a coin toss whether a 'crat is here, and can help keep account information and control safe. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting point re compromised accounts changing the email address. Should we ask for mediawiki to be amended such that if necessary Arbcom or checkusers can authorise emailing an account recovery email to earlier addresses?

That might be useful for cases where the account information has already been changed, but it would be pretty hard to tell which email is the correct one without revealing too much information. All of this would need to be cleared by Legal, and I'm not sure that it would be possible given what information is currently stored. I also don't think it's needed: instead of worrying about trying to resolve a global account issue at the local level, just bounce it up to the people who are elected by the global community to specifically deal with cases like this. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• In my mind, this text needs a serious shortening. Otherwise, Ajraddatz's suggestion seems fairly reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• The procedures for permanent removal include this sentence: "The motion is to be proposed as the most appropriate location, such as in response to a clarification request, a standalone motion or in private if required." (Trivial: "as... location" should be "at".) I can easily imagine situations where private disposition of emergency removals is necessary, but I have some concerns about "in private if required" for the kinds of egregiously obvious problems that would result in permanent actions. I can understand the need to omit private information for situations involving checkuser or oversight, but such situations usually can still be discussed on-site with the omission of the private information. In most other cases where permanent removal is required, there will already be an on-site record that the community has seen. Therefore, I think that over-reliance on private discussion reduces community confidence in the Committee. At a minimum, "if required" needs some definition or limitation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Minor copyediting suggestion: for clarity, I suggest changing the sentence "The motion to remove the permission(s) is to specify how they can be reinstated." to "The motion to remove the permission(s) must specify how it can be reinstated." isaacl (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for modifying the sentence in question. In addition, can "The motion shall be proposed as the most appropriate location" be modified to something like "The motion shall be proposed in the most appropriate location"? isaacl (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for making the change. isaacl (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Similar to Isaacl above, I think the use of "is to" in this motion is ambiguous. It can either mean a purpose or a command, particularly "The motion to remove the permission(s) is to specify how they can be reinstated". I think all parts of the motion use "is to" in the command sense, so we should replace "is to" with "shall". Other than that, the proposed procedures don't differ significantly from existing procedures but give more elegant names to things, so I can support it. Deryck C. 09:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Deryck Chan: Done, to either shall or will. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• The proposed modified procedure is too long, too wordy, and needs a good bit of copy editing. Substantively, I'm not sure it clarifies much for me. It would be helpful to know what the arbitrators think has changed as well as what is new.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: I have made a page outlining what I think the changes are. This is my first chance to dip into the entire thing, and I haven't read anything about this on any arbitration back channel. Therefore I apologize to @Callanecc: for not getting to it sooner and commenting on them before he posted this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• DeltaQuad and Callanecc, I've read Amanda's analysis and Callanecc's response. In my present mental state (no sleep), I couldn't get my brain around either. Perhaps I'll try again later this weekend or early next week. It doesn't help that I'm not and never have been an arbitrator and am not privy to current or previous discussions about this topic. In the interim, I've done the little I can do that doesn't require a great deal of thought: I've created User:Bbb23/Modified removal of advanced permissions, which is an edited version of the proposal to remove excess verbiage and make other copy edits. Even those of us who are not lawyers write too much like lawyers, and I tried to cut down on the legalese without losing what I thought was Callanecc's intent.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• The temporary removal section doesn't obviously contain provision for a situation such as that which happened when the arbcom archives were leaked a few years ago. One possible source for the leak was that an arbitrator's account had been compromised, but one arbitrator could not be immediately contacted to determine whether they were in control of their account or not - as a preventative measure the account was locked and permissions removed, despite there being nothing in the contributions or logged actions to suggest it had been compromised (it turned out their account was not compromised and permissions were restored). Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Permanent removal, under criterion 2, is for "Serious or repeated breaches in basic policies." Can't it be argued that the recent TRM case could then have been bypassed by ArbCom finding repeated breaches of the civility policy? It's not an approach in line with the implied severity of the outing policy example, but all it says is "basic policies", the meaning of which is open to interpretation. Seems a potential issue to me. EdChem (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• @DeltaQuad: Re "The stewards here are given a "you can do this" card, but directs them to do so under a poorly worded policy page or "other global policy"...I'm no expert in global policy, but i'm pretty sure a global lock is about all that the can do. I don't like the idea of this brushing stewards out of this, as Arbs and Crats aren't always around at convenient times, and maybe should be put under the same authority as crats." - stewards still retain the ability to do emergency desysops on all wikis, including large wikis such as the English Wikipedia, without ArbCom's approval. One case besides a compromised account would be repeated wheel warring (think several times within minutes). This provision has not been used in several years on enwiki (and I can't think of any recent cases on any large wikis) but it is still there, in case of emergency. I can think of a few other unique cases that I won't mention onwiki, but I'm sure are discussed in the arbcom-l archives somewhere. --Rschen7754 07:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  We desysopped someone on a small-sized Wikipedia back in March, and were considering an emergency desysop to enforce the ToU on a medium-sized wiki somewhat recently. So yes, stewards do retain the technical ability and community mandate to desysop in cases of emergency or abuse, though of course the matter is put to the community after that. As I was saying above though, in most recent cases we lock the account instead to do fact-finding. A somewhat recent example of this happened with a now-arb here back in 2013. Emergency desysopping is really only useful when we are 100% sure that the account is not compromised, and in practice this only happens on smaller wikis with less-well-vetted admins these days. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  Regarding the place of stewards, the enwiki policy (which ArbCom can't change/overrule) says In emergency situations where local users are unable or unavailable to act..., stewards are asked to use their global rights to protect the best interests of Wikipedia (WP:GRP#Stewards) and the global Stewards policy says If there are any doubts as to whether or not an action should be performed, stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it (which the local policy pretty much reflects). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• On a quick read, this seems to add a lot more requirements on bureaucrats, who previously would simply have acted to remove the permission and notify Arbcom, and also makes it much more complex to notify bureaucrats. IRC, email to the 'crat list, or personal direct contact with a bureaucrat all seem to be taken off the table, which is a bit absurd if the situation is time-sensitive. I'd rather see the process be simplified rather than made more complex. Incidentally, what constitutes "basic policies"? I know from my time on Arbcom that it was entirely possible to violate one policy by upholding another because we have so many intertwining policies, and WP:5 (which I'd guess is what you might be suggesting are basic policies) is a guideline and has been deliberately kept at the guideline level over multiple community discussions. Risker (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of more requirements it's that there are now requirements. As can be seen from the thread on BN when those two admin accounts were compromised the initial email was to email ArbCom for a desysop rather than do it themselves, even when the crat did desysop them they knew there was a possibility of sanctions against them. I'm not sure what you mean by those opinions being taken off the table, they are still ways to let a crat know that an account has been compromised. As happened last time, resysoping happened (and will happen under this procedure) when ArbCom gave the go ahead. Outing is probably around the level of basic we're talking about (were talking things like privacy, outing, egregious harassment) about as far as it's going to go, given that is has to be "egregiously unacceptable conduct". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Another possible scenario is mental health concerns, without going into details. --Rschen7754 07:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Desysop motion analysis from DeltaQuad

@Bbb23 and DeltaQuad: Some comments on the analysis:

1. The sentence about not limiting other options was added as, during discussion on the list, an arb (can't remember who) expressed concern that the procedure (without this) limited the Committee from imposing other sanctions by motion.
2. This procedure doesn't remove the possibility of vote-by-proxy (using any means) they just don't outright say it. Part of the reason for this is that vote-by-proxy has been accepted for other things so stating that it's specifically allowed implies that it isn't other times.
3. Regarding four net, the intention was to standardise it with WP:AC/P#Calculation of votes, however I've no issue with changing it back to three support and no dissenting opinions. Alternatively, we could change it to one arbl however I'm not sure how that would be taken, given there's nothing else like this that a single arb can do.
4. Regarding BN vs Meta, perhaps Ajraddatz could give us some more information on it. But I was under the impression that the stewards won't act when local crats are able to, unless it's an emergency. So while opinions both are there, the arb posting it would use BN for desysops (which is standard practice). Not having that written in there allows for situations we haven't thought of, the discretion of individual arbs and makes it less wordier.
5. I'd prefer that the names of supporters and opposers are always announced publicly (unless there are very good reasons not to, e.g. strong privacy/legal issues), but that's not the position of the rest of the Committee.
6. Whenever a crat desysops someone (or anyone gets desysoped anyway) there are going to be people talking about it. I'd prefer that that happens at ARC where there are stronger controls on civility and personal attacks (etc), plus it ensures that the whole Committee reviews the situation. This also goes to ensuring that every removal of permissions is reviewed by the Committee, which is one of the big things in the Committee's discussions.
7. It does not really limit the scope of the crat's since they currently have no scope in this area. We can't think of every situation, but when we're delegating the authority to do something controversial (which the community has historically refused to delegate from the Committee, ie desysoping) it should be restrictive.
8. Regarding the global policy referral for stewards, this gives them pretty wide latitude to do whatever they need to do, and in any case, the Committee can't override this piece of community policy (which reflects the global steward policy).
9. Regarding one crat vs one arb, see third dot point.
10. The Committee is discussing whether to handball compromised accounts straight to stewards or add contacting them to the current procedure.
11. The point of introducing a criteria which is more restrictive than the current version, is that there have been a number of comments both from arbs and others the Committee should generally lean away from desysop-by-motion and instead towards opening a case (see also "summary proceedings" at WP:ARBPOL#Forms of proceeding). This tries to limit those situations, while also not being too restrictive as to prevent the Committee acting. There were originally more dot point examples however these where removed in discussion with the rest of the Committee as instances where a full case could be opened. There is a bit there which expressly states that the list is not restrictive but instead just suggestions.
12. I've no issue with adding a note that it should be very rare for the Committee not to contact the permission holder, but I feel that doing so probably isn't needed.
13. An individual arbitrator started the process by themselves without consultation in the old/current procedure. The new procedure doesn't specify how it starts, and I don't mind that really. Each year's Committee is different, some work by discussion first (as this year's does) some work by action then discussion, I don't really see a strong need to specify that discussion is required first.
14. I agree that a case should be accepted as normal (with votes to accept) but that's not the opinion of other arbs (Opabinia regalis might like to comment on this?). Reason being to try and avoid a situation where the same people who desysoped 'review' the situation by declining to actually review (i.e. a case) the situation.
15. "normal arbitration proceedings" includes a private discussion / review on ArbWiki; a "case" strongly implies a standard public one.
16. Cross posting to AN (and WT:ACN) is covered in the clerks' procedures so even if an arb doesn't do it (although it is standard practice) a clerk would do it.

I imagine these comments are going to be difficult to respond to, so if anyone can think of a better way to do so, please share. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding BN versus stewards; it's really a question of urgency. If sysop tools are actively being used to cause harm to the project, stewards can act. Stewards are in part selected on the basis of timezone coverage and availability, which isn't a concern for local crats (nor should it be), so if ArbCom is faced with needing to desysop immediately it would be best to refer to us. For sysop tools being removed by Committee motion after the fact, that is a case for local bureaucrats.

Regarding compromised accounts, I don't think it would be worth tossing the entire case to us - as I suggested in my earlier post, the only thing that we really do alone is lock the account or remove permissions depending on the case, before sending it back to the local community. We lack knowledge of the situation and methods of contacting the user in question, as well as more practical tools like using CheckUser here for accounts which are primarily active here. But I think it is worth informing stewards, either to begin with or early on, so the initial technical actions can be done. After that, the issue can be resolved locally, and then we can be informed of the result so the account can be unlocked, permissions removed/restored, etc. So, I'll modify my suggested workflow to: suspect an account of being compromised --> contact ArbCom or stewards --> both groups will contact the other and proceed with resolving the situation. The only benefit to initiating the process with the stewards is the availability component, which might be enough of a consideration to have it as "option 1", though I imagine we'd be contacted very quickly in such a situation anyway. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding step to the Committee (as part of step 1 or 3) and crat (between steps 2 & 3) actions to let the stewards know if they suspect the account has been compromised, how does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

At that point it would be useful for investigating the implications for the user's global account (i.e. permissions on other projects, etc), but it misses out on resolving the situation with the least possible actions taken. If the account is suspected of being compromised, locking it deals with all the effort of desysopping and blocking in a fraction of the time while keeping the account secure. If the path flows through local processes first, then there is added time spent on wheel warring, trying to contact local users which may or may not be around, etc. So it would be useful in the Committee step 1, but perhaps also as a replacement to the bureaucrat step 1. For other types of emergencies, such as when an admin who has long disliked one user goes ahead and blocks them and starts reverting all their edits, locking isn't needed. But it's a good first step in situations where the account is potentially compromised. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

My consideration with still having a local desysop occur is a situation like this, perhaps you could offer some insight into about the stewards would handle it (policy-wise). An admin account (which is active on other projects) is locked after someone email the stewards alerting them to it (the account wasn't blocked and it wasn't desysoped) because they are thought to be compromised after they deleted a highly viewed page or blocked someone for no reason (and no explanation). They emailed the stewards and it was established (the same day) that it wasn't a compromised and they wanted to return to editing the other projects all also edit. Would a steward then unlocks the account (it's no longer compromised so that reason doesn't exist anymore)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't provide you with much of a policy perspective; stewards have very few policies to begin with, instead operating mostly by best practices, and all existing restrictions are lifted in cases of emergency like this. In the case you describe, we would lock the account and contact ArbCom/other local users for context and contacting the user in question. At this point, ArbCom could initiate any action in terms of a desysop motion and have it carried out, by local bureaucrats or stewards if none were around. Once it was established that the account was in the right hands, we would unlock, but first making sure that any local restrictions required were in place on all effected projects (desysopping and potentially blocking being the main ones here). Now, it's just my opinion that stewards are better equipped to deal with these situations. Giving bureaucrats the ability to intervene won't impede our ability to help and take action as needed, and it makes sense to give them the mandate in case they ever need it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ajraddatz, the Committee is discussing it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Just on Callanecc's point 14 above: one concern I've always had about this process is that summary removal of permissions by arbcom is only practically appealable back to arbcom, so the more of us are involved in the original decision, the less confident the affected person would be in having a fair review. My original suggestion was that arbs participating in an "interim" decision recuse from any subsequent case and present the evidence on which they based the decision. However, that's a recipe for cases decided by a small number of people, once other recusals, inactivity, and attrition are accounted for. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I have concerns about this still. There are definitely circumstances as Brad mentioned below that would be as someone as recently called our actions, 'inane'. Also, if the Committee originally intends to let the desysop stand, is there really a point in taking it to full case? That would fall under not getting a fair review either, and gives them additional false hope, stress, and scrutiny. This is not a place where WP:ROPE should be applied. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Without flyspecking every word of the proposals—and without undue confidence that it's possible, even in theory, to anticipate every possible unusual circumstance that might come along—I have two comments at this time, one purely wording-related and one substantive:

• In differentiating between interim and longer-term removal of permissions, I am hesitant to endorse use of the phrase "permanent removal of permissions." I understand that this means "permanent unless overturned," as opposed to "explicitly interim." Even so, we know from experience that it creates confusion to describe something as a "permanent removal of permissions" when that same removal is subject to the proviso that "If requested by the permission holder, or if at least three arbitrators support it, arbitration proceedings will be opened to examine the removal of permissions." So I would suggest replacing the word permanent, although I must admit that having thought about this for a week I haven't come up with a good suggestion for what to replace it with.
• My second comment arises from the same provision that following a "permanent" removal, the administrator may as a matter of right may open an arbitration proceeding to examine the removal of permissions." If this means that on request a full arbitration case will be opened, then an exception is required for extraordinary circumstances—especially if what is meant is automatically a full on-wiki arbitration case. There have been a couple of instances I can think of which it was, or would have been, a serious mistake to open such a case following an emergency desysopping. One of these is Archtransit, and I'm not going to mention the others here, but I'll be glad to e-mail the Committee if requested to. Our wiki values weigh in favor of transparency and on-wiki discussion, both in fairness to the (ex-)administrator and to the community as a whole, but there can be countervailing considerations as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That was our difficulty too. Needs to be a word analogous to "indefinite" for a block. Regarding reviewing the decision to desysop I've now linked arbitration proceedings which includes both full cases and private hearings as required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm looking through the thesaurus and can't find anything other than permanent and indefinite. Indefinite already has a special meaning here and seems to apply, plus later you go on to explain how the bit can be regained. Either is fine to me, but those do seem to be your choices. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe 'Full' or 'Complete' removal? The substantive difference is (or should be) 'removal without necessarily requiring further review' versus 'removal with the possibility of requesting further review'. Immediate (because it is obvious and needs doing quickly) vs relatively quickly (because it is not so obvious and not so urgent). The whole text could do with some simplification. There are too many caveats and maybes and 'almost always'. It should be simple, direct and decisive, so no-one can get confused. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Would it be worthwhile for Carcharoth to try his hand at a simplified version. As a two-time Committee alumnus he should have a good handle on the relevant considerations. (I won't offer to do it, as simplifying things is not necessary my forte, either by reputation or by reality.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Sadly, I fear not (and like you I don't intend to offer). Though I thank you for the kind suggestion. There is enough feedback here for the current arbs to work with. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

SageRad

Note after moratorium: review reopened. I suggested recently that this review remain on hold till after the Thanksgiving weekend,[18] but now SageRad has opened it, as indeed I invited him to on his page. He has removed all his month-old posts and added a new statement, also according to my suggestions, so that's fine. The review can now go ahead and hopefully reach closure, and not run into the sands. I agree strongly with Dennis below, before the break, that we must avoid a situation where "SageRad [says] he is leaving Wikipedia forever, then come[s] back in a month or two and we have the same problem."[19] (Let me emphasize that I don't have any notion that SageRad would do that in a manipulative way. But it's the kind of thing that happens when feelings run high.)

Anyway, it seems a good idea to keep the interrupted previous discussion on the page, since it remains highly relevant, but also to have the month-long divide visible. I've tried to achieve this by a new header for new community discussion (moving Sage's new statement to it), and another one for new uninvolved admin discussion (known as "Result concerning SageRad"). Please feel free to change my changes if you can think of a better system (archive templates?).Bishonen | talk 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC). (I'll have to do this in installments, since I keep getting edit conflicts.) Bishonen | talk 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC).

Request concerning SageRad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions : discretionary sanctions

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

Note, trimmed and extra content placed on subpage here per Bish here. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

SageRad is on a campaign against skepticism and for giving more credence to altmed, and this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, civil as it may be, has been consistently disruptive on fringey medical and CAM topics like fad diets. The key issues are BLUDGEONing discussion with soapbox-y rants against "skepticism" and for "Truth " -- a consistent behavior of using talk pages as forums, talking about "meta-issues", etc, instead of focused discussion on crafting content based on sources per policy and guidelines. He also misrepresents sources in the course of his arguments. In all of that, he fails to yield to consensus and accuses other editors of lacking "integrity". His presence on these topics is a time sink.

• The issue goes back at least to SageRad's editing at David Gorski in May 2015 (three article edits and 21 talk edits) which led to a block.

• From Dec 2015 to March 2016 at Paleolithic diet - see Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_6 in which SageRad bludgeoned the talk page with 180,000 bytes of talk comments expressing his perception that the article was hijacked by "Skeptics". See first post in Dec 2015 and this also from December and here and here and here and here and here though to near-last post in Feb 2016 saying pretty much the same thing.

What spurs this filing, is that SageRad has continued this campaign -- really WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior -- against the perceived skeptic takeover, in article space this fall.

• On Sept 10, opened a section at Talk:Michael Gregerfocusing on his "skeptic" issue here, generally OFFTOPIC soapboxing disrupting already difficult discussions with Greger fans objecting to any critical discussion of Greger. Made 39 comments mostly all on this "skeptic" stuff.
• On Sept 11 at the Scientific skepticism pursuing his campaign there, making 6 edits to Talk exemplified by this
• On Sept 16 at Talk:John A. McDougall, an article about another diet advocate where we have consistent trouble from "fans", making 9 edits to Talk, again arguing against the fad diet attribution and writing the following (this which misrepresented the source as I showed him here. He went on to invoke Godwin's Law here.
• On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine) in a section entitled "Truth of Toxins" where he helpfully brought a new ref but then misrepresented it here and again here arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is the opposite as pointed out to him here. He also brought more of his anti-Skeptic campaigning in diff (already cited dif).
• Most recently at misophonia which has been a struggle to keep neutral in the face of a lot of advocacy, SageRad has again been abusing the talk page like this and fighting perceived skeptic agenda - (dif, and refusing to engage refs summarized twice (here and later here.

I dread that this is heading into another slog like the Paleo diet discussed above and I have no desire to do that again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

1. 29 May 2015 block for violating BLP at David Gorski (see relevance above)
2. topic banned per GMO arbcom case in December 2015
3. blocked via AE for 5 days for violating TBAN in July 2016
4. blocked for one 1 month via DS for violating TBAN in August 2016

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

If you look at SageRad's contribs, this anti-skeptic pro-altmed editing is pretty much all they do here (with the exception of some Race & Intelligence work and some scattered editing on basic biology). In all these cases he is making difficult editing situations worse by adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are. Am suggesting a TBAN from anything related to health, as it is articles about health/alt med where he has mostly brought his SOAPBOXing and disruptive, time-wasting behavior. I would suggest alt med more narrowly but I don't want to get into endless border disputes. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• link updated per SageRad's request. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Bishonen, I will do no more adjusting. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, while i think restricting SageRad from soapboxing would help, the deeper problem of not dealing with sources and even misrepresenting them, and relentlessly advocating for his preferred content, is not going to be addressed by that. The disruption from SageRad's first edits here have been in the field of health which is why I requested what I did. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• User:Tryptofish; while i see how you could suggest that this is at base an interpersonal dispute, SageRad's editing has focused on health from his first days here and there is one consistent arc of behavior that I described in my OP. Yes, that means he and I have clashed since he arrived, since my editing is also focused on health. So yes there is an element of interpersonal dispute, but in my view, it arises from my having to deal with SageRad's problematic behavior on health topics for all this time. I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. The problems are actual, not perceived by me. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. When I filed this I was concerned it might get framed as an interpersonal dispute. I cannot deny that we have been at loggerheads since he arrived; I don't want that to obscure the facts of SageRad's consistent pattern of POV editing and his behavior pursuing that POV, since he arrived here. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish I know you nodded at the problem with SageRad's behavior with your suggestion about some limit on his talk postings. However, I contest your description of this as "Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another." and the mention of RfCs as a possible solution. This is not a DR thing. SageRad has demonstrated a consistent set of problems with regard to POV on content about health and behavior trying to get that content into WP. It is not going to be resolved by treating it merely as a series of good faith content disputes that can be resolved with RfCs. That is why I posted here. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• and now i am going to shut the heck up, unless I am asked something. :) i am arguing too hard. I am long term frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here and I am very comfortable putting that history on the table. Here is his talk page before he purged it at the start of this year; that is where key interactions between SageRad and me took place. I invite anybody who wants to cast this as equivalent to review that from the top down. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• fwiw, i have no objection at all to the month pause in conjunction with SageRad taking a break Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

• diff

Discussion concerning SageRad

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 JzG

SageRad has taken it upon himself to be arbiter of "integrity" on Wikipedia. The recent discussions on Jimbotalk showed that Sage rejects conflicting opinion as invalid, and considers that intergrity is measured by consonance with his ideology. On his user page he links to a website promoting an "ethical skeptic" agenda, which promotes Brian Martin (conspiracy theorist and supervisor of Judith Wilyman's substandard and anti-vaccine PhD) and the website where Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin and others rant against pesky science for not accepting their beliefs. He has adopted the rhetoric of Rome Viharo, who was banned for sockpuppetry while promoting Sheldrake and woo-meister Deepak Chopra (where he also had a COI, IIRC). Sage has used the name of Viharo's website, Wikipedia, we have a problem, as the title of at least one o his threads: [20].

One could put this down to the aftermath of ARBGMO, but long before that he was inserting accusations of censorship against David Gorski based on Gorski's banning him from commenting for trolling. The skeptic community is generally skeptical about anti-GMO rhetoric, and this seems to have set Sage against organised skepticism pretty much from the outset.

All this would be fine if Sage were capable of understanding the difference between his opinion and objective fact. He consistently demonstrates that he is not.

Sage is intelligent and articulate, but he lacks the ability to accept that any conclusion differing from his own might be grounded in truth. The diffs above clearly show this. The biggest problem is that any topic ban would have to include all areas subject to skeptical activism, and I don't honestly think he edits anything much else. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I am not sure this actually is a case of editors who can't stand each other. I can't speak for Jytdog, but I do not dislike Sage at all. That's part of the problem: I feel very conflicted. I like him but his constant m:MPOV is vexing. In my opinion, if he could accept the possibility of any valid conclusion other than his own, he would be a valued contributor. He has the time and intelligence to read sources, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: You ask "What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?" Really? You can ask that still, after the recent discussions at Jimbotalk? I'd say that [21] and [22] contain a pretty complete answer to exactly that question. Your problem is as I state above: you seem unwilling or unable to accept that any conclusion other than yours could possibly be valid, and you clearly consider that anybody who states a conclusion other than yours is ill-informed, stupid, corrupt or some combination of the three. [23] followed by [24] set the tone, and I reckon the whole reason we are here is that if you took a straw poll of those who have spent time trying to work on articles alongside you, most of us would be of the opinion that left to your own devices you would make those edits again right now. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I have never seen any evidence of you even acknowledging that these are matters where reasonable people may differ, let alone being open to changing your mind. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Fine with that, Sage has a new baby I think - I can still remember the effects of infant-induced sleep deprivation even two decades later. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Your six month review is fine as long as the topic areas don't include those under current dispute. I would not consider six months at Wikibooks productively writing anti-GMO material to be evidence of rehabilitation, and I don't think you would either. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't have anything particularly global to add, although I agree with Bishonen's concern that there is a genuine time-sink going on.

Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another. See also: User talk:SageRad#Talk:Misophonia. It's not as simple as white-hats and black-hats.

Instead of editors getting sucked into tl;dr arguments where nobody persuades anyone else, have content RfCs been adequately explored as a way of moving past logjams? (Example RfC question: "Below are some sources that say that misphonia is a genuine disorder, and some sources that say that it is not. Taking the sources together, should this page present it as a genuine disorder?")

I've been trying to think of a possible DS restriction on SageRad that might be practical to design. Perhaps a word limit for talk page comments about AltMed pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I did not say it was interpersonal at its base. It isn't. But it is, partly ("some"). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: I agree with you that Sage has a lot of potential as an editor, and I was referring more to Jytdog than to you, but despite the replies from Jytdog and from you, I still think that my statement is accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: I IAR put back (collapsed) the version of Sage's statement that he had reverted, and I think that it is a better statement than his original one. @Sage: you are permitted to add to your original statement, so you can always add new stuff (well, there's a word limit that is not being followed at the moment) as long as you don't delete the old stuff; you can also strike through anything you wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I've been seeing problems with SageRad continue to brew on my watchlist after their GMO sanctions. Just in the context of their previous sanctions from GMOs, part of the reasoning why they were topic banned was the exact same behavior we're still seeing here. When people start to complain about how a topic is being antagonized by SageRad's continued soapboxing, they're often met with SageRad's "What, who me?" responses when told to knock it off just like we are seeing in their response to this AE. Basically, disruption in fringe and health topics followed by playing the victim when they're behavior on article pages is called out. Add in the obvious battleground behavior, and we're back to where we were with SageRad before the GMO ArbCom case. That's especially apparent with their "othering" (i.e., "bullies") of editors that try to curtail the disruption SageRad causes in topics where they engage in advocacy or soapboxing about their personal ideals. It's becoming apparent SageRad just won't listen even after their sanctions. Same behavior as GMOs, just different topics now.

At the end of the day, I don't have strong convictions about specific action against SageRad since I don't have to deal with them in my topic areas anymore (mainspace at least), but it's apparent they just moved their behavior issues outside their topic ban. I do feel for editors that still end up putting up with this behavior pretty regularly though. Here area a few ideas for sanctions to impose on SageRad that should at least stop the disruption and maybe turn them around:

1. One-way interaction ban when dealing with Jytdog. I don't have super strong support for this as it's really just a band-aid, but the continued battleground behavior is obvious while Jytdog has been acting at least relatively reasonable (though obviously frustrated) in the face of this string of continued behavior. I'm usually open to less complicated two-way bans, but I think we can agree SageRad's behavior is the core issue here to work on first.

2. Expanding topic bans as JzG mentioned. Probably the most concrete topic ban would be a broadly construed ban on any topic related to health (including environmental contamination for clarity). A topic ban on any WP:FRINGE topic could be a secondary consideration, but that's harder to define for avoiding wikilawyering. Word limits might have been a consideration back when SageRad was newer to Wikipedia, but the issue here seems to be they just can't let go in these topics.

3. Long-term block. SageRad has used tons of rope already still showing behavior (regardless of what they actually say) that they are not WP:HERE and are instead using Wikipedia more for soapboxing and hyperbole. Maybe that can change if they are handed a topic ban that gets them out of this activism mindset and into topics where they can act like a normal editor. I think we have to acknowledge though that if this all continues, the WP:ROPE is going leading to this last option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing The Wordsmith's and Dennis Brown's comments on on applicable DS for a topic ban, this ArbCom case explicitly imposes DS on "all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". In terms of DS, there would be no issue with a WP:FRINGE topic ban option, and the case could be made under that for a medical topic ban because that's where the fringe issues occur. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Skyring

After a tangential mention in discussion below, a tangential comment. SageRad has his own strong views, is well-informed, intelligent, and productive. There's a place for him here. But when he encounters opposition, rather than discuss the points of opposition in the context on improving the article(s), he takes it personal and tries to convert other editors to his views, which he considers to be the rational factual objective plain truth, and everybody else is a deluded fool or a tool of big business or something, and ultimately Wikipedia is fatally flawed because of this evil and that evil.

Well, it's not. It works, it's a valuable reference, it's an internet marvel. SageRad should get offa his soapbox, work with those who have contrary opinions, and for the love of ghod, stop filling pages with long rambling rants! SageRad, we love you, we want you, it's just your behaviour needs a bit of a tweak. Okay? --Pete (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn

As an editor who has had a role in the current Chemophobia article I was surprised to see, on 20 October, postings by SageRad on both the article's Talk page and at WP:FT/N report a "POV issue" because "This article presents 'chemophobia' as if it's a psychological phenomenon ..."

• [25]
• [26]

On re-reading the article I saw (as did a number of other editors) that this is simply not the case: the article says precisely the opposite. This has been pointed out but since then no retraction, explanation or further comment has been made. On top of SageRad's editing history this looks far from being constructive activity. What is going on?

Because of SageRad's problematic stance towards skepticism I don't think a TBAN on health content is quite right - a TBAN needs to cover (probably in addition) any topic covered by the WP:FRINGE guidance - broadly construed - though I fear this will not succeed because SageRad seems to have a novel view of what is, and is not, fringe that is out-of-sync with the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

@Wordsmith, discretionary sanctions are authorised for a number of areas SageRad has been problematic in. So realistically you could apply any sanction you wanted (provided you felt it had merit). The real issue is that SageRad is not topic-bound in his disruption. He has an anti-skeptic agenda which manifests in disruptive editing wherever skepticism is evident. He is not pro-fringe as it was, just anti-evidence-based science. His editing MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, argue with people until he finally gets they dont agree with him, then rants about how everything is unfair.

The problem is fringe and skepticism cover a huge range of topics. From pseudoscience, lifestyle, history, medical etc. Normally a targetted topic ban would suffice, but to limit SageRad's disruption would require a 0/1 revert restriction AND some sort of enforced character limit on discussions. And even *then* that would really only just keep disruption to a minimum, it wouldnt prevent anything as SageRad has a worldview that is incompatible with how Wikipedia populates article content. Alexbrn has laid out the most recent example. Jzg and a couple of others say SageRad is clearly intelligent etc, but I disagree. SageRad has repeatedly failed to grasp basic wikipedia concepts & policies, and as Alexbrn's example shows above, clearly has an issue in reading comprehension. There is a CIR issue here. This may be because he skim-reads and fails to grasp what is actually said - Jytdog has listed a number of examples where SageRad cherry-picks/looks at brief abstracts/summaries instead of reading and understanding what material actually says.

But this disruption is not limited to Wikipedia, this is just his latest venue for pushing his POV/Agenda. He came here (and was subsequently sanctioned) after getting into conflict with Gorski. He previously linked to his rants/comments offsite - and even a basic internet search shows his attack-dog mentality when criticised (just in case anyone thinks to accuse me of outing, SageRad has previously linked to his offsite comments himself, then deleted them when it was pointed out they showed his bias). If you are unable to actually implement a workable sanction, this will need to go to ANI or Arbcom for a site ban discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Annnnd we reached the hysterical McCarthy accusations again (this is an ongoing theme, if you take a look at SageRad's talkpage history, specificially their interactions with MjolnirPants). Essentially this illustrates the problem - where multiple people disagree with SageRad, its everyone else that is the problem. Keep in mind, this is multiple editors in multiple topics over an extended period of time (since SageRad came to wikipedia). This is simply a case of 'this person is not suited for wikipedia'. Failure to agree with others is generally fine. People are not required to agree all the time. Failure to agree plus disruption plus personal attacks, plus agenda pushing plus inability to accept consensus is not ok. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

'cool down blocks' imply there is something to cool down from. Or that SageRad is acting out currently. This is not the case. SageRad's current behaviour is completely normal for him. Both during his entire tenure at Wikipedia, and his off-site activities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Plea by DrChrissy

I am not here to comment on the merits or otherwise of this case, rather, I am here to make observations on Sage's behaviour and a plea for a moritorium. Sage's most recent behaviour on this noticeboard and at other places is very uncharacteristic for him. He is making unfocussed edits and flailing around in the multiple threads regarding his behaviour. He has even resorted to swearing which I don't think I have ever seen him do before. His baby is a new baby, I think only 6 weeks old or so, and I think is his first. To make this brief, I believe Sage may be experiencing some sort of melt-down. A moritorium would show compassion and allow Sage to either calm down and/or make decisions in a more rational way which Arbcom would be more able to deal with. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

Unfortunately, I see two problems here. The first has to do with the subject editor, User:SageRad, who has been editing aggressively since May 2015 with a strong point of view on medical and agricultural topics. The second has to do with the history between the subject editor and the filing editor, User:Jytdog. Jytdog has long been editing aggressively in accordance with Wikipedia policy to try to ensure that medical and scientific articles follow Wikipedia medical reliable source guidelines. Jytdog is almost always right with regard to policy, and has made enemies in Wikipedia, and SageRad is one of them, and SageRad has been aggressively attacking Jytdog since he began editing Wikipedia in May 2015. (SageRad made a few scattered edits before then.) Jytdog is absolutely correct in writing:

Actually, one more thing.  The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here.

Jytdog is completely correct in writing:

I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. 

I first became familiar with SageRad when he showed up at the dispute resolution noticeboard hounding Jytdog and claiming mistakenly to be a DRN volunteer. SageRad has been going after Jytdog at least since June 2015.

It is impossible to reason with SageRad to advise him that his behavior is disruptive. SageRad has, since May 2015, seen all efforts to advise him to modify his behavior as "McCarthyism" and "bullying". SageRad was topic-banned by the ArbCom from the topic area of genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. (In case anyone argues that there was a kangaroo court proceeding, he wasn’t just banned by one kangaroo under discretionary sanctions. He was banned by the community-elected panel of kangaroos, except that we are not kangaroos because we are great apes.) He has recently been blocked twice, first for five days, then for one month. It isn’t clear why SageRad is so determined to change Wikipedia when he has apparently decided that Wikipedia is such an ugly corrupt place, but that is SageRad.

If any editor other than Jytdog had been the one filing this request, I would suggest that SageRad be Site-Banned. As it is, Jytdog is the wrong editor to be filing this request, because Jytdog is right, but it looks too much like (almost justified) revenge. I suggest that SageRad be blocked for another month, and that Jytdog be asked to let other editors deal with SageRad after he is unblocked this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

I was trying to avoid commenting here because I've butted heads enough with Sage that it just feels like piling on. That said, what the admins here are seeing as a meltdown is actually pretty par for the course. Outbursts claiming McCarthyism (such as here [27] against Guy or here [28] against... everyone I guess) are fairly normal with Sage, though the Stalinism claim is a new one to me. This has been an ongoing issue when it comes to such hyperbolic claims against other users or WP in general. Capeo (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a further note to admins, it seems unlikely SageRad will accept a voluntary editing restriction after saying they wouldn't accept an enforced one. I highly doubt it will work and will just serve to incite more drama. Perhaps I'm wrong, and SageRad will be fine with it, but I don't think you're going to get the response you're hoping for. Capeo (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Because SageRad keeps insisting that folks look at the Misophonia talk page I did. As well as the article, its history, its sources and the current research. The article was a mess earlier in the year with extraordinary levels of advocate editing. To the degree that editors were adding things to the article, openly in edit summaries no less, to favor particular researchers. The majority of editors on the talk page over the last couple years I looked at also say they have Misophonia. It was brought back to some semblance of balance by Jytdog and others back in February. It quickly spiraled back to being a mess in the interceding months. Looking at the current research "a proposed condition" is exactly the proper way to characterize Misophonia according to the preponderance of RS. There is no diagnostic criteria for it. It's not listed in any diagnostic text. It's near invariably associated with other conditions such as OCD (primarily), anxiety disorders, Autism spectrum or Tourette's Syndrome. SageRad's selective use of a sentence from the Cavanna abstract is not engaging with the actual sources or even the abstract in question, or even Cavanna's actual paper. Even in the abstract itself, it's admitted "At the present stage, competing paradigms see misophonia as a physiological state potentially inducible in any subject, an idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders), or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder."

Cavanna and the one study he cites that agrees with him (that aren't his own) is the only person I can find that presently suggests it might be a primary condition. Even then he admits, in regard to the current definition of Misophonia, "This definition challenges the subsequently proposed views that misophonia is a discrete/idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders)8 or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder, at least in a proportion of cases.4 If confirmed by future systematic studies in large populations, the presence of high rates of comorbidity would go against the argument that misophonia should be labeled as a primary diagnosis. In fact, it would suggest that it is a symptom manifestation of other underlying or comorbid diagnoses and should more appropriately be labeled as a symptom, rather than as a stand-alone diagnosis. Either way, the addition of misophonia to nosographic classification systems of psychiatric disorders, such as the DSM, would require careful consideration." 8 is the study I mentioned. 4 is a short paper by Cavanna. Long story short: Jytdog's wording is correct and it appears SageRad is ignoring the caveats the source in question, which he provided, which isn't even close to the totality of sources in question. Capeo (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

I'm not going to post my usual, fifteen paragraph explanation of every nuance of my own thoughts about this. I'm just going to say two things.

1. I actually do 'like' SageRad in that I get the impression I could have a few beers with him, work alongside him, or have a friendly relationship with him as my next door neighbor. I would likely befriend him if I knew him IRL.
2. I absolutely, wholeheartedly, 100% without reservation support a permanent site ban. His views are immutable, and they are utterly incompatible with Wikipedia. He constantly expresses angst and frustration at his participation here. This is one of those rare cases where a permanent site ban would (eventually) make everyone happier, including Sage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (Roxy the dog)

I'm going to tender for the WP:ROPE supply contract with wikipedia. Must be racing up in value. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Post-break discussion concerning SageRad, from 26 November 2016

Statement by SageRad

I am WP:HERE as my editing makes clear to anyone who takes the time to look. I edit articles well, according to policies. I have written observations about patterns i see in Wikipedia in places where that is appropriate.

This is an onerous and disruptive request made by Jytdog and if anything, should boomerang back at him for wasting everyone's time with drama and disrupting my ability to edit for a month now.

I request Jytdog to reduce the length of his statement to 500 words and 20 diffs which is a guideline stated on this page for good reason. It keeps things less onerous to respond to. Maybe he'll surprise me and be willing to do so. (((Added: he has declined to do so. Oh well, sorry to readers for length of this case.))) (((Further added: I do not consider linking a sub-page to be actually limited to the 500 words/20 diffs as it's still material presented. Might as well not bother.)))

I care about Wikipedia, but i'm pretty disgusted at this point with this case. A total waste of time. Talk about time-sink.

I respect good dialog, and there is such a thing as good dialog with integrity. It's recognizable when it's present and when it's absent.

We must have good dialog on article talk pages to discuss content.

Different people have different points of view. That's welcome here. Out of this difference comes beauty, when it works. What doesn't work is to pillory other editors like Jytdog is doing here, and which is part of the pattern to which i spoke.

Do you want there to be things that cannot be spoken within Wikipedia, under threat of attacks like this one? If so then let's be clear. You want to restrict the realm of discourse so things you don't want to hear cannot be spoken. That's the way of fascism. That's not the ideal of this place.

This is not a "democracy" but it's also not a locked-down ideological place. People must be able to discuss things without fear of being attacked viciously by actions like this one.

Jytdog's 1,500 word complaint is a character attack and misrepresents me greatly, and misrepresents many things.

There are a couple things that i can learn, though...

• Be more brief. Not my strong point. Keep it short.
• Don't speak to patterns that i see in article talk pages regarding editor motivations (even if they're screamingly apparent). Keep it to the content strictly.

I can do these things better. When i edit an article, i can keep all dialog to the sources and the content, and not impute non-ideal motivations to other editors, even through suggestions.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone would do that? Because most people who are attacking me here do that constantly. But ok, i can be the bigger person and do that.

Except on Jimbo's page and other appropriate places, i can and will speak to patterns (not specific editors, and i've never named any specific editors).

So i call on whoever closes this to please put an end to the attempt to silence people who speak to patterns on forums like Jimbo's page. If speech like this is chilled then you get a closed ideological system. That's not good.

So much of Jytdog's long rant uses words like "bludgeon" and "battleground" and "soapboxing" -- guess what? I could use the exact same words about him, having observed him for a year. And several others. But i don't take them to AE like this. I'm not that sort. Trying to shut someone down because you don't like what they have said in dialog is a bad thing. I don't like many things Jytdog has said. Some things i do appreciate. But i don't spend my time trying to shut him down, but instead i tolerate that people have different points of view. I wish he'd have more integrity in dialog when it comes down to specific conflicts, but so it goes.

Jytdog's rant is really a pile of fallacious insinuation.

• I don't say i know "The Truth" as he says. That's a lie. I often say there are multiple points of view and that's more than ok. That's expected and a beauty of how Wikipedia works -- when it works.
• I'm not on a "campaign" -- what a slander word. I have a point of view that i speak, like anyone else.
• I don't "bludgeon" -- i speak to the topic at hand when i have something to add.
• I do see patterns and speak to them in forums where it's appropriate. Occasionally have touched on that in content talk pages, where it's not appropriate -- sorry for this. I'll not do that anymore ever.
• "Battleground behavior" -- not really. There are controversies about many topics, and i often will enter those, going to sources, and sometimes finding and fixing problems in logic of articles or NPOV problems. That's good -- that is what Wikipedia is all about.
• "IDHT" -- no. I hear others. Often others are the ones with their fingers stuck in their ears. Really, go to the details. Read the talk page at Misophonia where it seems Jytdog was the one with "IDHT" in neon on his forehead. Seriously not engaging in dialog cooperatively, more obstructionist.
• I am not on any campaign about "fad diets" or any other "fringe" topics. I'm on a campaign for good sourcing only. If WP:MEDRS sources show some nuance that should be reflected. Nothing more. Jytdog's slanderous words are just that.

So yeah, this whole rant of Jytdog's is a bunch of slanderous misrepresentations. It's a lawyer's work. I'm not a lawyer. I'll trust others to see through the Wikilawyering and see what's going on. He doesn't like me or my point of view and thought he had enough "stuff" to throw it on a wall and see what sticks.

Well, i'm not perfect. Take any specific thing, bring it to a forum, and i will be more than happy to discuss it, and to recognize how i can be a better editor. Really, i want to learn more, and be a better editor and better person all the time.

But do it right -- do it about a specific thing, not some mega-bomb of insinuations. He's the one on a campaign. He's the one with behavioral problems. He's the one who want to shut me up because he doesn't like my point of view.

I've been generally civil. I always want to get back to the sources and the content, to improve articles. Only in spaces where it's what people do have i spoke about larger patterns in Wikipedia, and it got discussed, and i'm thankful. (After some admin banned me for a month the first time, then i brought it up again and it was a long fruitful conversation.)

Also, whoever reviews this, don't believe the hype of a small group of editors who consistently attack people like me, making comments here. It's like flies attracted by smell to a pile of rotting fruit... they are here by attraction, self-selection.

So, in brief, i'm here. I'm an editor. Any limitation on my editing would be a bad decision here and would enable vague attacks against editors who dissent too often from a "mainstream" viewpoint -- and Wikipedia is not meant to be a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It's meant to be a verifiable encyclopedia. A solid encyclopedia. A neutral point of view encyclopedia. There is no party line here except good sourcing and neutral representation of those sources.

If you want me to be more careful about not ever imputing motives to other editors in content discussions, then yes, i'll do that -- and i'll add that those who would rather see me gone forever should to the same but probably won't, and are ten times worse than me in this regard. But whatever, i'll be the bigger person and do that.

And i'll be more brief.

Treat me with respect and i'll do the same.

I don't expect that to happen here, but whatever. Leave me alone unless you have something productive to say. I've got other things to do.

SageRad (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SageRad

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

• I hope I'll have time to return to this request — it requires a daunting amount of reading for someone not already familiar with the relevant discussions — but I have a couple of initial points:

A. I don't see a problem with SageRad's posts on Jimbo's page. They're the kind of thing that page is for. But it's another matter to keep "adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are", as Jytdog puts it, to various article talkpages. I agree that is disruptive and time-wasting. To get the flavour, I've read through the Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 6, that Jytdog referred to and I see exactly what he means by timesink. (I admit I didn't read quite all of the archive, but a good chunk, maybe half, and it was one of my worst hours on Wikipedia.) SageRad's bandying of phrases like "witch hunt" and his assumptions of bad faith of editors like Johnuniq and User:Skyring are just depressing.[29] ("Thanks sir, who I have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion"... "another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past... the gang shows up.") The best thing might be a topic ban from going on about meta-issues on article talkpages, as well as the persistent accusations of people "ganging up" on and "bullying" him as soon as they disagree with him. But formulating such a ban properly and usefully is no doubt impossible. I see JzG too has a problem with what a ban might cover.

B. SageRad's comment "Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog" in his response here is really unpromising. SageRad, I have read the "diatribe" carefully and found it full of interesting stuff and food for thought. Well, I would guess you have read it too by now, but for you to start by blowing off your opponent like that looks just like an unfortunate illustration of what JzG said above about a lack of ability to accept that any conclusion differing from your own might be grounded in truth. I hear what you say about real life busyness, but there's always the option of requesting more time to reply.

Oh, and C, just a PS to Jytdog: updating the link just now was fine, but for goodness sake don't otherwise fiddle with your initial statement any more. Fluidity in that makes it much harder for others to evaluate and respond. If you must make new points, please do so below your main signed and dated filing, with a new sig and datestamp. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC).

Note: @SageRad: I see you ask above how much time you may have, and saying you don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I suggest you put a request above, at the end of your statement, something on the lines of "I'm busy in real life, can I please have a week (or whatever specific time span would fit your circumstances) to supply a responsive and factual statement?" I'm sure the admins would agree to put this on hold for the time you need. However, if what you mean is that you will never have time to make a reasonable defense, or supply any evidential diffs, then we might as well deal with this as speedily as possible. Please let us know. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC).

Continued note: I see @SageRad: says he wants a month. (Please stop adding stuff for a minute, as that's making it rather hard to respond.) Of course that seems a lot. When I wrote my original note, I hadn't seen your latest edits [30][31][32] ("This place is damned.. This place is gone..This place is captured by an ideological crew..." etc), which strongly supports Jytdog's complaint. If you stand by that, we may IMO as well siteban you and be done with it. But if what you need is some cooling-off time and then a new statement, it's fine by me. A month of not editing (since you're busy IRL. and will also be busy writing up a statement here) would work for me. What do other people think of a one-month moratorium, please? We could archive this request temporarily and bring it back on 25 November. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC).

• Comment I'm still reading through the copious amounts of content presented as evidence. I think there is probably a need for some sort of action here, though I'm not quite sure what the best course is yet. As a point of order, however, I would like to note that this board and its administrators do not have the power to issue a topic ban from "health content"; that would be something to be brought up at one of the conventional noticeboards. The most severe topic ban available to us would be "pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine" or some narrower subset of that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading SageRad's latest postings, I think the assessment that he is in some sort of meltdown is essentially correct. Given that he is also dealing with a newborn child, I think compassion ought to reign here. Provided Sage agrees to take some voluntary time off editing, I would have no problem with putting the request on hold for a month or so. If he returns to editing, it can be resumed with cooler heads all around. Getting some sleep and adjusting to his new family situation might help the behavior problem on its own. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• We are empowered to implement any conventional sanction even though it is here at AE, treating it as a non-Arb issue without moving it to another board. OID raises some interesting points, and I have to admit only going through part of the evidence, yet this looks like one form of WP:Tendentious editing, albeit not a textbook example. He seems to be taking a singular position on a general theme (skepticism) and bludgeoning multiple pages and refusing to listen to consensus, to the point that it is disruptive to other editors that are simply trying to build an encyclopedia. It does seem to be a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single venue, which has gone well beyond spirited debate and to the point that it is hindering the building of the encyclopedia. Again, WP:TE. I would like to read more and will later today, but this is how it is shaping up in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  I'm was about to propose something else, something not as palatable as Bishonen's idea, but would entertain Bish's idea. What I don't want to happen is for SageRad to say he is leaving Wikipedia forever, then come back in a month or two and we have the same problem. I would only accept if we continue this in one month, even if it is in absentia. What I would have proposed is a 6 month block and 12 month ban on pseudoscience/medicine (to include skepticism, which is a stretch), to run concurrently. That would allow a long enough period of time as to prevent disruption for 6 months at least, and perhaps past that knowing the next block is indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  If I've learned anything in my decade plus experience here, SageRad, it is that people often say things in the heat of the moment they regret. A sanction doesn't require consent by the sanctioned. My first concern is all the other editors that are affected by your behavior. People leave Wikipedia because they get frustrated by people doing things like what you are doing, because they can't edit in a normal fashion and the frustration is too much. That is the purpose of a sanction, not to benefit you, but to benefit them, and by extension, Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• "If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands." Oh dear. If that was a statement made under what we can call extenuating circumstances, it's probably best if this editor stays away from Wikipedia for a while. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal: What I suggested above was that we put this on hold for a month with SageRad voluntarily abstaining from editing during that period, which is apparently The Wordsmith's opinion also. Having watched SR continue to "flail around" (per DrChrissy) makes me a bit dubious about the voluntary part; is he in a state where he can and will comply with a voluntary restriction? A one-month block for recent and ongoing disruption might technically be better. But I don't like to consider it, because people generally take blocks as humiliating. (Not me, I'm proud of mine, but it took me a few years to attain such block zen.) Humiliation is very bad and goes counter to the compassion principle. Therefore, I suggest a one-month moratorium with SageRad taking a wikibreak that has nothing to do with blocks and block logs. (Please briefly indicate if you agree to do that, @SageRad:.) If he edits anywhere in a disruptive way during the moratorium, he will then be blocked, and I advise against editing at all. And we collapse this until 25 November, but it can be re-opened earlier by SR himself, if he feels ready for it. He will be free to remove all his own posts here and start afresh, if desired. And I agree emphatically with Dennis that we must avoid a situation where we close without action, SR leaves, and then returns in a month or two, unsanctioned. We need to protect Wikipedia and other users from the bludgeoning that has been going on. The case should be discussed again in a month at the latest, even if in absentia. Is this acceptable to other admins? Bishonen | talk 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC).

For the record, that's more or less what I was suggesting. I'm not a fan of WP:COOLDOWN blocks when not absolutely necessary, and I'm not convinced this case warrants it. His conduct needs to be dealt with, but letting cooler heads prevail is a much better path for everyone involved. I endorse this proposal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm fine with that. Can't hurt to try as long as we don't forget it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• OK, thanks, all. Sigh... let's focus on the edit summary and first sentence of SageRad's statement here, that he is actually, now, taking a wikibreak, and put this on hold for a month. I hope he means it, because if there should be further ABF harangues in the coming month, I believe he should be blocked. Closing. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC).

Post-break discussion of result concerning SageRad by uninvolved admins, from 26 November 2016

• I'll kick it off. Most people above seem to agree that the encyclopedia needs to be protected from SageRad's battleground editing, ABF and bludgeoning. I'm distressed that we have so long been squandering the energy and enthusiasm of the many editors who are affected by it, and I don't see much of a change in his new statement, either. (I figured it was hopeless when I saw the mention of flies and a pile of rotting fruit in the new statement, and the new attacks on Jytdog.) But finding the best scope is a problem, since SageRad's wide-ranging anti-skeptic agenda doesn't fit very well into the way our discretionary sanctions are constructed. I've been trying to figure out a tailormade topic ban, as you can see others doing above before the break, and if somebody has an even slightly watertight idea along those lines, I'll support it. But till then, I propose a one-year block. A request for unblock in six month's time should be regarded favorably, provided he has done some constructive editing of other Wikimedia projects in the meantime. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC).
• After reading the conflict on SageRad's talk page, I see that nothing has changed. I was pinged here as I participated in the previous discussion but that plays no part in my opinion, demonstrated by the fact that I'm maintaining my previous position. As for a solution, I think Bishonen's idea above is satisfactory. If they are that busy in the real world, being here is a distraction and likely leading to the bad behavior here. Regardless, being here is a burden that outweighs the benefits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning My very best wishes User who is submitting this request for enforcement  DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBAPDS : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  06:54, 17 October 2016 The first time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of an RfC. Instead of posting something on the talk page, My very best wishes described the perfectly reasonable RfC as "ridiculous" and accused the requestor, EvergreenFir, of using it to stonewall. The irony here is that the one stonewalling was My very best wishes, not EvergreenFir. 21:27, 19 October 2016 The second time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of the RfC. 09:54, 26 October 2016 The third time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of the RfC. In the edit summary they acknowledged the existence of the RfC. My very best wishes ignored repeated talk page comments that the content should be excluded during the pendancy of the RfC. A pretty clear violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT. 12:19, 26 October 2016 Playing dumb and failing to acknowledge RfC, after AE warning. 12:40, 26 October 2016 Refusal to self-revert, and failure to acknowledge that their re-insertions violated our WP:NOCONSENSUS policy. 19:58, 27 October 2016 My very best wishes continues to edit war over this material, now re-deleting an {{undue-inline}} tag that flagged the existence of the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC) If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (one of many). Additional comments by editor filing complaint  (My apologies if I've messed something up, as this is my first time lodging an AE complaint.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC) My very best wishes, the arbitration warning states: “ 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. ” This is what you did, three times. Your primary justification appears to be that you were following some sort of custom to preserve the material being discussed in an RfC. This custom does not "trump" (pardon the pun) active arbitration remedies, especially when you are re-inserting allegations of sexual misconduct in a BLP. I'll also note that WP:RFC states: “ Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved. ” --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC) My very best wishes, thank you for pointing out that I did accidentally and technically violate 1RR just now (after filing this complaint) by restoring a dispute tag while the relevant dispute was ongoing. I acknowledge my mistake and have self-reverted--something you have refused to do. As for your suggestion that the RfC be closed, I agree that would help toward resolving the content dispute, but not toward resolving this conduct dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC) I have identified at least 3 verifiable falsehoods in Tataral's statement, but they really bear on the matters not pertinent to this complaint, which is about My very best wishes's conduct, not about my conduct or the content dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Drmies, Lankiveil, and Guy, I think some of you (at least Drmies) have misunderstood this complaint. I'm not screaming BLP violation, I'm saying that Mvbw clearly and flagrantly violated the arbitration remedy that provides: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Mvbw and I have a disagreement about content, which is being hashed out on the talk page. The difference between my behavior and theirs is that I have used only the talk page and tagging to "stick to my guns" whereas they have repeatedly re-reverted the same content without consensus, in violation of active arbitration remedies, to stick to theirs. One is the right way to edit DS articles and the other is not. I'm puzzled that you're so quick to excuse such behavior on one of the most visible and contentious articles in the encyclopedia - one that was basically what DS was designed to manage. Drmies, I'm also surprised at your uncharacteristically un-AGF comment. If you look at the entirety of my contributions to Donald Trump you'll see that I've taken all sides, sometimes with Mvbw and sometimes against, and I have nothing against them beyond that they have behaved disruptively in this particular dispute and have set a very poor example for less experienced editors. I have to be honest, this smacks of favoritism toward the long-timers, even if unintended. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Drmies, I must say I'm completely baffled by your latest response, and I think you continue to misunderstand me. I absolutely disagree with those who say that insertion of the rape content is immediately blockable, and I'm blinkered as to how you can tag me with poor arguments made by others. Moreover, your suggestion that Mvbw "did something I think is wrong and didn't repeat it" is verifiably false. Mvbw restored content without consensus three times--in clear violation of AE remedies, no?--while there was ongoing talk page discussion. The third time I had specifically called out this behavior and asked editors like Mvbw to stop restoring the content without consensus. So what does Mvbw do? They ignored the discussion and restored the content anyway. (1) How is this good behavior? (2) How is this in compliance with AE remedies--and if it's not, are you really ready to signal that enforcement of AE remedies is discretionary? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Drmies, say what? You continue to misread. The RfC was set up by EvergreenFir, not by me, and the comments you're quoting aren't part of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Drmies, I hope I can answer your questions by saying: (1) Yes, I hope everyone will stop fighting over that content, not just Mvbw; (2) Here is the reason I chose to bring this complaint against Mvbw; and (3) My dream remedy would be an uninvolved admin posting a big, bold notice on the talk page saying something like, "Everyone, knock it off and leave this material out of the lead section pending formal closure of the RfC or other consensus to restore this material, per policy. Violators will be tbanned until after the election." I don't know if you guys have authority to do that, but it would solve a lot of problems all at once. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Schmarnnintelligenz, you are deliberately misrepresenting my motives. In the very same comment that you linked to, I explain that the reason for this complaint is to discourage bad behavior (edit warring, reverting with out discussing) by Mvbw and others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  13:42, 26 October 2016 Discussion concerning My very best wishes 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 My very best wishes In the first diff of complaint I refer (edit summary) to this unhelpful RfC request closed by an administrator. I obviously did not mean user EvergreenFir in this edit summary. I meant other users. An administrator who closed this request also opened another RfC that was a lot more helpful. Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC by admin. The content under discussion in the RfC was the last paragraph in the introduction. Strictly speaking, this paragraph should not be modified during standing RfC until it is closed. However, I do agree that the initial version of this paragraph was POVish, and it evolved to another, more neutral version, one that I have restored here (3rd diff in complaint). I think this latest version is fine and should remain, possibly in this, even more neutral version. However, if the RfC will be properly closed with conclusion to remove, I am very much willing to agree with consensus. But the RfC is still open, and there is no consensus to remove this material from intro. I fully explained my edits here and here. Nevertheless, the filer decided to go ahead with this complaint. Why? If am wrong here, please explain, and I will try to improve. Note that I discussed this subject on article talk page. As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest, and I did not receive a formal warning about discretionary sanctions in this area, although I know about these sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC) A constructive suggestion. Could an uninvolved admin look at this RfC and close it please, one way or another. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. Note that DrFleischman just threatened to report yet another user on WP:AE [33] and ... violated 1RR rule on this page [34],[35] (note that both his edits are restoration of "content challenged by reversion" he complains about here). DrFleischman is well aware of the 1RR restriction on this page, but refused to comply [36]. Note that I made only three edits on this page during a week. My very best wishes (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC) DrFleschman now self-reverted, but asked other users (edit summary) to continue edit warring on his behalf. I tried to explain him that he acted inappropriately, but without any success. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC) @James J. Lambden. After reading comments on the RfC, it appears that most people agree with this edit by Awilley. His text is similar to that in my last edit on this page. I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC) @James J. Lambden. No, this is wrong count by you. Most people on the RfC agreed that at least one phrase should be included in intro. Even if I made mistakes, I corrected them later - see my last diff which places essentially same content as was previously placed by admin based on his reading of comments on very same RfC; I think some participants around here are gaming the rules by removing everything they do not like to claim "hey, you can not place this back as something I challenged by reversion", I think my editing of BLP pages is generally fine (I had no a single warning for this); This is all beyond the point because I am not going back into this mess per suggestion by Lankeveil. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC) @EtienneDolet and James J. Lambden. Yes, I have some interest in US politics, but this is not an area of my main interest. Why do you see it as a problem? My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC) @Lankeveil. I agree to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC) @EtienneDoliet. In the comment you quoted I refer to this RfC. Yes, this RfC is ridiculous because it asks about the number of words in a phrase. That's why an admin posted another RfC instead. As about child rape accusations, I saw them in this section of a WP article and they seemed well sourced to me. I do not insist these accusations should be placed back. This is something to be decided by WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I am not sure why three contributors below (EtienneDolet, Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield) blame me of "Putinophobia", and not for the first time. This AE request has nothing to do with that subject. I do not even edit page about him for a long time. EtienneDolet does. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC) @ED. No, I do not edit disruptively: I do not think any of my edits during last 3 weeks caused anyone's objections. Yes, you made this AE comment, and I preferred to respond on your talk page rather than here. Was that disruptive? No, I simply tried to mend some fences and make a friendly social conversation with you in response to your repeated accusations on various administrative noticeboards. No, I did not really talk about people, but about elections. There is nothing fringe here. This is all discussed in mainstream media. As about the role of German Communist Party in historical elections in Germany, this is simply a textbook example. I could give you some refs if you were interested in. But if you are not interested in history, that's fine. Why bring it here? My very best wishes (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tataral If I'm not mistaken, User:DrFleischman has made at least 3 reverts during the last 24 hours in violation of 1RR. It is somewhat amusing that this user, DrFleischman, who is engaging in revert warring and battleground behaviour to such an extent, threatens to file frivolous reports over the same issue against one editor after another (who unlike him haven't edit warred and who have made only one edit during a whole week reinstating the stable and consensus-supported version) when he doesn't get it his way. When someone claims everyone else is wrong, it's usually the other way round. When reading the talk page in its entirety, after 2 weeks of discussion, it is clear based on policy-based arguments that there is consensus to include a brief mention of the controversy, in the form of the wording that has been stable for quite some time now. Numerous editors have presented sound policy-based arguments (summed up nicely by JasperTECH under the heading "My comment copied from below") in favour of its inclusion, at least in the form of a brief mention (as is currently the case), but on the other hand there is a case to be made that consensus is against including a whole paragraph on it, as was originally the case. The current two-sentence wording is much shorter than the original paragraph, and also a lot more neutral, and is really a compromise and the result of painstaking work by many editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording that complies with the BLP policy to the maximum extent possible. If User:DrFleischman disagrees with it, he should seek consensus on the talk page instead of revert-warring or trying to bully other editors. --Tataral (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden Nowhere in My very best wishes's response do I see a link to any discussion showing consensus to include the text he restored. Did I miss it? His comment above is also dubious: "As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest" He made a similar comment a few days ago on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 talk page: "I usually do not edit US politics and have more or less fresh eyes here" Yet, examining his recent contributions I see he's involved in the following articles: Donald Trump Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations 2016 US Russian cyber conflict WikiLeaks Clinton Foundation List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording controversy Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy Now I'm just a simple caveman but the Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy seems like a relatively obscure topic for someone not very interested in American politics. It will be interesting to compare editors' responses in this request to their responses in Anythingyouwant's request above, since they involve the same bit of text in the same article. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC) @My very best wishes: You say: "I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page." Let's see: On Oct 17 the RFC asking whether the existing coverage ("Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.") was sufficient stood at: Yes: 5 No: 5 (one of those saying it should only be expanded to include Trump's counterclaims) Maybe/Comment: 3 You expanded it to a paragraph shortly after, including a poorly-sourced claim of "child rape" (diff #1) On Oct 20 the RFC asking whether the allegations should be included in the lede and to what extent stood at: Yes/short or one sentence: 2 Yes/more than short or one sentence: 9 No: 11 Based on that you restored a full paragraph (diff #2) On Oct 26 the same RFC stood at: Yes/short or one sentence: 4 Yes/more than short or one sentence: 13 No: 13 Based on that you restored a 3-sentence description (diff #3) Comments addressing potential BLP violations are I believe misguided - the relevant policy (as DrFleischman specifies in his complaint) is WP:ARBAPDS: 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. In each of these instances consensus was not just absent but against the multiple-sentence description restored by My very best wishes. My own opinion (as far as BLP) is that a single restoration of a poorly-sourced child rape claim, against consensus, in a highly visible BLP and an area covered by discretionary sanctions is grounds for a permanent ban from BLPs. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Schmarnnintelligenz I came here feeling invited via a link posted by DrFleischmann to Talk:Donald Trump#Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2 and am really astonished reading this (not all tl;dr;) and just wanted to leave this comment: While working on some of the current politics articles I saw the name DrFleischman really often - and often reverting other users. Then suddenly he placed a warning on my usertalk although I had strictly followed the 1RR rule prominently displayed on the Trump article, so I looked a bit more what he was doing and to me several edits look like breaching the 1RR or "avoiding" it by using just other words. Also in my eyes DrFleischman is very skillful on talkpages interpreting disagreements towards the solutions he wants to achieve, often by accusing fellow contributors of not adhering to the guidelines, also often by positive, constructive language. In the Difflinks provided I don't see [My very best wishes] acting against the rules, just editing with similar means like DrFleischman. Perhaps both could agree to both adhere more to our giudelines and look more friendly for consensus while accepting that consensus is not always "what I want" and that consensus is fluent and not only the "powerusers" here have valid arguments. My suggestion would be: Close this here and Keep calm and focus on content, folks :-) --SI 17:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC) As I see that this is still an open case, I ask the admins to have a look at User talk:DrFleischman#AE question, especially this edit: "Tell you what, if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint.". I'm really shocked. So this case here is deliberately used to force content out of an WP article by trying to force one user to grant a consensus with many others? Do I undestand that langauge correct? --SI 14:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by EtienneDolet @Lankiveil: and @JzG: and to all the other admins involved in this case. There's a lot of misleading claims here that My very best wishes regularly employs in order to excuse himself when the going gets tough. Just two months ago, in this case, Mvbw was quick to say that he was actually interested in American politics to excuse himself from tag-team edit-warring charges piled against him. Here is exactly what Mvbw said at the tag-teaming accusations against him: If it helps, I promise never look at the editing history of VM in the future, even though this is not forbidden by policy. That however, does not guarantee that I will not appear on the same pages as him, because we have a significant overlap of interest, including US politics. To clarify matters further, he also said the following in response to Softlavender's concerns that the tag-team edit-warring was spreading to different topic areas: @Softlavender. Even if I was not interested in these subjects (yes, they are actually interesting to me), but only wanted to improve content as a generally disinterested contributor, that still would be OK. And indeed, there's this stark comment here: It was only very recently that the ongoing presidential campaign in US brought my attention. This is something highly unusual and therefore interesting to me. So it's one form of the truth when he's under fire with one accusation, but it's another form of truth under another. Apparently, it's an all too familiar pattern of playing dumb when it comes to not only editing at mainspace (as exemplified by DrFleischman), but even as he defends himself as well. All in all, it's quite deceptive towards admins that haven't known this user's history and apparent pattern of disingenuous handling of his affairs. As for Mvbw's editing pattern, I'm surprised this user is not banned for this edit alone. As I am also surprised that he wasn't banned for this. I mean, there's a pretty strong pattern here of treating the articles of people he doesn't like with a sly attempt to destroy them, either by undermining the consensus building process to make them better, or to directly add material that would undermine the article altogether. I suggest the admins look beyond this report and seriously consider the long pattern of problematic behavior this user has be accused of doing. It's the only way of truly grasping the extent of the concerning behavior this user has caused in the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Drmies, see the edit-summary of that edit. You see the part that says "RfC is ridiculous and used for stonewalling"? Well, that's not the same as making a wrong edit that's "not maintained by consensus". Indeed, that would make it sound okay. As in, much more blameless than it should be. You know, as if it were some accident or something. But this was a highly contentious edit in the most visible BLP article in Wikipedia (and of a guy that's known to sue, might I add). To top it all off, Mvbw makes a mockery of this project's consensus building procedures (calling it: "This is probably the most ridiculous RfC I have seen in the project") and has the effrontery to dismiss those who participate in them as nothing but "stonewallers". And he does this not once, not twice, but three times, which in itself makes a mockery of the RfC. So it's not just a wrong edit, it's a disruptive POV pushing pattern. He has openly taken a side on the issue and pushed his POV even while good faith editors were in the process of building a consensus. The pattern is there. The disruption is there. All the fundamental signs that would usually lead to a topic ban are there. What else is missing? I've seen users get indeffed for doing much much less. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC) That should not give you the right to delete material you don't like only hours before you made that remark. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Could admins here make in any less obvious that they are waiting until after the elections to resolve this case? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC) @DrFleischman: Honestly, I don't think this report matters anymore. Mvbw (or VM for that matter) received something worse than a topic ban: a Trump presidency. It was a nice try on their behalf though. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC) So here we have Mvbw saying that he would rather have a topic ban, or a site ban, than a Trump presidency. In a follow up remark, we also have him hypothesizing some pretty bizarre conspiracies: mainly that Hitler was brought up by the Russians, and that Trump's rise (with Russia's help) is no different. Yet, this is nothing new. He often invokes Hitler when talking about world leaders he doesn't like. He pulled off the same stunt at Vladimir Putin several times ([37]). So now that we know what his personal POV is, and now that we have diffs of him pushing his POV all over the topic area in a disruptive manner, do we still think this user is neutral enough to edit this topic area? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Mvbw now sneakily removes a previous comment he made on this very thread that points to an op-ed entitled: "America Elects a Bigot". Better yet, Mvbw references this article and says "I do not think this subject area will be quiet after electing such president. Did anyone else catch that? I narrowly missed it myself. But I'll say it once, and I'll say it again, Mvbw is not shy about his opinions when it comes to Donald Trump. We all know that that's not a problem in and of itself. But when he is editing to that effect, that would mean there's some serious POV pushing going on, and he should therefore be restricted from making edits to this topic area altogether. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Athenean I'm frankly amazed My very best wishes hasn't been topic banned from US politics articles already. At Donald Trump in particular, all he does is edit war [38]. The rape diff alone is especially disturbing and grounds for a ban just by itself. He is edit-warring to reinstate extremely defamatory, poorly sourced material to the lede of a high visibility BLP article. for crying out loud. Can anyone think of something worse? Because I can't. Drmies' special pleading that it was a "setup" is baffling. Users are fully responsible for their edits, and Mvbw is a veteran contributor. Especially in hot articles like Donald Trump, all users should be extra careful with their edits. The conspiratorial suggestion that he was somehow "set up" is simply mind boggling. As someone else has pointed out, for someone who disingenuously claims to "not be interested in American politics articles", he sure edit wars a lot [39] [40] [41] [42]. In fact that's pretty much all he does in this topic. Content building is virtually zilch. Talk pages are mainly used for obfuscation and deception instead of trying to resolve disagreements in good faith. For example here is demanding users not edit the article until the RfC is closed [43] (but he himself has no problem re-adding controversial material on Donald Trump even though an RfC on the material is ongoing), deliberately misconstruing RfC results ([44]), wikilawyering about when 1RR applies [45], the list goes on. Which brings us to what is arguably the most disruptive aspect of Mvbw's editing: the active use of deception. Mvbw frequently plays dumb (e.g. pretending not to notice an RfC is ongoing) even though he knows full well what is going on. Rules and guidelines are selectively misquoted and manipulated as desired. This shows great contempt for the wikipedia community and its processes. In one edit summary he will say an Rfc is "ridiculous" and use that as an excuse to revert [46], in the next edit summary he uses the fact that the RfC is ongoing as an excuse to revert again (but this time he validates the RfC) [47]. This user just makes a mockery of the entire wikipedia community process at every turn. This is a game to him. Finally, I would also like to disabuse everyone here of the naive notion that Mvbw's disruption in this topic area will magically cease after Nov. 8. As anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia. This is why he edit wars to remove any material that reflects negatively on Clinton [48] [49] and her people [50] [51] using absurd, mocking edit summaries ("not every cold deserves mention", "petty details", "RfC not closed", etc...) and edit wars to reinstate any material that reflects negatively on Trump (the more defamatory the better). Reliable sources and wikipedia process mean nothing; it's all about the mission. Regardless of who wins, I can guarantee the chance of Mvbw abandoning these articles after election day is zilch. Considering the lack of positive contribs, and the disruption wrought, I can't think of a single reason why this topic area benefits from Mvbw's presence. Athenean (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC) @Drmies: So the fact he re-instated the child-rape only once makes it ok? I find it impossible to believe that Mvbw didn't do this knowingly and intentionally. Then we also have this [52], which while not quite as bad as child rape, is quite close. Then there's this little gem here with the whole guilt-by-association gimmick with Mike Tyson [53]. Doesn't quite accuse Trump of rape, but comes quite close. This is deep, deep in WP:TEND and WP:BLPVIO territory. I'm just curious, what would this user have to do to get banned from this topic area? Because if the above behavior is not enough, I don't know what is. Athenean (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield I wholeheartedly agree with Athenean's "anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia" description of the editing aims of My very best wishes. Regarding the Mike Tyson gimmick Athenean mentioned. I also tried to remove that content [54], only to see it immediately returned by My very best wishes [55]. As explained here [56], this off-topic content about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction was being added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump in order to blatantly imply guilt by association. That Mvbw has continue to edit war in this obviously invalid content is telling, but I think even more telling is the silent agreement of many editors to allow it and similar disgraceful content to remain and allow Mvbw to be the attack dog in reversing any attempts at deletion. This is not just "sticking to one's guns", to use Drmies' wording - it is a constant and pov consistent obstruction to the removal of content that clearly breaks numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines on content, language usage, editorializing, and BLP issues. These policies and guidelines take precedence over article-specific sanctions, so Drmies' hand washing "there was some kind of consensus over it" shows a failing in the judgment and guidance that are expected from an administrator. It also displays some flippancy - can Drmies actually point to the talk page discussion that decided on the consensus for the Tyson content he claims exists? There was none - the "consensus" that has allowed that content to remain is nothing more than a "the party that edit wars the longest wins" - this is not how consensus should be determined, and article-specific (even if article-specific ARBAPDS sanction supported) consensus anyway cannot decide to ignore site-wide policies and guidelines. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC) My very best wishes, re your question, by "attack dog" I didn't mean this is what you have been doing, but that I think there are editors who look on you as having that purpose for them: they would like, for pov reasons, to retain for example the Tyson editorialized content, but chose not to defend the material on talk (since it is ultimately un defendable). Instead they are letting you do it through your reverts, knowing that if you are blocked it does not affect them - you are a recent arrival to that article and are editing there for different reasons. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by JFG My very best wishes is clearly an experienced editor who knows very well how to walk a fine line on the edge of the rules, and quickly retract when caught. I wouldn't go so far as to call him "on a mission" but I concur with Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield about his general editing style and behaviour, which tends to discourage editors who are not as strong-willed or as passionate. Unfortunately, neutral and consensus-minded editors can get tired of fighting such people and refrain from further attempts to improve articles on sensitive topics — precisely driving away the kind of contributors we need at Wikipedia: that is the key issue to me in this case. This particular violation doesn't look like a big deal, but it is part of a tendentious pattern coupled with sometimes derogatory or lawyeresque comments. In that spirit, I would find it unfair that MBVW escape with a mere slap of the trout when just a few days ago the same kind of minor violation (although from an editor who has generally proved to be more amenable to consensus discussions) was sanctioned with a TBAN for Anythingyouwant considering his overall pattern of behaviour. Therefore I advocate the exact same "Vanamonde-standard" sanction for MBVW, with an encouragement to be less combative in his future contributions. — JFG talk 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Result concerning My very best wishes This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It is hard to escape the suggestion that this is a setup, and some commentators confirm that. The worst in all this is the inclusion of the "rape" phrase--but that's only in the very first diff. Another editor (Steeletrap, if I remember correctly) used that word on another Trump-related article (can't find which one right now) and I warned them not to do that again--perhaps My very best etc. saw that warning. Moreover, that content was there before the RfC started, so whether removal or reinsertion is the disruptive bit remains to be seen--in other words, what the B is in BRD, for instance. And so what we have is three reinsertions over the course of a week, the first one of which with what I consider a serious BLP violation, but the second ones without that mistake. Now, when exactly which RfC was started and when what content was in, that's less interesting than other matters here: there is no BLP exception (except for in the first, already mentioned and not repeated edit), and the content itself is better documented than the recent effort to land something on Mars. Now, someone inserts that rape shit again, me and a bunch of others will be happy to block on the spot. You want a sentence instead of three sentences on this content, that's fine--but you wait until the RfC is closed before you go to AE, because--again--while one may argue it is undue, it is very hard to see it as a BLP violation. So, this AE request certainly proves that My very best sticks to their guns, as does Dr. Fleischman--good for both of you. It also proves that every single case here has the potential of becoming a lithmus test, which is why James Lambden should really withdraw from this subject matter, since they seem to be incapable of treating any Trump-related conflict as just an editorial conflict, not as some matter of life and death. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman, I am surprised to see you read so much, or misread, my "stick to guns" phrase. Seriously. I have little more to add, except that I just saw yet another editor saying that the rape thing ought to be immediately blockable. It's not. It's not a crazy edit (read the sources, there are some)--just a wrong one which was not maintained by consensus. One of the things that needs to happen here is that if someone does something you think is wrong and doesn't repeat it, that you be happy and maybe congratulate the other editor. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Etienne Dolet, Athenean, et al., "inserted" or "reinserted"? As far as I can tell the editor only inserted it once. Yes, that's not great while an RfC is going on but it's better than twice. Now, that "sexual advances towards" --> "sexually assaulting" edit, claiming that that's somehow almost as bad as accusing someone of child rape is prima facie ridiculous, and such commentary invalidates the point--never mind that "You can do anything. ... Grab them by the p---. You can do anything" is well verified, and is read widely as describing sexual assault. Grabbing someone by the qeuynte is indeed a "sexual advance" in one literary text, but that one is a fabliau and hardly a reliable source for dating advice. And if the Mike Tyson reference is guilt by association, then you have a bigger problem since apparently it's in the article right now, which I assume means there was some kind of consensus over it. Besides, what the editor did was modify something that was already there, so I don't see how that is POV or disruptive or whatever. No, I do not believe I have seen editors indeffed for less. That kind of exaggeration is typical, maybe, for this topic area, and I hear it on TV as well, but in an arbitration forum it is counterproductive. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman, I don't quite follow. The three diffs do not make the same edit. The first contained the rape allegation. That's contentious, I agree, but they didn't repeat it. The second is hardly as controversial as you may claim, and is more a tweak than anything else--as long as we're talking about the lead, and not about Tyson (which is not, as far as I can tell, the subject of talk discussion). One can easily argue that it's an improvement since it turns a specific point about the campaign (already there in the lead--the groping bit) into a general point about the subject, which in this article is (more) appropriate. The edit appears factual and well verified, or at least easily verifiable; I don't see how one could call that change a BLP violation or something like that--just compare Anythingyouwant's version to My very best wishes's. The third actually restores content that was already there in Anythingyouwant's version just before My very best wishes "second" diff--so you're faulting Mvbw for basically making the same edit that Anythingyouwant made when the latter moved that same material to another spot in the lead. And I assume that if Mvbw did that while an RfC was ongoing, then Anything also did it while an RfC was ongoing. Plus, I don't want to nitpick, but that RfC is not much of an RfC. I'm not big on formalizing anything, but it seems like a discussion over a few phrases more than a well-formed, clear RfC. The question, as Lankiveil says below, is reasonable, but it's hardly a clear-cut question to be answered with an unambiguous mandate to include or exclude some specific content or organize it in some specific way. I mean, the opening section ends with "Or just listen to the tape yourself." I wouldn't call this RfC ridiculous, but to have that ongoing discussion being used to get someone banned is pushing it too far. If you want RfC's to be binding, set them up better. The second part, for instance, is this: "Saying Trump "appeared to" brag is non-neutral. He bragged, and sources such as the Washington Post article verify this." OK, that's a statement by an editor (you), and editors can discuss. But that's not much of an RfC. If you want to nail an editor for reinserting "appeared to brag" after you said on the talk page you didn't like the phrase, that's your prerogative, of course, but I can't see how this is some grave violation (or any violation at all) which needs an arbitrated slap on the wrist. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman, I stand corrected: I was citing from Talk:Donald_Trump#Language_in_lead_section_about_sexual_misconduct. But I deny that I continue to misread, and my point about Mvbw's edits compared to those of others stand. As for the RfC, well, no conclusion is ever going to be reached on it--and I would like to ask you, since the RfC is technically still ongoing, whether you will also file charges against the editors who have (re-?)inserted the groping content which is currently in the article. Doesn't that very fact suggest the RfC is either impossible or already outdated? Isn't your time better spent dealing with that little tag and rather outlandish claims such as "serious BLP issues"? Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I might be sympathetic to the comments about the RFC being "used for stonewalling" if it were ridiculous and heading for the snowball clause, but I see a perfectly reasonable question with no clear consensus either way. The user should not have re-inserted this material while the discussion was under way. I'm not sure this rises to a level where sanctions need to be considered (assuming the problematic edits are not repeated), but it might be best if MVBW were to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, which I assume will not be a problem given that it is "not an area of ... major interest". As for the 1RR breach by User:DrFleischman; it is there but given that the user has voluntarily self-reverted I don't see anything to be gained by throwing the book at them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC). Meh. The election is weeks away and the candidates both highly divisive, anyone expecting calm and measured editing is delusional. Long-time Wikipedians would be best off showing everyone else a bit of class and following WP:BRD with emphasis on the D, but this specific case is in the end a content matter where reasonable people may differ. Perhaps a slap with the WP:TROUT and move on. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Close this? None of the three admins who commented are proposing a sanction, though JzG wants a slap with the trout. The practical effect of closing this with no action might be that User:My very best wishes returns to editing at Donald Trump, where he has not participated since 28 October. Since I don't see a major downside to that, and no admin wants a block or a ban, I suggest closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC) For better or worse, this report is deeply stale at this point and probably needs to be closed on that basis alone. Of course all the discretionary sanctions on the affected pages remain in force. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

bloodofox

User:Bloodofox is banned for one year from the topic of the Clintons and from people and organizations related to the Clintons on all pages of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning bloodofox User who is submitting this request for enforcement  Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  bloodofox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBAPDS : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  11/10 Insults, personal attacks. Accusing other editors of "shilling" (i.e. accusing other editors that they're editing Wikipedia for money) 11/10 Insults, personal attacks 11/10 Personal attacks, discussing editors not content 11/9 Attacking and accusing other editors, although, I guess, in general terms, WP:SOAPBOXing. 11/9 Restoring another users' actual trolling on the Hillary Clinton page [57], although to be fair he was also restoring his own comment. BTW, can someone take a look at that other user? 10/24 Insults and personal attacks 10/24 along with [58] and [59] - basically accuses me, and other editors, of working for money to edit Wikipedia on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Now, he does it in a "sarcastic" tone which I guess would allow them some "deniability" when called on it, but the accusation is pretty clear. When I asked him if that was indeed the accusation he was making, bloodofox's response was basically "well, you'd never admit to it anyway" 9/22 Attacks on other editors rather than discussing content 8/25 Refusal to discuss or work towards consensus because other editors are "extensions of the Clinton campaign" 8/29 Makes the accusations that other editors are working for the Clinton campaign explicit. Attacks others. Complete and total failure to assume good faith. I'm sorry but discussing with someone who is so obsessed with attacking others is simply impossible. 8/29 Insults, ridiculous accusations that other editors work "for the Clinton campaign". Language about "ground zero" clearly indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. 8/16 Insulting other editors and calling them trolls. 8/15 Insulting other editors and calling them trolls. Threats to edit war on the article to get their way. WP:BATTLEGROUND 8/15 Aspersions and personal attacks 8/15 Calling other editors comments in discussion "trolling" without evidence 8/15 More insults and accusations of trolling 8/14 More personal attacks and baseless accusations of bias 8/14 Accusations that other editors on Wikipedia are working for "the Clinton campaign" 8/14 Aspersions and more personal attacks, focus on discussing (and attacking) fellow editors rather than discussing content 8/13 Baseless accusations against other editors 7/8 Old, but shows a long running pattern of using personal attacks and making WP:ASPERSIONS that has been going on for awhile If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) [60] (note the edit summary) Additional comments by editor filing complaint  Honestly I should've filed this long time ago, back in August when this started. But I try to be tolerant of incivility and personal attacks up until the point when these make discussion impossible. Give users another chance etc. But that's the point we've reached here. I have no idea of the quality/nature of bloodofox's contributions in other topic areas, but I honestly have not seen them make a single productive contribution to a discussion in American Politics. bloodofox IMMEDIATELY assumes that anyone who disagrees with them is a "paid shill", that they are working for the Clinton campaign (or were, I guess, looks like no more fat pay checks for me. Sad.) that they are troll, that they work for "Correct a Record" (which is silly, seeing as how that is/was just a website) etc. When bloodofox arrives in a discussion it basically short circuits it and makes any consensus forming process impossible. I had hoped they'd chill out after the election was over, but it appears from their recent comments that if anything it's getting worse. Those diffs from post-election November constitute something like five different insults in less than 24 hours. And yes, I know some of these diffs are old and in and of themselves maybe they're stale - but going from August, to September, to October to today they show a very clear pattern of verbal abuse directed at other editors, a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and a simple WP:NOTHERE presence in this topic area. An indef topic ban from AmPol should be placed, and this would allow bloodofox to continue to contribute productively in other areas (assuming their editing in those is fine, like I said, I have no idea). Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC) When bloodofox says he "called out" editors for their supposed POV what he really means is that he insulted and attacked them and threw ridiculous accusations at them in order to derail talk page discussions. Yeah, that's 'calling somebody out'. Right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC) In particular comments like these "Still shilling?" and "Have some dignitiy" (my dignity is fine, thank you very much) are particularly obnoxious and insulting. These two comments alone should warrant a block in addition to whatever topic ban is imposed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC) bloodofox: I was pretty explicit that there's no way for anyone to detect that anyone was working for a campaign in any capacity on Wikipedia - I think that pretty much illustrates the problem. "I can't prove it so I'm just going to accuse and attack".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) bloodofox, wikilawyer however you like, but when you say to another editor "still shilling?" you are saying "you did shill". And when you say "you did shill" you are saying you were paid to edit Wikipedia. A person who "shills" is a "shill". So you are calling them a "shill". And this is an extremely obnoxious and serious personal attack. Especially since as you yourself admit, there's absolutely no proof of it (although, quite strangely, you appear to believe that because there is no proof of it, that makes it okay for you to make this attack on others, rather than, as would common sense suggest, the opposite).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Can someone please explain to me why MyMoloboaccount is bringing up my supposed "Americaness" or whatever and what is this "charade" that he is referring to or how is this in any way relevant except as what appears to be an attempt to throw around more insults (though it's a peculiar choice of an insult in all honesty)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Again, can one of the WP:AE admins please ask Moloboaccount to stop speculating outloud about my nationality/ethnicity since it's completely beside the point and is frankly none of his goddamn business? Should I start picking random editors out here and making stuff about where they're supposedly from and where they supposedly live and what their "true" nationality is? Is that kind of behavior acceptable? And please note that I have asked him several times to stop doing this as it's obviously meant to be either insulting (at least in his mind) or a form of intimidation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Since User:User:Tiptoethrutheminefield has just [61] accused me of "being a shill", do I need to file a separate report or can that be folded into this one? (Also note how it's the same three or four users showing up to every single request in this topic area = Athenan, Tiptoethroughthemindfield, EtienneD, James Lambden - in particular the first three have a long history together). I'd appreciate it if some admins active on this page, like Bishonen, Dennis Brown, Drmies, Lankiveil, Guy, EdJohnston (listing those who have commented here in the recent past) would get around to looking at this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  [62] Discussion concerning USERNAME 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 bloodofox Ah, now that the campaign is over and it clearly didn't go his way, Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) has apparently decided that it's time to take out his anger on other users who called him out during the election for his blatantly ideological and POV edits. The mysterious "other editors" he's referring to above are in fact a single other extremely ideological editor, an editor he frequently worked with during this period: scjessey (talk · contribs). Whether it was trying to sanitize anything relating to the DNC (one such example, [63]) or simply perfume a Clinton-related article (notice that the Clinton Foundation remains essentially a puff piece), I was one of many editors who called these two out during the process. In truth, Marek spent the last few months edit-warring with those he disagreed with while using Wikipedia as a political platform (I have a self-imposed policy of 1 revert per 24 hour rule on all articles barring blatant vandalism). Now, there's so much misinformation attached to his misleading diff annotations above that I can only say that it looks like that, with the election over, Marek has found a little more time on his hands and is using it to go after those he blames. He even resorts to claiming that I've restored vandalism rather than simply my comments and then takes the time to describe Correct the Record as "just a website", lol. Despite the annotations above, however, nobody accused Marek or his pal of working for anyone. And to correct the record I've never been a Trump supporter, BTW. One thing that is true is that bias has been a major problem on our articles throughout this election cycle. I've called it out as I've seen it and all of my comments above are about concerns regarding bias on the article they're attached to, usually discussing referencing. Meanwhile, Marek has at times resorted to ping spamming me (as some of the diffs above reveal) and relentlessly edit-warred with any editor that came along, at times breaking 1RR on a variety of political articles (ex. [64], [65], [66]). This is purely ideological revenge editing on the part of the Marek and, frankly, isn't worth the time I'm taking to write this out. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC) —also a quick lol at the block request for telling a user to "have some dignity". :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC) @clpo13 (talk · contribs), please provide a diff where I've called anyone a shill. Calling someone a straight up shill versus calling someone out for shilling for a candidate isn't the same thing. You don't have to be an operative to be a biased, non-neutral and highly ideological editor peddling a party line. In fact, as the diffs above demonstrate, I was pretty explicit that there's no way for anyone to detect that anyone was working for a campaign in any capacity on Wikipedia (which is presumably why we have no policy against it to this day). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC) @clpo13 (talk · contribs), I quite explicitly accused—and accuse—these editors of ideological editing and blatant promotion of their candidates on the site under the guise of neutral editing. Thats pretty straightforward. As I said in the diffs above, however, there's no way of confirming, denying, or even blocking anyone for any affiliation with a campaign at this time. I'm not exactly known for beating around the bush on Wikipedia. To be frank, if anyone deserves any sort of sanction here, it's Marek himself and for exactly the reasons I mention in the diffs above. Were they operating as if they were the Wikipedia extension of the Clinton campaign? Absolutely. Were they doing anything but, well, volunteering? No clue. As a result, I haven't accused anyone of working with a campaign. Any suggestion to the contrary is bullshit obfuscation. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), I'm not going back and forth with you. Your edit history shows that you're a blatantly ideological edit warrior with zero concern for article neutrality, injecting pro-Clinton and pro-DNC bias into every article you've touched this election season. Along the way you've even somehow mustered the desire to attempt to edit war and whitewash articles in favor of such lovable figures as Debbie Wasserman Schultz (of course, that didn't fly). Sure, all that nastiness was ultimately for nothing but there are better ways to take out your personal frustrations than on wasting the time of others on Wikipedia. And, gee, all this talk about concern regarding bias on these articles and the presence of the Clinton campaign. Outside of Correct the Record, there's also this interesting e-mail implying pretty strongly that the DNC has either been editing the Debbie Wasserman Schultz article (or looking to do so) since at least May of 2016. I mean, who woulda thunk it, right? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC) @Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs), while I stand by all of my edits (including diffs above, regardless of Marek's dishonest—and frankly goofy—commentary) and I believe they hardly qualify as "rope", what incident are you referring to? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC) @drmies (talk · contribs), with all due respect, I really don't think you're a neutral editor in this matter. As you yourself note, you and I have a long history here. The edit you're referencing is in response to a relentless editor-warrior, this guy (don't worry, he links to it from his user page). However, IMO this is a pretty straight forward, revenge-motivated vexatious complaint on the part of Marek. If anyone should be blocked from these topics, it's Marek. And I'm sure that's coming sooner or later. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @drmies (talk · contribs), the statement was "which [was] operating as an extension of the Clinton campaign through stretches of the election" ([67]). Please correct. Did you somehow miss, for example, the Wikileaks drops on Donna Brazile giving Clinton campaign questions in advance during the primaries while working for CNN? [68], etc. One of the things that was so notable about this election was the role of the press, such as this incident. CNN did in fact work closely with the Clinton campaign throughout the election, at times operating as an extension of the campaign, as Wikileaks revealed. That's an objective reality. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @drmies (talk · contribs), what I'm seeing here is that a.) you seem to have not been following these incidents (Brazile is only one example involving Clinton and CNN, click the link I provided for another—and I can provide plenty more, generally from Wikileaks drops showing coordination between CNN reps and the Clinton campaign, and from fully reliable sources (a nice summary)) and b.) your aggressive responses tell me that you're here to settle an old score—presumably one I've since long forgotten about. You know, I didn't figure you for that. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @everyone—folks, I'm dealing (via Wikimedia) with a troubling threat of violence against my person on the site. Do what you will, but I'm not able to respond or defend myself at this time. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Real quick, I should probably point out Drmies's bizarre October 27 statement "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha". While this post may have started as Marek's revenge fantasy, it looks like it's shaping up as a convenient way for Drmies to finally get a taste. Note also the comments in the diff made by another user looking for blood up above. Funny how these things work on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @Lankiveil (talk · contribs), while I'm admittedly curious about what you've figured to be my "POV" (I've never stated it—these diffs are about a total lack of neutrality in Marek's edits), I haven't edited any related articles since a day or so since the election ended. Now, I personally limit my reverts to one revert per article per 24 hours, and I've also intended to avoid all things Clinton on Wikipedia in the future even before Marek's vexatious request here. And I'll be doing that regardless of the outcome here. While I would have been silent about it otherwise, I guess here I have to state that I've voluntary removed myself form the topic space. Editing Clinton and DNC-related articles simply eats up far too much of my limited Wiki-time that is best spent on other articles for topics that are far removed from the last election. As for Marek, looking away at his ridiculous edit history on these topics isn't going to make the situation any better but, given the way the election win, chances are he might just be less active in those spaces in general. Either way, this whole thing is moot and seems to only be serving to indulge revenge fantasies at this point (i.e. like Drmies's "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha"). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @EdJohnston (talk · contribs), yeah, there's "support" for a ban for topics I've already stated I'm not interested in editing. There's "support" from you, an admin who has openly stated that he's been looking to get me banned for years ("Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha"—whose comments should be struck), and another admin. Meanwhile, there's plenty of opposition above, largely associated with Marek's extremely non-neutral edit warring above, and my comments about how pointless and vexatious the whole thing is. All you're doing at this point is further enabling Marek. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by MrX I almost warned bloodofox this morning when I saw his harsh personal attack at talk:Hillary Clinton. I had no idea that there was such an ongoing pattern of disruption as evidenced in the diffs provided above. The Arbcom case findings of fact were clear that such behavior is prohibited.- MrX 16:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC) @SashiRolls: What the actual heck are you talking about? This page is for requesting enforcement of Arbcom remedies, not for stream of consciousness story telling.- MrX 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by SashiRolls In the Good Soldier Švejk, there is a character by the name of Marek, Volunteer Marek. According to Wikipedia, "The character of one-year volunteer Marek is to some degree a self-portrait by the author, who was himself a one-year volunteer in the 91st. For example, Marek — like Hašek — was fired from the editorship of a natural history magazine after writing articles about imaginary animals. Is appointed the battalion historian by Ságner and occupies himself with devising memorable and heroic deaths in advance for his colleagues." I can't believe Volunteer Marek is back here on AE clamoring for more heads. smh. will add more if absolutely necessary. SashiRolls (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC) sorry, forgot this is a diff culture:, here are some more diffs of 1RR violations from trusty Volunteer Marek: 18:12 24 Oct 16:18 24 Oct (Though I stayed away from Clinton most of the silly season (as you know @MrX:), I was very surprised to read the Foundation page when I got to it, which I never would have, except that well, y'all didn't like what I was working on earlier...) I'm sorry I am not a diff culture native, in my world the names you chose are important, as is how you talk about including or excluding things from a page. This is poorly reflected in diff culture. :) SashiRolls (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC) also, would like to add that words like "(cyber) shilling", "hack", "whitewash", "pinkwash", etc. have not yet been deleted from the language. In fact, shilling, in particular seems to be fighting nobly for its existence despite no longer being a legal tender coin. ^^ (ngrams: shilling, hack) SashiRolls (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Wow. I'm amazed that Drmies can say, "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now" and then neglect to recuse himself. Wikipedia seems to have some serious concerns: people are banned indefinitely and for long periods for daring to use the word "shill" when dealing with disruptive behavior, but another user gets away with a 48-hour block after having called me a "sociopath", for protecting BLP pages from copyright infringement and the modification of the meaning of wiki-text summaries of dead links to blog posts they admit they've never read (relevant here since Volunteer Marek's participated -- tag-team style -- in trying to maintain this attack on Tulsi Gabbard, before I explained *all* of my reasons for reverting the edit). (Cf. [[69]]). This selective enforcement should be very troubling, especially from an ArbCom member and from an admin who calls herself "Cardinal Mazarin" and says her "secret goal is to collect the entire little Arbcom in Bishzilla's pocket!" [70]. Troubling. SashiRolls (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you for adding that (partial) table, James. (I'll add more data in March.) Strangely since cpo13 collapsed your table, I don't see any way of uncollapsing it. edit: works now, must have been a glitch There's also an interesting interpretation brought below by neutrality that simply revising the words "point out" can get you into trouble as concerns certain Wikipedian truths. You might have seen it. (cf. "to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement." -- from the MOS). Statement by clpo13 Calling anyone a shill, under any circumstances, should be met with sanctions. American politics is a bitter enough topic without unfounded accusations of paid or otherwise influenced editing. Claims of biased editing can be made without such a loaded word. clpo13(talk) 18:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC) @Bloodofox: Oh well, that changes everything. So long as you don't label someone, you can safely accuse them of all sorts of things. "I didn't call them a vandal. I just said they were vandalizing articles.", etc. No matter how you word it, it's a unnecessary comment that only inflames the situation. Throwing accusations around doesn't help anything. clpo13(talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by MyMoloboaccount Plenty of the alleged proofs of bloodfox offensive remarkes actually lead to innocent statements like Hopefully you'll meet the next Wiki-gang on the block sometime soon and neutrality rather than political preference will win out. I remember VM making far more offensive comments without getting sanctions. Seems this is a case of a political spat resulting from HC's failure to win the election and VM being upset about this. Anyway can we finally drop the charade and call Volunteer Marek an American without him getting into a fit about supposed outing? The comments and edits in past couple of months make it clear that he is one. Thats all from me, I guess, people should cheer up, make Wikipedia great again and PRAISE KEK!. Volunteer_Marek-there is nothing insulting in being American or editing from USA. Many editors in the past have been confused by your nickname and thought you are from Poland, that is is all. As to supposed, I think your edits and comments about voting in recent US elections make it clear anyway(and since we are friends of Facebook I know that indeed it is true :P). It's no big deal but clears up confusion, and for some reason in the past you treated it as very big outing. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Athenean Anyone familiar with this topic area knows full well that VM comes here with unclean hands. Volunteer Marek complaining about another user being incivil is quite the irony. VM has been pushing a strong POV in this area from day 1, with typical incivility. Just one of many examples [71] [72]. It's not hard to find such examples. Many of his talkpage contribs are laced with accusations of bad faith and condescension, designed to get under his opponents' skin as much as possible without quite crossing the line into outright name calling. In addition to incivility, he edit-wars frequently, afterwards claiming to "forget" that an article is under 1RR [73]. And just recently he agreed to a voluntary 1RR restriction to narrowly avert a topic ban [74]. Given Marek's unclean hands, the request has no merit and should be struck. Athenean (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield Regarding the "shilling" accusation, there is no question that Volunteer Marek has been a shill in the past. His activities in the past have at certain times fitted the definition of shill - appearing to act independently but in fact acting as part of an organized group and behaving according to a predetermined plan so as to realize a particular goal. That was proven in a previous notable case. This does not make bloodofox's accusation / implication of shilling justified, but it questions the real level of offense felt by VM. I don't find VM's assertion that he felt it "obnoxious and insulting" to be particularly credible. The insults and personal attacks seem mild stuff when taken one at a time and this case looks a lot like Volunteer Marek allowing another editor to produce enough rope to hang themselves. Taken as a whole there probably is enough rope here - and little in the cited posts of bloodofox cogently address content issues. But I suspect only one side is being shown and I wonder about what content issues and disagreements produced these exchanges. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC) And regarding Drmies "complete lack of good faith" comment. I gave no such "you were asking for it" justification - I actually said the opposite, that bloodofox's accusation of shilling was NOT justified. What I was questioning was the level of offense caused by that accusation. It is not "bad faith" to refer to a notable case [75] that found VM had been editing on behalf of a secret off-wiki mailing list group in order to advance a particular pov. That pov is still at the heart of every VM edit - and if it is supported by sources is all fair and good. But the often extreme fringeness and obsessiveness of EEML beliefs is revealed in this recent post by another former member of the same mailing list group [76] - the idea that Hitler was a result of a Russian conspiracy, and Trump too is also a result of a Russian conspiracy - and both conspiracies have the same aims: Russian domination of the world. I think that in the EEML world view there are Russians lying waiting under every bed and in every closet, attic, cellar or dark corridor, ready to spring out and drag the unprepared to hell or worse. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I also agree with DoubleCross and SashiRolls regarding Drmies here [77]. Administrator on a mission or what? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden I thought a catalog of recent election-related requests might be helpful/illuminating from a data analytics standpoint. Table includes: filer, accused, whether the edits were (reasonably) pro-Clinton/anti-Trump or anti-Clinton/pro-Trump, and the result. Filer Accused ProClinton/ AntiTrump AntiClinton/ ProTrump Sanctioned Comment Volunteer Marek Doc9871 ✓ ● Doc9871 (talk · contribs) topic banned 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump by Bishonen (talk · contribs), and is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Link EtienneDolet Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes ✓ No action taken, see admin discussion below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Link Geogene JGabbard ✓ ● JGabbard (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for six months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Link The Four Deuces Volunteer Marek ✓ No action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Link CFredkin Volunteer Marek ✓ ○ CFredkin is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for three months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Link Volunteer Marek Marteau ✓ Not closed Link Anythingyouwant Volunteer Marek ✓ Request withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Link BU Rob13 Anythingyouwant ✓ The originally reported edits were good faith reverts as potential BLP problems and so were exempt from revert restrictions. Therefore, no violation of 1RR occurred from these edits. Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one. All editors are reminded that a clear consensus is required to revert an edit which notes it corrects a BLP problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Link The Wordsmith EEng ✓ There's no consensus that any sanctions should apply against EEng. While there is also not a consensus on whether the initial deletion was appropriate, the matter was later resolved through discussion, so it's rather moot at this point. No further action has been suggested or seems to be needed. There may be an indication that a wider community discussion is needed on what's acceptable in terms of "joke" and satire pages, but that's well beyond the scope of AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Link Volunteer Marek Anythingyouwant ✓ ● Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Link EvergreenFir Wecarlisle ✓ ○ Premature for AE. Handled as a conventional administrative issue, short block issued by Bishonen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Link MrX Ihardlythinkso ✓ ● Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. (Unsigned, Lankiveil) Link DrFleischman My very best wishes ✓ Not closed Link Note: I couldn't figure out how to collapse the table – if anyone knows how I'd appreciate it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by DoubleCross I agree with bloodofox and SashiRolls regarding this statement by Drmies - he has absolutely no business being involved in this request. DoubleCross (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Result concerning bloodofox This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I have blocked Tiptoe for the "shill" comment, for 72 hours. It exhibits a complete lack of good faith, and suggests a kind of "you were asking for it" justification. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC) About the case: yeah, "shilling" is a blockable insult (as a complete violation of AGF), but I was all ready to say something like "Bloodofox is a bit heavy-handed, heat of the moment, etc" until I ran into this one (I went from the bottom up), which tells me that the editor is way too not neutral to be editing in this area. I support a topic ban from this election and all articles directly associated with it. I don't propose a more broad topic ban, of all politics since 1932 or whatever. Note: I've had some dealings with the editor, some better than others, and I've criticized them for edit warring and problems with sourcing reliably. I do not consider myself involved in respect to bloodofox, and all our dealings have been in articles that were many miles and many years removed from this area. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Bloodofox, if you claim that CNN is an "extension of the Clinton campaign" then you have already disqualified yourself from objective editing in this topic area. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC) That you wish to argue this moot point here speaks volumes: your claims are about one individual, who was in fact fired by CNN for her behavior. Extending that into a blanket statement means you lack the judgment to be neutral and separate fact from internet story. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC) You can accuse me of aggression (or ignorance) all you will; it makes no difference to me. I think the diffs speak for themselves here. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Bloodofox, I'm entering this in the record late, since I was only just alerted to your response. It should be obvious to anyone that the comment I made about having tried to block you was an obvious joke; note the "haha". Note also that I made this comment jokingly in a thread in which I seriously defended your edits which I thought were unfairly criticized. Let's have further discussion, if need be, elsewhere please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC) EdJohnston, if you look at their edit history you see they're focused on the "Clinton side", so to speak--esp. Clinton herself, the Clinton Foundation, the Podesta emails, and Huma Abedin. One might expect them to move into the Trump area now that the election is over, perhaps, but if they become disruptive there we can, I suppose, always expand the scope; with many of these recent cases I prefer conservative topic bans. So for now I think I'm satisfied with my rough formulation of a topic ban but I am perfectly happy to have you or others tweak it or propose something broader; I am sure that a few more admins will weigh in. But we do need to have a topic ban of sorts, and a year is plenty long. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC) DoubleCross, I don't know who you are, but I do know this: I have no current conflicts with Bloodofox and am not INVOLVED with them. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I agree with a topic ban of User:Bloodofox under WP:ARBAP2 as proposed by User:Drmies but the scope of the ban would need to be well-defined. Do you think 'this election and all articles directly associated with it' is specific enough? What about the Trump transition – is that included? How about Trump cabinet members? If the scope can't be nailed down, what about a time-limited ban (such as one year) from all of WP:ARBAP2? EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC) I'm not even going to consider anything from before November; if it wasn't worth reporting then it's not worth reporting now. I could potentially AGF this as a botched attempt to revert a perceived problematic edit. This still leaves a bunch of problematic battleground stuff, exactly the sort of thing that we don't want. The discussion over the precise meaning of "shilling" is a red herring; regardless of the intent it's still a personal attack. I'm seeing someone who is too dedicated to pushing a particular POV to be a useful editor in this topic area, and I don't see that anything short of removing User:Bloodofox from the topic area is going to stop the problem, although I'd welcome suggestions for solutions less drastic than that. Finally, with regards to Marek's alleged sins; I invite anyone to raise a request here if they feel they've gone further than Bloodofox. We can't action concerns that aren't raised. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC). @Bloodofox: I appreciate that you've managed to stay off the topic area in the past week or so, my main problem is that from your responses here you don't seem to understand why the battleground mentality you've exhibited is a bad thing, retreating into semantic arguments that completely miss the point. Help me out here; how do we stop this from happening again? Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC). There is support for a ban but the wording of the ban is not settled. How about "Bloodofox is banned for one year from the topic of the Clintons, and from people and organizations related to the Clintons on all pages of Wikipedia" That would be broad enough to include the Clinton Foundation and Huma Abedin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC) I support a ban with that phrasing, EdJohnston. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC). It seems to me that this request is ready to close, with "Bloodofox is banned for one year from the topic if the Clintons, and from people and organizations related to the Clintons on all pages of Wikipedia". I will do this soon if no other admin beats me to it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Now closing with a topic ban for User:Bloodofox as described. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Anonywiki

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 Anonywiki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Anonywiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBGMO and WP:ARBAP2

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

1. 13:29, September 24, 2016: Anonywiki removes with the edit summary: "Rubbish. There is no 'scientific consensus' that GMOs are 'safe' period and neither could there be, the only consensus is that they are not inherently, necessarily harmful.)"
2. 10:56, November 13, 2016: Anonywiki removes statement about scientific consensus on GMOs with the following edit summary: "RUBBISH"
3. 11:47, November 13, 2016 less than one hour after being reverted by Snooganssnoogans, Anonywiki reverts with the edit summary: "I assure you that GMOs are not 'regarded as safe by scientific consensus"
4. 13:02, November 13, 2016: after being reverted, Anonywiki changes "pointed out that they contradict the scientific consensus" to "alleging they contradict the scientific consensus...," despite the fact that several of the cited sources—including this article written by an academic who studies the rise of conspiracy theorizing—notes that the article subject "engendered GMO conspiracy theories...despite the overwhelming scientific consensus..."
5. 20:11, November 16, 2016 after being reverted, Anonywiki again reverts with the edit summary: "Please check your reading comprehension. There is no 'unwarranted doubt' to alleging, 'pointing out' is false"
6. 20:37, November 16, 2016: removes entire section, including 10 cited references, with the edit summary: "I'm sorry to say this, but these links are really all nonsense. They are all opinion pieces, they aren't proper news citations for the claim at all.)"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. (Two blocks and multiple warnings from before 2010 are not mentioned, for brevity's sake and because they are too distant in time to be relevant)
2. September 27, 2010: Anonywiki blocked for personal attacks or harassment by Seraphimblade (72 hours)
3. October 1, 2010: Anonywiki blocked for disruptive editing and WP:POINT by John & Chaser (1 week, lifted one day later)
4. 17:20, December 12, 2011: Anonywiki is warned by McDoobAU93 for making personal attack
5. 16:31, 13 December 2011: Anonywiki is warned by Sergecross73 for making personal attacks
6. 22:43, May 24, 2014: Anonywiki is warned by Daffydavid for 3RR violations & disruptive editing.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• 11:04, November 13, 2016: warned via edit summary by Snooganssnoogans to "see talk page. this is under discretionary sanctions, do not revert."
• 12:44, November 13, 2016: given alert on user talk page about discretionary sanctions for both post-1932 American politics and GMOs
• 18:49, November 16, 2016: warned via edit summary by me of intent to pursue Arbitration Enforcement would be next stop if disruptive editing continued

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

• Anonywiki makes large-scale or controversial edits that change stable article content without meaningfully engaging on the talk page, even after his edits are reverted by multiple other editors.
• Anonywiki routinely disparages other editors and their work in edit summaries (e.g., "check your reading comprehension"; "Rubbish"; "RUBBISH"; "all nonsense").
• Anonywiki leans on his or her own authority, rather than on citations to experts/scholars/scientists, journalists, etc. ("I assure you that GMOs are not 'regarded as safe by scientific consensus'")
• Anonywiki fails to cite to policies or guidelines in making wholesale removals of material, nor in adding/changing contentious material.
• Anonywiki makes incorrect or misleading statements of fact — such as saying that references cited are "all opinion pieces" when in fact the sources cited include a detailed Washington Post news piece from a policy reporter and an analysis from a political science professor at the University of Miami who is the co-author of American Conspiracy Theories (Oxford University Press, 2014) — both of which directly and clearly support the proposition in the article.
• Anonywiki's statement below that "there is NO SOURCE that states commentators 'pointed out she went against the scientific consensus'" is simply wrong (and typical of the tendentious editing and "I can't hear you" behavior of this user). See the following refs (all cited in the article, and removed by Anonywiki):
  • Max Ehrenfreund, What Jill Stein, the Green presidential candidate, wants to do to America, Washington Post (August 2, 2016): "Her platform calls for a moratorium on GMOs in foods 'until they are proven safe.' A recent report published by the European Union reviewed dozens of studies of genetically modified organisms and concluded they were no more dangerous than conventionally bred strains. The American Association for the Advancement of Science agrees...")
  • Joseph Uscinski, The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016, Politico Magazine (August 22, 2016) ("Stein [has] ... engendered GMO conspiracy theories, which claim that big agriculture and biotech companies are hiding the negative environmental and health consequences of farming and consuming genetically modified foods. This is despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that genetically modified food is safe to eat").

--Neutrality^talk 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

• 21:02, November 16, 2016

Discussion concerning Anonywiki

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 Anonywiki

The claim is that commentators "pointed out she went against the scientific consensus". There is NO SOURCE that states commentators "pointed out she went against the scientific consensus".

It's just reading comprehension. Instead of coming up with a bunch of cliched "arguments" I suggest that's what the user should be more concerned about.

The "scientific consensus" claim is on very shaky ground, there are tons of scientists that state there is no scientific consensus. This was a compromise statement. User has no understanding of the issue. Hobbyists and dilettantes should refrain from making edits on such points that have specific scientific meanings and contexts that are clearly lost on them. Anonywiki (talk)

I am fine with the new wording. I didn't argue that currently used GMOs are unsafe and I don't see evidence that Jill Stein did either. If someone in the New York Times writes Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union do we say "commentators have pointed out Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union"? It's a distinct claim. It also depends on the context you are using "safe", coca cola and fries are "safe" but they aren't very good for you. I apologize if I was a bit hostile, which on re-reading I have to admit I might have sounded and in part may have been not assuming good faith. Anonywiki (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anonywiki

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

• The subject of GMO foods has caused trouble in the past, and making GMO-related reverts of articles of presidential candidates such as Jill Stein can cause a lot of uproar. Anonywiki seems very attached to their position. He has reverted an edit that put the following in Jill Stein's article: "Commentators have criticized Stein's statements about GMOs as contradicting the scientific consensus that existing GM foods are no less safe than foods made from conventional crops". The text that he thereby removed as incorrect seems consistent with Proposal 1 of the GMO RFC: "There is a scientific consensus[1][2][3][4] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[5][6][7][8][9] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction." This Proposal 1 represents the Wikipedia consensus view according the closers of the RfC. So it appears that Anonywiki's change went against the Wikipedia consensus on the safety of GMOS. In his above answer to this AE complaint Anonywiki says "Hobbyists and dilettantes should refrain from making edits on such articles that have specific meanings and contexts that are clearly lost on them." It looks to me that Anonywiki's crusade is running up against the conventional Wikipedia position as established by consensus in the RfC. If I thought there was much likelihood that Anonywiki would reconsider, I'd suggest waiting to see if he will promise to accept the results of the RfC in his future edits. Otherwise, a one-year ban from the topic of GMOs on all pages of Wikipedia seems justified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with EdJohnston. Aside from the RfC, references have been presented above which clearly do state that Stein's position is counter to the prevailing scientific consensus, so to claim that no such sources exist is a form of I didn't hear that. Anonywiki needs to understand that a widely publicized community RfC carries a great deal of weight, and that it will not be acceptable to just unilaterally go against it. That doesn't mean you can't argue that something different applies in a given case, but you'd need to establish clear consensus behind that before carrying forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with EdJohnston --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

AE appeal by User:Towns Hill

Declined. NW (Talk) 17:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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  Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Towns_Hill 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Sanction being appealed  Arbitration enforcement sanction 2 Administrator imposing the sanction  EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator  As the banning administrator, I am aware of this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Towns Hill The original ban was imposed invalidly to begin with. It was hastily issued and based upon one editor's incendiary comment to an admin's talk page. I was never reported at AE and was not even given a chance to defend myself. I was banned on a comment of an editor who went on admin shopping and knew which admin would be more than willing to entertain his request because that specific admin has been mentioning distributing topic-bans on forums in the past. Towns_Hill 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnston I won't write up a new statement here, but I refer you to my comments in an AE just above, where the AE requester was asking for a block of Towns Hill due to a ban violation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by slakr While I don't, specifically, remember the 1-month 1RR restriction I added a while back (as alluded to by Black Kite, below), nor the editor specifically—in my defence, it's been a busy year—I can tell just by what's happened since then that stronger sanctions would have been required. A topic ban due to repeated, continued disruption in the area would be justified. Furthermore, while it's encouraged that admins open a thread here on AE before taking controversial actions, uncontroversial actions, on the other hand, can forgo the WP:BURO of doing so. This, in particular, allows for swift action to be taken against single-minded editors that throw caution (and policy) to the wind. I feel that things like topic bans and 1RR restrictions are fairly toothless without continued action on the part of the editor and are therefore frequently within the realm of "uncontroversial" by-default when prior disruption has occurred or prior warnings have been issued. Worst case, they're easily overturned without any real sort of "black mark" on a person's "record" should they be appealed. If Towns Hill felt the topic ban was controversial or outright invalid, the correct approach would have been to file the appeal here before continuing to edit within (or anywhere remotely close to) the topic area. --slakr\ talk / 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by Mar4d As per my comment on the previous thread concerning TH, there were some reservations I had concerning the sanction. I do see that Towns Hill needs to improve as an editor. In particular, the talk page interactions and communication areas could do with improvement. Per my previous statement, I said I was willing to assist TH where possible because he was new. I do think TH has potential as a productive editor in his topic areas; the Kashmir topic was one area, as Kautilya3 agreed. In the short term, some roadmap could be helpful identifying how TH could return and edit in other contentious areas. It's not difficult if he adjusts to WP:BRD and other mechanisms. In the end, a sanction is not supposed to be punitive but preventive. I believe spending too much time over noticeboards sometimes has the opposite effect, and lessens productivity. Mar4d (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Towns Hill Result of the appeal by Towns Hill This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Towns Hill, any uninvolved admin can issue topic bans, blocks, or other sanctions per the Arb com ruling on India and Pakistan. There is no 'take it to AE' requirement. Unless you can show that the admin is an involved one, your appeal doesn't really have standing. --regentspark (comment) 13:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC) RegentsPark is absolutely right. AE is an area where potentially sanctionable behavior can be reported by non-admins, admins who are involved and so can't take action on their own, or uninvolved admins who want more opinions before taking any action. There is no requirement that an AE report be filed prior to sanctions being imposed; any uninvolved admin who sees a violation can impose a sanction for it right then and there. It also does not matter how they came to learn of that violation or if the admin previously issued warnings that sanctions might result. The only potentially valid appeals are that the sanction was invalid to start with, such as that there was no actual violation it was based on or the admin who imposed it was inappropriately involved, or that it is no longer needed to prevent damage and disruption. Since you've recently violated the sanction, I sure wouldn't be quick to believe it's no longer necessary. Do you have any evidence of the first scenario, that it was never valid to begin with? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Towns Hill was issued an ARBIPA warning in January after edit warring, then again edit warred on the same subject and was issued a final warning in March, yet continued to do so and received a block (from User:Drmies) and a 1RR restriction (from User:slakr) in April. Their talkpage is then a litany of 1RR and EW warnings until EdJohnston applied the topic ban in May, which frankly looked well overdue. Since then, Towns Hill has been again blocked twice for violating the topic ban, so complaining about the original imposition of it - which was perfectly within policy, the link they provide is routine discussion between admins - is ridiculous. This request has no merit. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

SilentResident

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 SilentResident

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

DevilWearsBrioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

SilentResident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

SilentResident has for the past few months fought tooth and nail to get me banned by casting aspersions. Her rants, mainly against the undersigned, include condescending lectures, [78][79] self-victimisation, [80][81] wikilawyering, [82] temper tantrums, [83][84][85] and personal attacks [86][87][88][89] ("I recommend you come back to your senses", "you need to come back to your senses", "Being stubborn is not a positive trait", "you're not an honest person" <- later removed). She has successfully conned editors into believing her lies and half truths by pestering various talk pages with lengthy posts about my character and supposed motives. For example, SilentResident recently explained to Anthony_Appleyard following her tirades at Formal Mediation that "resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing, because he has already ignored any of the previous ARBMAC warnings". [90] When Anthony_Appleyard subsequently filed a vexatious report against me at AN/I, he repeated SilentResident's falsehoods almost verbatim. [91]

SilentResident had previously filed a report against me at AN/I, notifying two editors she knew were on "her side" in one of her pile on attempts. [92][93] SilentResident's mudslingings also include blatant distortions, e.g. "acting against established consensus" and the allegation that I have on multiple occasions broken the 3RR, [94] a fabrication she just recently repeated when she told Anthony_Appleyard that I have resumed "with new 3RR breaches". [95]

She has made questionable insinuations about me, [96] which in light of her own statements are quite ironic. She vehemently opposes the inclusion of "ethnic cleansing" anywhere in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians unless it's followed/preceded by "according to some scholars", even though it's been classified as "ethnic cleansing" by several experts, including Mark Mazower. SilentResident discredits their expertise as "more their [scholars] opinion than something proven" and "that is the opinion of the scholars, not a fact". [97] She resorts to distortions (she implies it's the opinion of "2-3 scholars" when I in fact had presented her with 7) and Wikilawyering. [98] SilentResident quotes material from a Greek propaganda book to demonstrate that there are opposing views. [99] She shamelessly adopts a reductionist rhetoric similar to that of Greek nationalists: [100][101]

• "The Expulsion of Cham Albanians is about a minority that betrayed, fought and occupied its own country for 3 years"
• "Since the Cham Albanians weren't expelled on fly, but as result of their traitorous actions, there is no solid consensus among scholars".

She recently made a outburst about me in a passive-aggressive manner, telling an editor: "please, being a little bit more careful in front of him, without underestimating his stubbornness, couldn't hurt." [102]. She is still actively trying to influence Anthony_Appleyard and she has recently begun to refer to me as "the filibuster" in her interactions with other editors. When SilentResident, in a discussion with another editor, is on the receiving end of almost every allegation that she herself has accused me of, she responds aggressively and requests an apology: [103] The flagrant hypocrisy is astonishing. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Whereas SilentResident continues to cast aspersions on various talk pages, God forbid I actually defend myself on the appropriate page!

@Robert McClenon: Are you saying that this is a retaliatory filing against SilentResident because Athenean filed a report against me? Moreover it's good to know that if someone were to tell you to "come back to your senses" you wouldn't think of it as a personal attack. Neither would you care if someone told you that you're "not an honest person" or that "being stubborn is not a positive trait". If an editor pestered various talk pages with lies about you I presume you would be fine with that too. Reporting that user would clearly be a case of harassment.

That is a very strong warning from an administrator. You mean the same administrator who filed a vexatious report against me at AN/I, reiterating some of the falsehoods SilentResident had told him? The same administrator that's also an emeritus member of the Mediation Committee but wasn't until very recently aware of the fact that mediation is privileged? The same administrator that's acting as an uninvolved administrator in this case and the previous one against me, even re-filing an erroneous report after the original by Athenean had been ignored and archived? Please excuse me if I don't rely on his judgement concerning my conduct. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Still waiting for an answer or are you still going to avoid answering any questions? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: You never answered any questions, you've just made evasive statements. Also, you can partake in the consensus process, but you don't "pick winners". DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Great detective work there! How did you figure it out? Was it maybe the obvious clue I left behind? [104] With regards to "It shouldn't have been filed at the DRN", that is not true. It would likely not have been opened to begin with if it was misfiled. You are seemingly incapable of admitting that you were wrong. Here's what you wrote at AN/I: "He appears entirely unable to accept the decision I ruled, I removed his OR tag after it had been made abundantly clear to him it was not OR". By the way, thank you for brining light to some of my older contributions, which I'm quite proud of. This is how the articled looked like before my involvement, compared to after. Keep digging though, maybe you'll find something.

@Iazyges: You're a) not uninvolved and b) not an admin. Please keep your statements to your own section.

@Iazyges: I recently explained to you that you should keep your statements to your own section because you had made a statement under "Result concerning SilentResident" even though it clearly says below: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." Does that make sense? It's understandable that you don't like me, after all, I've questioned your competence. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Wouldn't it be easier to substantiate allegations such as 3RR breaches and NPOV violations instead of bringing up stuff from almost a year ago? I was indeed blocked, but my block was subsequently lifted which you conveniently fail to mention. What's worth noting is that I started editing on Wikipedia on 17 December and was warned by an editor on 18 December, contrary to Please don't bite the newcomers guideline. I mistook the warning editor for a mod/admin, hence my (over)reaction which I now regret: I referred him to "Alexikoua's mod friend" and accused him of "taking sides". Curiously though, the warning editor later conceded, in light of the evidence I presented, that I may have been right regarding some of the concerns I raised. [105] Now that we've discussed my "troubled history", let's discuss yours! Last year an admin left a message on your talk page, telling you: "Fuck it, I'm sick and tired of you. When will you finally learn to bloody fucking first go to a talkpage and make an effort to understand people's objections before you start revert-warring?" (ouch!). You were also warned for edit warring by another admin, who also filed a report against you at AN/I. Both cases in relation to edits you had made on ARBMAC-protected articles. What does this say about you?

@SilentResident: First of all, it doesn't matter whether you think you were right. You could in fact be right and there could still be a consensus against your edits. Second, you've claimed that I've broken the 3RR, but the only evidence you've provided are the warnings by Alexikoua and yourself on my talk page. Don't you find it hypocritical to accuse me of "3RR breaches" by pointing to the warnings on my talk page while you're brushing off the warnings on your talk page as "mistakes"? How come, when given the opportunity, you don't provide the necessary diffs to prove that I've actually broken the 3RR?

@Athenean: I see that you've recycled some of the stuff from your frivolous AE report which was a huge waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed. [106] DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean: Strong warnings by whom? By the way, how many drama cases have you been involved in? What did your attacks against VM and MVBW result in? If one were to look through your history, what would one find? Continuous drama with Albanian editors perhaps? An AE report where you and Alexikoua were referred to as a "travelling circus" by an admin? Wait, so it's no coincidence that you came to Alexikoua's rescue after he had reverted me on the false pretense of a supposed consensus? [107] Would you mind clarifying about this supposed consensus that caused you to revert me? [108]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 28 September, 2015, 15 August, 2016, 25 October, 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning SilentResident

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 SilentResident

Like with many other editors, admins and mediators out there, I already tried very hard and very patiently for many months to reason with the editor DevilWearsBrioni, who has caused a 10 month-long disruption in ARBMAC-protected articles in Wikipedia; even getting myself to the point of repeatedly reminding him about Wikipedia's rules and principles, even when the rules suggest that sanctions to be applied to them instead of spending more time cleaning up their mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines. I hoped he could listen to the people and give up on his stubbornness and finally contribute positively to the Wikipedia project without stirring more debates, grievance and disruption, but, I am very saddened now, because his AE report against me has once more proved my worst fears about him: that he could not. No matter what, talks after talks, warnings after warnings, mediations after mediations, he is not willing to be reasoned with, nor drop the stick, and insist with his personal perception of Wikipedia's rules. This is unfortunate, as the admins have already sent him a warning and blocked him in the past for his disruptions: [109].

Unfortunately, such a move against me proves once again what happens when persistent disruption is ignored and not tackled; and instead, is tolerated. Given his stubbornness, this AE report was expected and, frankly, I couldn't be surprised if he makes similar moves against the other editors too once he is done with me. I am sorry to say this, but it appears that he has taken his defeat in the OR/SYNTH case very personally, which is no good. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Really could you go as far as to equate an editor who was a long-time member of the Wikicommunity, who contributed to the project, has never been sanctioned previously, is trying to do the right thing, didn't hesitate to communicate with every goodwill editors around and ask for their advises on resolving the difficult dispute, with an editor who has caused disruption on ARBMAC-protected articles, turned deaf ears to everyone's advises, filibustered, violated constantly the rules and even got himself sanctioned & into troubles already from the very first days of his young editorial life? And this equation because you want to defend the filler with whom you share certain POVs? Even when he could go to great extends to force his opinion on others at the expense of Wikipedia's rules, norms and principles, and where he does not succeed, to take revenge on others, such as me, through this ill-intended AE report? That's unreasonable. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: You are arguing that "DevilWearsBrioni has not been sanctioned", but, in fact, he has, in 2015, as an anonymous user with IP:37.46.188.80. Diff provided: [110]. Perhaps you would argue now that the user:DevilWearsBrioni and user:37.46.188.80 are not the same person, but I am afraid they are. If you look more carefully here: [111] where DWB, by himself, added a direct link taking you from his old user page to his new user page. As you see, the user:DevilWearsBrioni and user:37.46.188.80 are one and the same person and he has already been sanctioned for disruption on ARBMAC-protected Albanian-topic articles. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni:, your accusations against me once again lack credibility. Let me highlight the facts to you:

• Answer 1: The Admin who said "Fuck it, I'm sick and tired of you." to me, unfortunately, was wrong here, as he has tried to remove the name "Eastern Roman Empire" from the article Byzantine Empire's lead, in violation of the Wikipedia's naming rules about commonly-referred names. As you can see on the lead, here (click), the name "Eastern Roman Empire" has been permanently restored back on the lead, because the Wiki community shared my position that the commonly-referred names about that political entity should not be opted out. Like it or not, all the editors, including those with the admin rank, have to respect and follow Wikipedia's rules [both when it comes naming rules (i.e. East Roman Empire) and polity rules (i.e. use of offensive words such as Fuck it)).
• Answer 2: You mention of an ANI report against me, but you do not mention that it has failed completely because the filler has counted my 2RR + self-revert falsely as a violation of the 3RR rule (self-reverts do not count towards 3RR). Thankfully, the uninvolved editors recognized the filler's mistake and backed me, which resulted to the failure of the ANI report against me and to the article's protection level being raised against anonymous IPs (it was an anonymous IP who edit warred here, not me), and no decisions for sanctions for disruption on ARBMAC articles were taken against me. Unlike you, dear DWB... -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Your statement that "user:DevilWearsBrioni is not your client and you are not his advocate", is not convincing. Your actions contradict your claims. You know, it is not only Robert who has this impression about you. It is me too and everyone else here, I am afraid. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard, Athenean, Resnjari, Iazyges, Alexikoua, Robert McClenon, and TransporterMan: I can't help but notice how every other case here in the Arbitration Enforcement (EVERY other report), is either in the progress of being closed (3 of them in progress for closure), or already closed (7 of them already closed). And only the "SilentResident" case filled by User:DevilWearsBrioni is still without an AE volunteer. This is utterly disappointing. And the fact that User:DevilWearsBrioni himself seems unwilling to concede the retaliatory nature of his report, delusional as he may be, that he is striving for justice (God forbid otherwise!), is not helping either. Honestly, what am I supposed to do between these two tragicomical dead ends? Shall I laugh or shall I cry? Shall I conclude that I am stuck between two facts: 1) Wikipedia is not a place where rules apply for everyone, and 2) frivolous reports are an absolutely fine thing to do in Wikipedia? Tragicomical, and yet, this gives me a very backstabbing feeling.

EDIT: Perhaps, Anthony, the AE volunteers didn't realize that this AE case has yet no volunteers, mistakenly thinking your comments under the "Result concerning SilentResident" section of this report, for being the comments of an AE volunteer? Anthony, perhaps you should move your comments under a new section with your name on it (i.e "Statement by Anthony Appleyard")? It is tragicomical to ever make such assumptions and suggestions now, but... it is a tragicomical situation after all (just saying; no offense to anyone meant). To me it is very likely that this AE fill will just get archived without a proper closure, and this is saddening. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Iazyges

I must agree with silent resident, I am honestly beginning to wonder whether DWB is delusional, and no this is not an insult. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: I haven't answered because I've said it enough I sound like a broken record, but the reason I removed the OR tag is that it was clear it wasn't OR, you are right that a moderator doesn't "pick a winner", however I was brought a pick a winner case and fulfilled it to the best of my abilities. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni:, your right, I've never said that before:^[1],^[2]. And I believe I have addressed the don't pick a winner things many times, It shouldn't have been filed at the DRN, the DRN is for bringing together editors to establish consensus, not deciding on OR, which incidentally has its own noticeboard. I at the end suggested Mediation, arbitration or appeal the OR, and Robert suggested a RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean: You got me interested so I had a little looksie: He as of posting, has 792 live edits, 315 are article, and 239 are talk, of these:

• Talk Pages:
  • Expulsion of Cham Albanians — 105
• User Talk:
  • SilentResident — 18
  • Alexikoua — 13
  • Resnjari — 10
  • Robert McClenon — 4
• Wikipedia
  • Dispute resolution noticeboard — 25
  • Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement — 15
  • Reliable sources/Noticeboard — 15
  • Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents — 12
  • No original research/Noticeboard — 10
  • Neutral point of view/Noticeboard — 6
• Wikipedia Talk
  • Dispute resolution noticeboard — 16
  • Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians — 40 (I don't believe the number of edits to it is covered by privilege of mediation but <s> it if it is.

Oh and an Interesting history of interest in Albanians always being the good guys. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: can you confirm or deny if you are one in the same as User:37.46.188.80? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Nationalist isn't the right word, but he does seem to have an interest in Albanians being seen the good guys/ victims, that is undeniable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: Your desperate attempts to be the good guy, to be a poor, victim, is exactly why most everyone you have come in contact with don't like you, not because SilentResident is somehow manipulating us all, which I find very insulting, you seem to not believe that people could dislike you de tua virtute. I will request you withdraw your A/E case, as a show of willingness to follow consensus, as all, even Resnajri, are for the case being closed, and you being warned (or blocked), showing that you are willing to follow consensus may be good for you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: Respectfully, what are you talking about? 1. I never claimed to be by speech or did anything that might impersonate one, and 2. I am in my own section, what are you on about? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard May I request a closing of the case, as it appears all active members (correct me if I'm wrong Resnjari) are for a close, except for DWB. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is clearly a retaliatory filing only. The only real question to be addressed is whether this filing should be dismissed with a very strong warning to the filing party or whether some sort of sanction is necessary against the filing party. A sanction against the filing party could be anything from a topic-ban on filings at AE and ANI having to do with the Balkans, to a topic-ban on the Balkans, to an extended block (but blocks are not punitive), to a site ban. At this time I would suggest that action is necessary, but that the least burdensome sanction would be a ban on User:DevilWearsBrioni from AE and ANI filings, to prevent further harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Resnjari writes: "The issues brought here regarding Silent are to be dismissed? If so then a dismissal regarding Brioni should also occur on his case." I don't see a case against Brioni pending. It is true that a case was filed against Brioni, but it was badly formatted and may have been removed. In any case, there isn't a case against Brioni. Whether this case should be dismissed should be judged on its own merits. I don't see any merits. I see an attempt by User:DevilWearsBrioni to send a message that editors who challenge them will be dealt with punitively; however, I don't see a substantive case against User:SilentResident. I will restate my original statement that one of the following is in order (1) dismissal of the filing with a strong warning (the case by SilentResident against Brioni having already been dismissed); (2) a ban against AE and ANI filings by Brioni; (3) a topic-ban on the Balkans by Brioni; (4) a site-ban of Brioni. I ask the admins here to propose some action. I suggest that (3) and (4) are too strong, but that (1) is too weak, and recommend (2). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive202#DevilWearsBrioni. The case against User:DevilWearsBrioni was archived. The list of archives only displays through 200, and the case is archived in 202; the problem is that the box showing the archives is too small. Can a clerk please expand that? In any case, this was clearly a retaliatory filing. If it wasn't meant to harass, it looks as if it was meant to harass. I suggest closure with a ban on the filing party against further filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Resnjari - I agree that too much time is being wasted. However, at this point, since you appear to be DWB's advocate, it is your client who is wasting the time. Can you tell your client that vexatious litigation is an offense? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I expanded the archive box so you can now see Archive202. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't implying that User:Resnjari was being paid by User:DevilWearsBrioni. I said that Resnjari was acting as Brioni's advocate. As the dictionary shows, that is someone who is arguing the case for someone else. Any case against Brioni has already been dropped by being archived. This case is unwarranted and retaliatory. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Resnjari, User:Anthony Appleyard - It appears that cases here, like cases at WP:ANI, are not always formally closed, but that if they are robotically archived without action, that is the end of them. If I am mistaken, someone will correct me. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:DevilWearsBrioni - Anthony Appleyard wrote: "Make an end of the business, and the sooner that DWB is blocked, the better." That is a very strong warning from an administrator. I suggest voluntarily withdrawing this case as a way of acknowledging the warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Resnjari

The issues brought here regarding Silent are to be dismissed? If so then a dismissal regarding Brioni should also occur on his case. The report filed here shows that Silent has engaged in certain behavior too of which Brioni is alleged to have done. All Brioni has done is place a focus on the other side too. Dismissing one while focusing on the other is problematic when the coin is the same on both sides.Resnjari (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, Brioni has also not been sanctioned and has made contribution to very difficult articles in pointing out their deficiencies. I noted a example of this in the Fustanella page which was very POV before Brioni took time and effort to make it better. Your interactions with Brioni and his with you have not been dignified in any measure. In both your exchanges things have escalated in a tennis match of absurdities in the Chams article. Its why i said in the previous arbitration case that no one would come out of this clean and i stand by it. Either both of you get a warning or this gets dismissed for both. More time has been wasted on this than making attempts to resolve issues with the article itself.Resnjari (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless of concern here is the pronouncement made by @Athenean, an editor who brought forth the case against Brioni. In a comment here he makes a very serious allegation that Brioni is an "aggressive Albanian nationalist". This is a very serious charge to make and has brought nothing to back up this claim (which resembles as an attempt at smear). This is a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The motives for going after Brioni at this point are questionable and veer more toward the area of settling scores. I cite this as a concern because of my interactions [112], [113] with Athenean in the past who has used such language and has a problematic track record when interacting with other Albanian editors [114], [115] which has earned him bans [116]. I hope that this is not a repetition of that behavior. I also hope that his claim of "aggressive Albanian nationalist" regarding Brioni was not what he really intended and done instead in haste and urge him to withdraw that remark in the spirit of good faith.Resnjari (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges:, one could make the same claim for Silent who used the words "traitorous actions" when there was attempt to remove peer received content regarding seeing the Greeks as good guys/victims and the Albanians as being at fault. Either both get sanctioned or none do and a strong warning for both (my preference for the latter). Regarding the Chams article its why i have called for mediation. This article whether its Brioni or other editors in future will cause this type of never ending time wasting because there aren't other to oversight the discussion which eventually would lead to a resolution.Resnjari (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges:, You say again that Brioni interprets Albanians as the good guys and cite an example of this at the Individuals and groups assisting Jews during the Holocaust article. Apart from no other editor contesting Brioni's edits there in the article talkpage (or his talkpage), the additions he made to the article were based on peer reviewed material. He clarified the sentence that parts of Kosovo and Western Macedonia were annexed to Albania by the Avis powers (and not by Albania itself), then under firm Italian rule being annexed itself in 1939 [117]. If that is somehow an issue, my goodness. Then the other edits he made on that page clarified things further. Within this enlarged Albania, the bit that still known today as Albania, Jews were spared and he cited that part accordingly using among other things peer revived material that meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary and other strong sources (for more see all edits: [118], [119], [120], [121]. In Kosovo events went differently and that is not contested. As Albania and Kosovo are not one country today the scholarship on this matter treats the issues of Jews surviving or not surviving the war differently and literally their experiences were different in Albania and Kosovo. As such that is how the article is structured on the matter. Citing those edits as being in some kind of breach or of having an agenda about being "good guys" does not suffice otherwise the same charge can be made at many other editors, some who are participating in this discussion. I am becoming concerned as to where the discussion on Brioni is going where mundane edits are now being cited as evidence of supposedly something.Resnjari (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, on that matter about the IP and Brioni being connected, its the admin's call on how to go about this as i am not familiar with things on that part. I usually don't partake is this arbitration hearings, not my thing. Whether its pinned to an editor or considered separate when a person creates a account, not sure. Anyway this is a time wasting excersize. The energies of editors editing and discussing with admins acting as a conciliators for the Chams page would have been better placed there than in here. Many words, blame this or that, more undignified commentary which i am not comfortable with even on my part. This is very disappointing and the article still remains unresolved and will become one that is a blackhole (like for instance the Souliotes page used to be) and will cause more disruptions and this kind of rapport between editors.Resnjari (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, this is turning into farce or some soap opera resembling the US elections of recent times. If some of the editors here had spent their energies on making the article better with just a admin or two to act as mediator or a kind of referee the article might have been solved now. My preference is a strong warning (it being a final warning made very clear). With option two though not sure how long a ban would go in this instance. Brioni has edited ok in most other articles (and his editing got better over time) and made them good, difficult ones too. Not sure how to go about it. Something though needs to done about this. Taking too long and wasting to much time that can be put to use elsewhere. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, i work alone and no one is my "client" or am i an "advocate". Any insinuation of the kind is uncalled for and does not build good faith. That i have crossed paths on a few articles where Brioni edits is due to his and my topical interests coinciding. I am participating in this discussion as editors have done and will continue to do. It is in the end a admin's call as to what happens. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident:, my account on Wikipedia dates back to 2008, older than most of the editors active here in this discussion. I work alone and its why i am still here while many others are long gone. One should have in mind that personal impressions can also be interpreted as smear. As you have the right to participate in this discussion, i do too unless advised otherwise by an admin.Resnjari (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, its what vibe i got for your comment. I am not advocating for someone. Otherwise other editors involved here in the discussion could also be interpreted as being advocates too for a certain view. If Brioni's case has been officially dropped (an admin needs to close that) then should this one. On both i see no issue continuing because as i have consistency neither of the editors comes out clean. Too much time has been wasted while the Chams article still remains problematic and unresolved, time and energies that should have been devoted to that endeavour.Resnjari (talk)

@Anthony Appleyard:@Robert McClenon wrote that "Any case against Brioni has already been dropped by being archived". If its archived then there is no case for Brioni or is that still ongoing ? Some clarification on the matter. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:. Thank you for the information. I appreciate it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mediation Committee

This is just a reminder to everyone that everything said or done on the mediation case page and talkpage related to this matter is privileged and cannot be used or considered as evidence in this application. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Statement by Athenean

I'm going to cut straight to the chase: DWB is an aggressive Albanian nationalist SPA whose main contribution to wikipedia is drama, lots of drama, and little else. Just a brief look through his recent contribs [122] shows only two things: Endless filibuster at Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians and endless filibuster of every dispute resolution attempt of said article. And now this latest frivolous report. He has a history of filing frivolous requests against his enemies [123] [124] (both reports dismissed by the community), using colorful language and misleading diffs. His report here is in the same vein. Lots of colorful language, gross hyperbole ("temper tantrums"), aspersions, and lots of diffs that do not stand up to scrutiny (the old "diff-padding" trick - load the report with diffs, even if they do not stand up to scrutiny, in the hope of making it look hefty). Even more ludicrous are his conspiratorial assertions that SilentResident somehow "conned" Anthony Appleyard and turned him against DWB. Not only is this grossly insulting to Anthony Appleyard, it also shows an individual with a striking inability to acknowledge or even willing to consider his own faults. It is no coincidence that every user from outside the topic area that has interacted extensively with DWB (Iazyges, Robert McClenon, Anthony Appleyard) has found his behavior disruptive and asked for sanctions. And yet we are to believe that this is all a conspiracy orchestrated by Silent Resident? Alas, this is exactly the conspiratorial mindset typical of Balkan WP:POVWARRIORs that plague this area. Content building contribs by DWB are minimal to zero. It's all drama, all the time. This is in contrast to Silent Resident, who is a valuable contributor with many content building contribs [125]. Any discussion in which DWB gets involved invariably ends up getting bogged down in endless wiklawyering, quibbling, hair splitting, and eventually a drama board. Seeing how this user contributes next to nothing but drama, I think it's high time for a ban from Balkan topics, or at a very minimum a ban from iniating (invariably frivolous) reports at AE and ANI. Athenean (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@DWB: I can imagine why you would be annoyed at me bringing up your history of filing frivolous reports, but bringing attention to it may not be the best move on your part.

@Resnjari: You keep repeating yourself, but DWB has already been strongly warned, many times, and any attempt to "better the article" at any article he is involved turns into an interminable flame war. We're already long past that point. Athenean (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alexikoua

It appears that all uninvolved editors confirm DevilWB's aggresive pattern: Frivolous reports both here and at ANI [[126]] [[127]], combined with forumshopping, reddit & off wiki activity (as he previously admitted) leave no doubt that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. It's also really sad when editors do not hesitate to launch edit-wars even against volunteers, as DWB did against Iazyges [[128]][[129]], [[130]], [[131]], [[132]]. I'm fully convinced that this kind of large-scale disruption warrants a topic ban.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to wonder if user:Resnjari has some kind of permission to post 6.000+ words here: x12 times the amount of text permitted.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Anthony Appleyard

• @SilentResident, TransporterMan, Robert McClenon, Athenean, Resnjari, Alexikoua, and Iazyges: For your attention. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• @SilentResident, TransporterMan, Robert McClenon, Athenean, Resnjari, Alexikoua, and Iazyges: Make an end of the business, and the sooner that DWB is blocked, the better. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SilentResident

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

Doc9871

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 Doc9871

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Doc9871 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

1. 11/22 Telling other editors (in particular me) to "shut up" (misspelling it doesn't make it better). Compare it to this diff which is what led to Doc's original topic ban, and this statement by Bishonen (talk · contribs)
2. 11/22 Discussing other editors instead of content, speculating about other editors motives and making groundless accusations. Making some kind of threat. Note that this is *exactly* the kind of comment that led to Doc9871's initial topic ban. He is just repeating it.
3. 11/22 Discussing other editors instead of content. Doc seems to be more interested in insulting other editors than actually discussing article improvements. Note the edit summary.
4. 11/22 More insults and incivility. Completely pointless and gratuitous too. Like, what's the point of this?

More minor, but indicative of the fact that the editor is WP:NOTHERE

1. 11/22 Taunting other editors in edit summary
2. 11/22 Taunting other editors (wasn't aware I lost any elections)

And for good measure

1. "Fuck off now". It's on his talk page, so by itself wouldn't be a big deal. But part of a pattern.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

1. 8/1 Doc9871 was topic banned for 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump. Furthermore, the closing admin, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights stated, reflecting admin consensus on that report, "(Doc9871) is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban". The diffs above show that such an extension and broadening are needed.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 8/1 by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [133] which was originally imposed by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [134].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Exactly the same problem as the one which led to his original topic ban. Almost like reading from a script. Doc9871 is incapable of discussing this topic without immediately resorting to insults and abusive language. This behavior derails productive discussion. It's also completely pointless as it offers no suggestions for article improvements. It's just gratuitous insults made for their own sake.

@Lankiveil - what "plea bargain" are you talking about? I just left a message on his talk page asking him to remove the personal attacks (like telling me to "shut up"). I actually dislike having to report people to WP:AE and try to give them plenty of opportunity to correct/revise/strike/undo. Is there something wrong with that? Hell, I get messages like that on my talk from admins once in awhile too ("you might want to reword that") Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

• [135]

Discussion concerning Doc9871

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 Doc9871

• It's not a "personal attack" to say that Volunteer Marek (VM) is heavily biased against the subject. There is absolutely no question about his anti-Trump bias. So how is it a personal attack to point this out? It's just a simple fact.
• Statements like this[136] show how VM, a very ardent anti-Trump editor, has been holding the article hostage for months, and abusing the process quite severely. It's not a "personal attack" to point this out. He claims that only things "central to the life of Donald Trump" can be included[137], yet when challenged on what is "central"[138] he not only can't explain what that means, but instead suggests more, only negative, info that should be included.[139] Please read VM's very pointed response more than once for traces of "incivility".
• His assertion in the diff above that adding very reliably sourced material in the bios of the "goofy" celebrities who took to the media to announce they were leaving the U.S. would somehow automatically violate BLP should be of grave concern to every responsible editor here.
• VM offered to let certain "personal attacks"... "slide" if I removed some statements (that were not personal attacks) to his satisfaction. Specifically: "All the insults and personal attacks"[140]. Nothing specific was mentioned that could have been reasonably stricken were there a concrete issue. As a reward, I would not be reported here. I don't do "plea bargains" when they are not warranted.
• There's been absolutely no "disruption"; rather just a bruised ego. I've done some good work on the article recently; decent enough that I have been thanked for those edits by multiple editors, including admins.[141] It's all there in the article history. This is a meritless, spiteful report. VM's claim that I am NOTHERE after nearly 9 years and 23,000 edits is similarly meritless.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise: I did not come up with the "goofy" thing. That's why I keep putting it in "scare quotes". "The answer is that this is an article about Donald Trump. Not about some goofy celebrities."[142] Those were his words, not mine. First he tried to dismiss it all as "textbook trivia", then we discredit the sources, then the celebrities themselves.
• An indefinite ban as recommended by EdJohnston seems heavy-handed, as bans are to prevent disruption and not meant to be punitive. The last ban was for a month, and there's been no "disruption" until I dared to question VM's iron-clad notion of exactly what is UNDUE and "allowed" at the article. This has morphed from allegations of personal attacks into something else. I haven't done anything to any of the "goofy" celebrities' articles, gleefully or otherwise. The true disruption is that I'm a little too sarcastic for some at times, and I am supporting an unpopular subject. I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway.

Statement by User:EEng

(Just happened to stumble on this thread since, ahem, this page recently came onto my watchlist...) I think it's important to bear in mind that editors need not be neutral, and it's OK -- even desirable, when you think about it -- that they reveal any biases in discussions. It's only their edits that need to be neutral.

If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally. EEng 08:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Calton

Doc needs to read WP:NOTTHEM at some point. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Question by Cas Liber

@Doc9871:, why did you change sources here? From reading it, both sources can support the statement, but (a) why swap and (b) the edit summary? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Doc9871

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

• If it doesn't sound too pretentious, I'll "recuse" from this complaint, since I was deeply involved in the previous complaint against and sanction of Doc in August.[143] Bishonen | talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC).
• I'm looking less at the diffs about Doc's talk interactions with VM, but more at Doc's initial posting on the talkpage [144] that sparked this latest altercation. His tone in gleefully proposing to stamp several BLP subjects ("bigtime celebrities") as "liars" (for not immediately following through with their declared intention of leaving the US if Trump won), combined with the way he's been speaking about them here ("goofy celebrities"), shows that his interest is not in creating fair coverage of the Trump campaign but in systematically discrediting his opponents. I'm not particularly impressed with VM's tit-for-tat counter-proposal of adding more coverage of Trump's misuse of Twitter either, but maybe that's another issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• After reviewing the last AE as linked by Bishonen, seeing the new complaint and noting the warnings issued by the other admins last time (User:Laser brain, User:Seraphimblade, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights and User:Lord Roem), I propose an indef ban of User:Doc9871 from the domain of WP:ARBAP2. It seems that Doc9871 behaves quite badly on talk pages and that behavior hasn't changed since the last time around. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• User:Doc9871, do you have any diffs or other evidence that VM tried to make a "plea bargain" with you? If these events took place as you described them, I'd consider that a very serious matter indeed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC).

• If I'm reading the diffs right, this is supposed to be the evidence for the "plea bargain" claim. I don't remotely read that as an attempted plea bargain, nor do I see how any reasonable observer could do so; it's clearly a notification by VM that if matters aren't resolved he's going to consider requesting formal action, not an attempt at a bargain. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging

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 TheTimesAreAChanging

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

MelanieN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

1. Nov. 21 Added a sentence to the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
2. Nov. 23, 00:14 Re-added the sentence after it was deleted as controversial. They quickly reverted themselves, but then
3. Nov. 23 00:16 added it back, describing the removal as "vandalism". This violated the prohibition against restoring controversial material.
4. Nov 21 removed longstanding material from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as a "hoax"; not supposed to remove longstanding material without consensus.

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)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Oct. 17

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

See their talk page for recent previous incidents/warnings:

• User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Be careful about your editing at articles under Discretionary Sanctions from Nov. 5-7
• User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Friendly Reminder (which refers to this edit of Nov. 22)

Reply to User:Soham321: You argue that it is better to warn a person than to threaten sanctions, and that a warning can allow the situation to be "easily resolved". I agree, and that is what I do, for a first offense. See the link just above in this section, where I did just that. The reason for this report is that the problematic behavior recurred after that warning. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Soham321, I hadn't noticed previously your "clarification" of items #1-3, which you seem to feel exonerates TheTimes. It was not necessary to cite here, although it may have been necessary at the time to clear things up for BullRangifer. Your explanation of what happened tallies exactly with mine. #1, he added something to the article: good faith, no violation. #2, he re-added it but immediately self-reverted, so again, no violation. #3, he then re-added it knowing it was controversial, and for good measure he described the previous removal of it as "vandalism", even though there had been a content-based edit summary with the deletion. Restoring content which had been challenged was a violation; arguably so was calling the removal "vandalism". Only after restoring the material (Nov 23, 00:16) did he start a talk-page discussion (Nov. 23, 00:55). (That discussion in itself is a piece of work, misquoting/distorting the edit summary that had been given for the deletion, and adding that the whole article would not exist "If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society."[145] ) --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[146]

Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging

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 TheTimesAreAChanging

I will respond to Melanie's statements in reverse. The child rape lawsuit against a living person was indeed a hoax and dropped prior to the election, hence why it was largely ignored by the media and not currently included (for lack of consensus) in the main Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. Clearly, the mention of that lawsuit in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (which is already far too long and COATRACKY) reflected no "longstanding" consensus, but was merely an oversight. With regard to the "contentious" material I twice added to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations: If it had lasted longer than one day before being removed, would it then have gained the presumption of "consensus"? At least with regard to the "Miss Teen USA" content, it is quite clear that SPECIFICO and BullRangifer are gaming the system: Every single source on the topic notes that of the fifteen girls to comment on the matter, eleven—the clear majority—"were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy" because, e.g., they were surrounded by chaperones at all times. By declaring it uncontroversial to quote the four girls that accused Trump, but "contentious" to mention the other eleven from the same source, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, and now Melanie are in effect arguing that Wikipedia policy actually requires us to intentionally misrepresent our own sources and mislead readers. That is an absurd and untenable position: If "consensus" dictates that the former recollections are within the scope of the article, by definition the same must be true of the latter. Moreover, if that is not the case—if there is no reasonable limit to obstructionism—then why can't I simply refuse to assent to the very existence of an article on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, per WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS/ect.—or blanket delete the "Miss Teen USA" subsection, given that no sources describe Trump's alleged actions as "sexual misconduct" and the whole paragraph thus contravenes WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK? (If I were to do so, would the WP:ONUS then switch to my opponents, or would I be immediately reverted?) In sum, if a source or claim is included in an article, then I don't see how it could possibly violate the spirit of any Wikipedia policy to accurately quote the source and disclose all of the viewpoints it deems credible; in fact, that is exactly what WP:NPOV demands.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior to her latest collection of accusations, SPECIFICO reported me directly to two admins and filed this ANI report urging that I be topic banned (which failed to gain any traction with the community because it was obviously retaliation for an ANI report I filed against one of her comrades, since indeffed): She should really stop forum shopping. SPECIFICO purports to monitor and police every aspect of my behavior, including the ideas I express on my userpage, but she still tends to leap to conclusions unsupported by the diffs in question. For example, the "battle cry" in which I supposedly "boasted" about "besting" my "opponents" actually read: "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents." In the same way, Doug Weller warned me not to refer to another editor as a "Nazi," but when I pointed out that the editor in question was an actual unironic Nazi with a userpage devoted to Holocaust denial, he conceded: "Ok, I see why but there were better options that would have led to attention paid to that editor's userpage." Ect. Ect. Ect. Of special interest is SPECIFICO's version of the Dinesh D'Souza conflict documented in the ANI report: "He tries to enlist @Oshwah to assist him in continuing his edit war ... supposedly because 'his' version was 'stable'." (Why is "his" in quotes?) The notion that I advocated restoration to "my" version is simply an absurd caricature of my request; in fact, I urged Oshwah to consider reverting back to a version predating any edits by yours truly! SPECIFICO should be very careful before she accuses anyone of "straw man arguments" or "misrepresentation of other editors."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: Yes, I am aware that my penchant for colorful, even vituperative language has gone too far and gotten me into trouble on occasion. Sometimes I have treated Wikipedia talk pages more like an online forum; now and then, I have even apologized. I have always tried to draw a sharp distinction between talk page rhetoric (or edit summaries, or my userpage—which SPECIFICO has mined for oppo-research) and edits to actual articles—hence the "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously" message SPECIFICO cites as evidence of the opposite—but I can see how my combative persona can be more of a liability than an asset, particularly when editing articles related to American Politics (where, I have now learned, content disputes are usually resolved by gaming and drama boards rather than substantive discussion). As a character witness, I point to the following comment by Guccisamsclub—an editor with politics well to the Left of my own, and whose opinion of me has fluctuated over time and may well continue to fluctuate, but with whom I have been able to collaborate constructively despite our disagreements: "You might want to stop throwing around terms like 'far-left', 'activist' and 'communist' ... it makes you sound like a shrill regular from Free Republic, Little Green Footballs or worse. Now I've had enough contact with you to know that's not true, but you could easily give the wrong impression to someone else and thus derail the conversation. You had me fooled for some time." (In my defense, Pol Pot considered Elizabeth Becker sufficiently Left-wing to invite her on a guided tour of Democratic Kampuchea, so referring to her as a "far-Left author" on my talk page—while poor form—is not much worse than SPECIFICO's recent attempts to smear Stefan Molyneux as a Nazi, possibly in violation of her Mises Institute topic ban.) @Bishonen: Edit summaries are necessarily snappy and may not include room for nuanced discussion. See here for my detailed thoughts on the "Founder of ISIS" soundbite:

"To be fair to the peoples of the Middle East, there have been many real conspiracies by Western powers in that part of the world (see, e.g., 1953 Iranian coup d'état), and there is obviously some element of truth underlying even the more outlandish allegations (such as the claim that Baghdadi is secretly an Israeli actor named Simon Elliot). Israel, after all, has a well-known policy of providing medical aid to any Syrian rebels that request it, in return for quiet along the Syria-Israel border; there may also be some military assistance and intelligence-sharing—and there is no doubt jihadists have benefited from Israeli largess. Meanwhile, there is far more evidence that "moderate" rebels backed by the United States and its partners tolerated the rise of Islamic State than there is to support the theory that Assad is somehow to blame for the Syrian uprising turning Islamist. When we include ridiculous claims such as John Kerry's assertion that Assad "purposely ced[ed] some territory to them [ISIL] in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow the protector against them," it's worth considering that the Western press may be more sophisticated than the Arab press but both can be guilty of propaganda."

Why did I allude to Trump's inflammatory quote? Because, despite all of the "fact checkers" that tow the government line with one voice, nothing I wrote above is controversial to experts on Syria: I urge those laughing at Trump's crude rhetoric (or all the "backward Arabs" that think ISIS is a CIA-Mossad conspiracy) to consider first whether the official U.S. government position they are defending has any more factual merit.

I never suggested SPECIFICO is "a paid Democratic party shill"—don't put words in my mouth. I have profound problems with the way SPECIFICO conducted herself during a recent edit war at Dinesh D'Souza, and my description of her as a "hack" cannot be divorced from conduct such as the following:

Case in point: SPECIFICO's "good faith" ally User:Oneshotofwhiskey leaves comments such as "Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda" and "You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations"; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write "Oneshotofwhiskey's blatant vandalism continues. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Arbitration is now necessary, and probably a topic ban to end the disruption"—and SPECIFICO partially redacts it as a "personal attack." Can you say double standard?

This should tell you two things: 1. I don't attack editors because I am "angry," but because when I am attacked I have found it expedient to hit back twice as hard. (Given that that's no longer true with SPECIFICO stalking my contributions, I promise to cut it out.) 2. SPECIFICO is not a neutral arbiter. More importantly, SPECIFICO already brought these same diffs to another forum in a failed effort to topic ban me from Dinesh D'Souza; this thread has devolved from analyzing a specific DS violation that caused minor disruption into a witchhunt and personal attack on me, based on every unpopular idea I so much as expressed on my userpage. (Of course, my userpage also makes clear that I would be considered Left-of-center on issues like gay marriage, abortion, ect., but that's neither here nor there.) No editor would hold up perfectly under such scrutiny by a dedicated stalker and forum shopper.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlexEng

I am entirely uninvolved in this matter, but I am the author of the Friendly Reminder banner on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page. I just want to be clear that this was in fact a friendly reminder and not an indictment of the user's behavior. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I don't see why this is at AE. There's little or no disruption and plainly looks like a content dispute.

FWIW, I think TTAAC is making a good case here and on the talkpage for their edits. However, "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: good-faith but wrong-headed edits aren't vandalism - so the term should be avoided. "Hoax" is also imprecisely used; there are questions about the case, but it has not been definitely ruled a hoax AFAIK. We all have opinions about political matters, but it's usually best to make arguments and keep the normative opinions out of discussions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I am rather surprised by the reaction in the admin section. The focus should be on disruption; apparently, one revert is now considered sufficiently disruptive to take action now? If such standards were applied uniformly, I wonder how many of the people working in politics areas will remain? I only give the example of another case on this very page, concerning My very best wishes (here). Please tell me what would have been the result if one re-insertion before clear consensus means that admins should take action.

I know this: I certainly won't be able to work in the I/P area using these standards. There has been no refusal to discuss the matter on the talkpage by the parties, so why are the admins getting involved? Are we now children that we can't work out such minor things among ourselves and need to go running to mommy?

For the record, I have yet to find a single edit which I have agreed on with TTAAC in my time here, or with MvBW. So this is not about content; it is about using common sense and fair standards. A tight leash is sometimes appropriate, but Wikipedia has a thousand policies and a million ways of running afoul of them. The election is over; most of the disputes have already, or will cool down significantly.

I reiterate my solution above. TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms. No other action should be taken. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen's latest comment is about TTAAC's general conduct, not the points raised in the OP (which is fine, if one is looking to establish a broad pattern). I will try to disentangle the valid from the invalid points. I suggest that the focus be firmly on disruption.

Bishonen gives three diffs and says that they demonstrate an unwillingness to collaborate, a battleground mentality and attacks upon other users. Of these, only the third diff is to an article. As far as I can see, the third diff displays no attacks on any editor. It cites an article by Seymour Hersh in London Review of Books for the content. (I don't like the thesis advanced by Hersh, but it is definitely a notable viewpoint.) The edit summary is not helpful, to put it mildly, but the edit itself is defensible. The other two diffs are from TTAAC's own talkpage. It is clear that TTAAC does not like SPECIFICO.

Now I will evaluate the diffs and people can decide whether my evaluation makes sense. Spend some time in any political topic on Wikipedia and you will encounter editors who you think are fools or worse. I certainly do not like many editors here and probably the sentiment is reciprocated. But one does not need to broadcast one's thoughts to the world; nobody cares whether you like editor X or not. In the same vein, keep your brilliant insight about Obama and ISIS to yourself. Again, nobody cares; just make the edit and give a reasonable edit summary. So, as I said before, TTAAC should avoid this behaviour. However, and this is the main point, I do not see any evidence of disruption, either on article pages, or on talk pages. To the contrary, I see reasonable arguments made in defence of reasonable edits, mixed together with some heat which should not be present but commonly is present all over political topics in Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions by My very best wishes

This subject area is going to be very difficult, and for a good reason. I have two practical suggestions.

1. Please cancel editing restriction about "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". That restriction has been heavily misused by some contributors to unilaterally remove well-sourced materials they do not like, which goes against consensus. If someone edit war against consensus or without talking, this is sanctionable per se. One does not need additional editing restrictions. The behavior of TTAAC is precisely an example of gaming these discretionary sanctions. He removes a well sourced text he does not like (diff #4; this is actually something widely published and sourced to multiple RS), but unilaterally inserts texts he wants to be included, even though they were vigorously opposed by other contributors on article talk page (diffs #1 to #3).
2. Please enforce guidelines on article talk pages. If anyone is talking not about improvement of the corresponding article on these pages, this is already a violation, and especially if one is talking about another contributor (request just above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian. You "suggest that the focus be firmly on disruption". Yes, sure. But it is abundantly clear from this request alone and comments by TTAAC and SPECIFICO that there was a significant disruption. Did you actually read their comments? Was that disruption significant enough to warrant any sanctions? This is something for admins to decide. My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Soham321

Agree completely with Kingsindian. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Specifically, with respect to Melanie's four points, i see nothing wrong in the first edit of TheTimesAreAChanging. With respect to the second and third points of Melanie, i have offered a clarification here: diff. TheTimesAreAChanging has agreed that my assessment about his edits was correct. With respect to the fourth point of Melanie, note that there is an ongoing RfC about the Jane Doe allegations taking place at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations and any material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations is not being permitted to be inserted into the main article. I see nothing wrong in removing material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations from a different WP page pertaining to Trump until this RfC has been resolved. Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

it is inevitable that some 'heat' will be generated when editing contentious WP pages. The way to deal with this, almost always, is to tolerate it rather than to seek sanctions on editors one has content disputes with. At the top of the page it says that if you post a comment here then your own behavior can also be scrutinized. So let me scrutinize SPECIFICO's behavior for edits pertaining to the same Trump page from which Melanie has given three out of her four diffs. SPECIFICO warns me on my talk page (TP) and again on the TP of the main article that i am liable to face Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions (DS). What had i done? I had only added a sentence to the butler's testimony from a reference already present in the main article, and given another reference which was corroborating what the reference already present said. Diffs of her 'threats': diff1 and diff2. When i tell her on the TP that i do not believe i am in violation of Arbcom sanctions she responds by claiming the butler is 'biased' and liable to be senile: diff3. Since the butler is still alive i believe this is a violation of WP:BLP and i point it out to her. And giving frivolous threats to another editor about facing Arbcom sanctions is disruptive behavior, plain and simple. I am mentioning all this not because i seek sanctions against SPECIFICO but because i believe the threshold for giving sanctions has to be considerably higher than some of us seem to imagine. Soham321 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion taking place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo (be sure to check the edit history of the page to see a recent edit of Melanie that has been reverted by Hidden Tempo). The relevance of this discussion is that this is again stemming from a content dispute related to the 2016 US Elections which can easily be resolved by giving a warning to the editor to tone down their language; instead we are seeing the editor being threatened with sanctions. Soham321 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN I have seen the two links you gave to the previous warnings. The one where he called the editor who had introduced an edit in the lead of the Ronald Reagan page, from a self-published blog, an 'idiot' is mitigated by two things. First, removing that edit from the lead of the Reagan page contributed to improving the quality of the article. Second, when he called the person 'idiot' he did not name anyone and it seemed he did not even know who the person who introduced this edit was (probably the edit had not been introduced recently) and this makes his comment less inflammatory than it would otherwise have been. Still he appropriately received a warning about using the word 'idiot'. The person who gave this warning has clarified in this discussion that this was only a friendly warning, not an indictment of the user's behavior. He did not protest against being given the warning, and we have to give him the benefit of doubt and accept that he agreed he had made a mistake by using the word 'idiot'.

With respect to the first link you gave, he explained he introduced the disputed edit back into the main article on the basis of a 4-2 consensus, since he had seen disputed edits placed back in main articles on even weaker consensus. Of course, he is wrong and Bull rightly pointed out to him on his talk page why he is wrong. But i don't see him protesting when Bull tells him he is wrong meaning, again giving him the benefit of doubt, that he agrees with Bull.

Nothing here deserves sanctions. Not his previous edits, because of which he was warned, and not his more recent edits because of which sanctions have been sought against him. This much said, i think we can ask him to tone down his language, specifically in edit summaries. I agree with Kingsindian's suggestion: "TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms." The problematic words used by TheTimesAreAChanging, in my opinion, were 'idiot', 'hoax', and 'vandalism'. TTAAC, do you agree with the assessment of Kingsindian and myself? Do you agree to do what we are suggesting? Soham321 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (SPECIFICO)

@Soham321: @Kingsindian: -- Most Arbcom violations arise from "content disputes". The issue here is whether this user violated ARBAP2 Sanctions that have been put in place to ensure orderly and respectful discussions and resolutions of those content disputes. TheTimesTheyAreAChanging had been editing disruptively on politics-related articles for some time now. He narrowly avoided a block at a recent AN3. Instead of discussion, he launches into straw man arguments, equivocation, misrepresentation of other editors, and personal attacks. Until recently, His user page read like a battle cry, starting with boast that he bests his "opponents" which he removed after I referred to it at his AN3 thread. His entire user page is a bizarre political rant of the sort I've not seen on any other user's page. This user seems to work constructively on articles relating to video games and other innocuous topics, but he lacks the emotional maturity to work on these difficult politics-related articles. I recommend a topic ban from American Politics. Let's see whether this user can refrain from yet another round of personal attacks on me here. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Starting to collect some diffs on this editor: Here is a long talk page thread in which he launches into repeated personal attacks on editor @NYCJosh: [147]' Some of the many battleground edit comments -- and these are just from the past few weeks! [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Here he removed a DS notice from his talk page with the edit comment "not interested, pal" He subsequently denied that he edits articles related to American Politics! He's been warned repeatedly by various users,and recently by Admins: @DoRD: here. Then, here, he tries to enlist @Oshwah: to assist him in continuing his edit war after Oshwah protected a page on which TheTimesAreAChanging was edit warring, supposedly because "his" version was "stable." @Doug Weller: warned him here and the attacks and disruption have only gotten worse. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Bishonen: Sorry, I forgot the link. It's here and @Oshwah: observes that TheTimesAreAChanging has violated 3RR here that he's received the DS notice, and that he will be blocked for further edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope that y'all are reading all the comments and links before commenting. 4 Admins warned this user. Other editors politely asked him to stop edit warring on numerous American Politics articles (the ones he claims, in one of the links that he does not edit). Ad hominems, mansplaining, personal attacks and disparagement should not be OK in any article. Under DS users should know that such behavior will surely lead to a block. Actions have consequences. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging

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

• This does look like inappropriate behaviour to me. TheTimesAreAChanging added some content which was removed by another editor who didn't think it was appropriate. At that point the issue should have been taken to the talk page, both per usual practice and more importantly the active sanction requiring that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Instead TheTimesAreAChanging chose to put it back calling the removal "vandalism" (which it clearly isn't). This is a pretty clear breach of the active sanction. Hut 8.5 12:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• This looks like a straightforward violation of the discretionary page restrictions on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. A few weeks ago, Melanie specifically pointed out on the user's page that they needed to be careful about editing U.S. politics articles under page restrictions.[154] This was in regard to TheTimes' reinstating challenged edits on another article (Political positions of Donald Trump), but you'd think they'd be able to keep the general, and specifically Trump-related, warning in mind. Also I think it's pretty egregious for an experienced editor to play the tired "vandalism" card here in order to justify their revert. New users can be excused for claiming anything they disagree with is vandalism, as they often do, but it won't fly in this case. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC).

• Adding note: SPECIFICO, do you have a link to the ANI discussion you mention, where you say TheTimesAreAChanging narrowly avoided a block? (Minor point: you refer to him as "TheTimesTheyAreAChanging", but that isn't his name. It could be argued that it ought to be — that your version does more justice to Bob Dylan, and to rhythm — but that's the user's business.) Bishonen | talk 00:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC).
• More: Thank you, SPECIFICO. (That's an AN3 thread, not ANI; you may want to change that in your post). I was aware before in a general way of TheTimesAreAChanging being embattled on Am Pol pages, and I had even looked at his userpage — it reminded me of User:EEng's, mutatis mutandis and without the wit. But I hesitated to act, even to warn, simply because there's so much unpleasantness on those article talkpages overall that it takes much study to be sure one person sinks below the general level. Anyway, I'm interested in your diffs, and note from them especially TheTimesAreAChanging's tendency to put personal attacks and BLP violations in edit summaries. Examples:
  

13 Oct 2016: "RV patronizing warning from hack editor. I have every right--indeed, obligation--to rollback a sockpuppet attack on a BLP; SPECIFICO has yet to engage the issues on talk, instead lecturing me about "edit wars." Come off it!" Not sure what a "hack editor" is. In the context, perhaps a paid Democratic party shill?

27 Oct 2016: "Under no obligation to make these archives easily accessible for oppo-research by SPECIFICO or others." That's like taking every opportunity for a battleground stance, even for something as anodyne as removing his own archive links from his own page.

19 Nov 2016: "Classic NYT propaganda. Flynn was forced out for warning Obama—the "Founder of ISIS"—to stop!)" Calling Obama the "Founder of ISIS". It has quotes round it, and yes, we all know it's a quote and from where, but why is it there at all?

If TheTimesAreAChanging has some explanation of these edit summaries that will make them sound remotely decent, collaborative, etc, I'll be interested to hear it. If he doesn't, I'm not sure he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry. I see him editing computer games and related pages in a pleasant and constructive manner (AFAICS); stick to that, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC).