User talk:Factchecker atyourservice

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

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

You have been sanctioned Despite a clear warning here, you almost immediately decided to do this.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: this is a dumb sanction and the stated purported rationale for it is dumb. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Also your statement of the sanction said "Gratuitous insults, personal attacks, and casting aspersions are still prohibited on any page" but I request you strike it as obviously false, given the circumstances of you sanctioning me.

Or perhaps change it to "Complaining about gratuitous insults, personal attacks, and casting aspersions is still prohibited on any page". This would require very little of the text to be changed, thus not very labor-intensive on your part, but would still capture the intended meaning. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: in 10 years editing WP I've never, until today, gotten a message indicating somebody else on a different device tried to log in to my account. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Happening to a lot of people today, happened to me as well. There is a AN thread on it here. PackMecEng (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] Factchecker_atyourservice 02:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense

@SPECIFICO: if you actually believe this nonsensical claim that I've "violated" any sanction by explaining to Bull that no, I didn't hack his freaking twitter, after he suggested on an admin board that maybe I did, by all means get yourself to AE and file a case ASAP and I'm sure they will jump all over this very important issue and thank you for your extremely diligent hall monitoring and affix a gold star to the bulletin board in your honor to let everybody know what a helpful little admin sanctions gnome you are.
Otherwise, I think you know what to do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factchecker_atyourservice 14:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What?

You've archived all my displays of wit and inappropriate behavior? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'll selectively restore it at a later time, this page is mostly for people threatening to have me blocked/banned/whatever. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the pile on and sympathize with your frustration...but...you are in control of that outcome. When you feel as though you're about to fall off the wagon and say something that resembles a PA, bite your fingers, come over to my TP and discuss first. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no PA wagon, PAs are rampant. Respectfully, Atsme, there are several users that speak to you with undisguised contempt, regularly, not only without repercussion but without even a raised eyebrow by anybody else in the room. Have you read the essay I was complaining about? It was explicitly thrown in my face, but if you read it you'll see it is clearly about you too. I think you may have a case of Helsinki syndrome, as in Helsinki, Sweden. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok - I give up...I can't find the essay you were talking about - got links? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The thing is you cannot make a difference if you are banned. There are tons of issues with pretty much anything Trump related these days and the only way to bring them back to NPOV is discussion and consensus building. It is long, drawn out, and a pain in the butt but it is the only way. The snipes are common and constant, but don't actually matter. All they do is weaken the case of anyone making them, and if you just ignore them and make your points generally policy wins out. I have been here only a year and a half but that is longer than most new comers to American politics, went though the same stuff (and still do, heck go though my talk page and archives). Just be careful and do not respond in kind, you can see it now on several talk pages talks about civility and topic bans or blocks. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Neil just recommended DRN. FCAYS, I think it's worth a try next time there's a content issue. Be patient and don't take the bait...you're too good a writer to be lost over a behavioral issue. There are no deadlines...be happy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

FCAYS, how very Scanda dare you! Helsinki is in Finland, ok!!? That's like comparing Eurovision chalk with Eurovision cheese. And I'm not even going to mention Athens. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC) ... sorry, did someone mention a wagon??

@Martinevans123: Not sure if you are playing along but it's a reference to a scene in a US action film called Die Hard where a goofy news anchor is corrected on the location of Helsinki. The joke was supposed to be explained by a youtube link which was disallowed, and I went with it anyway because I live on the precipice of social acceptability. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As you should know, I treat this sacred encyclopedia with the respect it deserves and I never play along, even at home. You're best avoiding all that social media contamination. Yes it's a long way down. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC) ... often kinda sums it up here, I think.

In answer to certain questions posed on your talk page: Yes; No; Depends, why do you ask?

But, I think there has got to be a better format for this. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey!!!

Welcome back to the fray. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the note but I'm not "back" nor joining any "fray". This place is turning into a day care center. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing hats

Hi, I noticed you reverted the hatting here restoring a bunch of back-and-forth discussion to a voting section. Please don't do that again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: I attempted to put the moved comments into the section the other editor wanted them moved to, but something was wrong with the formatting and I wasn't willing to spend any additional time fixing the formatting issue. You are more than welcome to move the comments yourself if you can do it without messing up the formatting. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving it down is fine, you just need to remove the hat and hab templates (including the double curly braces) ~Awilley (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That would not have been proper since other comments were hatted. I simply copy pasted my comment text into the lower section. In any event, it appears the formatting issue may have been unrelated to the hat. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP stuff, attack editors, admin says no big deal. Restore one comment, immediate block! LOL what a joke. 46.242.240.216 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've warned you about making reverts like this before. Stop trying to re-open discussions on other users' talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I just thought it had transformed into an admin discussion and that you would be commenting shortly. The last thing Jessey said was to falsely claim the "smearing" never occurred and I just wanted to reply to that. N.B., the additional comment I added after reverting pointed out the obvious DS violations made by Scjessey, which I believe you are authorized to sanction.

I also felt the need to reply to a comment by Mandruss saying I felt certain comments were justified when that wasn't really what I meant.

Since I thought you were going to show up and comment, I also assumed you would probably restore the comments section yourself, first, so I didn't think doing it myself was that big a deal.

On more of a big picture issue, it's frustrating that this started with comments by the other editor that were pointlessly hostile and appeared to be based on pretty extensive ignorance of RS's, and my response was to criticize the hostility and point out the wrongness of the view, with sources.

Yet I was blocked for a highly technical violation while Scjessey was not blocked even though he doubled down on the insults even after being advised of the sourcing.

He's basing his wacky view on wacky sources and trying to drive away editors who don't agree with views from those wacky sources. That is waaaay more serious than reverting somebody's blanking of talk page discussion of their own improper conduct. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: IMO the real issue is using faux-"sourcing" concerns as a pretext to insult other editors—i.e. don't accuse others of "revisionist nonsense", or citing "fringe" sources, or "ignorance of the facts"—when the other guy is referring to matters reported straightforwardly in mainstream news sources.

Would you maybe add some language to your article talk page statement? Factchecker_atyourservice 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Like "He's basing his wacky view on wacky sources" :-) That article is already under a civility restriction. I will sanction for egregious offenses but for everything else, your best bet is usually WP:AE or another admin. Civility is a very difficult thing to enforce consistently and I'd rather leave it to a panel of admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: that was in direct reference to the source he posted, which you yourself commented on, that openly tries to canvass readers to campaign for impeachment "for the President's crimes" but also helpfully urging impeachment of Pence for... also the President's crimes I guess? And also to make the point that he's the one who crapped all over JFG falsely claiming he was "ignorant" and citing "fringe" sources for "revisionist nonsense" when, again, mainstream news desks and commentators are crediting Trump as at least a contributing factor, even as uncertain as the prospects going forward are.

And it also reminded me of a certain other user who serially and venomously accused others in general (and me pretty specifically) of reading outlandish sources—a total fiction—when he himself once tried to canvass WP users at the very same article to engage in crowd-sourced off-wiki discussion with a political activism site, literally encouraging people to determine for themselves which dossier parts were "corroborated", something that would probably amount to people concocting a bunch of OR off-site and then helpfully "adding" it in sock/meatpuppety fashion. And yet this same guy had the gall to have a message on his talk page accusing others of being Koch-brothers-funded paid trolls that "control" articles. By total coincidence, the "dossier" article has essentially morphed into a free-form diary of collusion "evidence" and the user in question is responsible for nearly 30% of all edits to the page and led the charge against any mention of fact RS's talking about lack of collusion evidence or opinion sources suggesting maybe collusion didn't happen. And of course as I noted, that user's public Twitter and Facebook are rife with political invective and are heavily suggestive of being used as a marshalling ground for partisan arguments on WP.

Both of these users admit having extreme views but both claim to be super-duper neutral and objective in their WP editing—yet this is flatly contradicted by their behavior. Overall, it seems like a pattern that some of the most devoutly axe-grinding POV-warriors here have a habit of angrily and dishonestly accusing others of promoting skewed viewpoints and questionable sources. It's just an effort to crap on other users, drive them away, and poison the well regarding totally legitimate source materials and POVs, attempting to make them off-limits for discussion . That's totally anti-social and contrary to civil editing and discussion of source materials and it's being systematically tolerated. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker, I don't know you other than what I happened to see on the Donald Trump talk page today and what I've seen here now after watch-listing your talk page after my first post here. What I've seen makes me worried for your future in the topic area. You seem to be taking a very WP:BATTLEGROUND-ish approach to editing in this area, more concerned apparently with what other editors are doing and how to counter their biased POV than you are about collaborating to write good articles. I highly advise you to just stop commenting on other editors altogether (even when they misbehave) and just focus on how to best make the articles represent what's in reliable sources. It will be better for you and the project. That's all. Best of luck. ~Awilley (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain how the above is not a violation of your editing restriction and why you should not be blocked again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Give me a few to try to figure out how I can respond to this without committing more violations . . . I think I'll have a response for you in about 60-90 minutes. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Well most importantly I didn't think it was a violation. Please bear with me through this explanation, but in any event please don't skip the third para with the underlined text.

I thought the whole point of your interventions with both Scjessey and the other user was that personal talk pages were inviolate, even to the extent of allowing a user to blank a discussion asking for an admin to sanction a DS violation? Even though the final straw before you imposed the restriction was me accusing him of operating the sock puppet that showed up to taunt me for my upcoming topic ban (which would obviously be predicated on me lashing out because I was mad at being taunted)—I think the crux of you pulling me aside was to tell me to which I was refusing to do because (in my words) he and Specifico continued to taunt me there? (And then in the heat of things I reverted your discussion-closing to add my own final reply a couple of times--sorry about that).

There was also the matter of the essay, which the user had specifically cited in telling Jimbo to ignore me, creating the unmistakeable implication that it referred to me, despite being coyly worded without any direct reference to me—but again, the gist of that was that I just had to accept it or file a formal case. As I recall, though I could be wrong, you were empowered to step in on that matter but pretty curtly declined to do so. You did politely suggest to the other guy that perhaps he stop editing his talk page in the way that was antagonizing me (my words, not yours), but you didn't actually make him do it. On that last point you did say that you were powerless to force a user to edit his own talk, but you were of course empowered to threaten a punitive block based on various PA and civility restrictions if he refused to do so himself. You definitely threatened me with such blocks to induce me to change my behavior.

All fair enough, you didn't want to do that, but again, I thought the point was that he could say whatever in his own userspace (and I do mean whatever), but you wouldn't step in informally despite DS implications regarding casting aspersions, and that was that? So while I did indeed interpret the sanction language referring to "any post" broadly to include his talk page, the talk page of his attack essay, article talk page comments not related to his edits, subject-matter noticeboard talk pages, admin noticeboard filings not related to his conduct, and possibly even the talk pages of other users that have had conflicts with him (which I think would be extreme, but I have avoided it)—I didn't think it applied to my own talk page, and moreover, I was specifically pinging you into the discussion to discuss your block, trying to defend myself and to explain why I felt the need to demand Scjessey's apology and striking of comments, and I was careful not to ping him into the discussion.

The need to mention our history was pretty direct, in my opinion, because the incident that I had just been blocked for was so closely parallel to the disputes with the first user. In both cases, a user was using false pretext of legitimate defense of WP from fringe sources as an excuse to browbeat and silence an editor trying to discuss straightforward mainstream sourcing, using the false claim of fringe sourcing to both discredit the POV or prose being discussed, and to discredit the editor presenting it (poisoning the well), and also to create a wall of text that gives the misleading appearance that a user has actually proposed fringe sourcing and had it be rejected. Again, I didn't try to generate any new arguments, nor did I bring up any new conduct, nor was I even suggesting sanctions of any kind, I was just explaining why I felt my own editing conduct that I had just been blocked for was necessary—i.e. why I had stepped in so forcefully to demand an apology and comment-striking from Scjessey, even though his attack wasn't directed at me.

And, just for what it's worth, though asking you to reconsider your decision, I didn't request the block be lifted—I let your decision lie. This was partly due to laziness and not wanting to write up a long documented appeal that might get denied, over a 1.5 day block, but I was also intentionally deferring to your judgment so as not to undermine your role as a local subject matter referee by asking someone else to second guess you. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Break

@Awilley: I think you're mischaracterizing this in important respects and now I'm going to explain why, in great detail. No offense.

User:JFG was discussing matters reported straightforwardly in mainstream sources. I was trying to discuss sources addressing his proposed content, and trying to assert the right of myself and other users to discuss sources. I doubt JFG needed or wanted me to defend him but the attack on him chills the editing environment for everybody else.

It has got to be allowable to discuss sources and content even though another editor disagrees with the sources or a POV presented in them. In order for civil discussion and editing to occur, multiple things have to happen. First, good editors have to show up. Second, bad editors have to not get in the way. This latter point is not some academic gripe: bad users can effectively shut down discussion simply by repeating falsehoods and insults over and over again. They can make viewpoints off-limits for discussion by loudly repeating false claims about the POVs and editors they hate—both deceiving other editors who don't bother to fact-check the BS claims, and sending a message to editors who do fact-check the BS claims that they are in for a fight if they want to talk about the forbidden POV.

All of this is exactly what the WP:BATTLE policy refers to.

Literally the first line of the policy is Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear.

I have no grudge or personal conflict with User:Scjessey, I've never even been in a content with him. But Scjessey was using the article talk page to "carry on [an] ideological battle[]".

To wit, he didn't say boo about NOTNEWS or waiting a while for things to develop before adding to the article, either of which would have been reasonable, policy-based, non-reality-ignoring, non-insulting replies.

But noooooooooooooo—instead he literally falsely claimed that RS's had not characterized Trump's threats, sanctions etc. as "pressure", he falsely claimed that this was a view only found in "fringe right-wing sources", and falsely claimed that JFG was promoting "revisionist nonsense" when in fact it was taken directly from straightforward RS descriptions. Moreover, by falsely painting all of this as scurrilous fringe-sourced lies and from policy-violating editors that needed to be guarded against by diligent wiki-guardians, he was directly "nurtur[ing] prejudice, hatred, or fear".

Finally, how own talk page comments indicate a past history of conflicts with JFG, and with that, Scjessey may have been violating every word in the first sentence of the WP:BATTLE policy. That bears repeating, so please read it again.

My reply bluntly demanded Scjessey strike his insulting language, and included a hasty but sizeable selection of news results amply demonstrating that mainstream sources characterized Trump's actions as "pressure", and explicitly referred to it as a policy waged by his administration, with commentators arguing or suggesting that the "pressure" had helped induce Kim. Again, this is all developing (or not), NOTNEWS, yadda yadda, but none of that changes that this is what sources were saying and it was grossly offensive for Scjessey to post lies and insults about the editor bringing it up at the article talk page.

All of these comments were thus proper.

My !vote entry was straightforward though similarly blunt. I don't see that anything was wrong with it.

I got into an exchange with User:Objective3000 and this provides a great opportunity to reference your suggestion that I focus on how to best make the articles represent what's in reliable sources. So far I think the WP-wide consensus approach to accomplishing that is to post the sources and talk about them.

Objective3000 for whatever reason did not want to read those sources and did not want to acknowledge that they all showed exactly what I said they showed—namely that mainstream sources said Trump had "pressured" NK and that commentators had said Trump's actions may have influenced Kim's. That's clear enough, yeah? I posted a bunch of sources and said they showed something, and they did show that thing.

But again, for reasons unknown Objective3000 instead chose to fixate on this bizarre claim that I "misrepresented" one of the sources by not mentioning some commentary claiming Trump's actions had no influence. This wasn't a misrepresentation in any way. I was not claiming that Vox, a progressive blog not 5 years old, actually sided with or endorsed Trump's actions or positions. I was not claiming, in Objective's words, that "we know why Kim Jong-un made a decision"—nor was JFG claiming this. His text didn't even imply that nobody disputed Trump's role in the process.

Moreover, as I repeatedly pointed out to Objective, the other nine sources I posted amply demonstrated that Trump's actions were framed by the media as "pressure" and that commentators were giving Trump at least partial credit.

He didn't want to talk about that, he only wanted to snipe about this BS claim about "misrepresentation". That's WP:BATTLE behavior, just griping with me personally about manufactured claims of misconduct rather than confront the issue that was relevant to the article, which was the sources and what they say.

So again, if talking about sources isn't the answer, I don't know what is. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I try to stay out of these; but since you pinged me, not only did you misrepresent the source, you are now misrepresenting the discussion. You claimed I have no reading comprehension? I did not respond with any in kind insults because I do not engage in battleground behavior. Instead, I explained how you misrepresented the source. When you continued the PAs, I withdrew from a pointless discussion. The discussion can be found: here. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't misrepresent the source, and I didn't misrepresent the conversation we had. This is, again, total nonsense that is a pretext for you to ignore all of the other sources because they show everything I said was correct.

That's the whole point of my comments above. Thanks for the timely illustration. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts....

... reflist-talk vs sources-talk. The former does not collapse the cited sources section whereas the latter is collapsible which makes navigation a bit easier. In a brief summary, which one do you prefer and why? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I've spent the past 6-8 weeks discussing sources with editors who flat-out pretend not to be able to see them, so why would I put them in a collapsed table and make them that much easier to ignore? With the full table, I can put supporting quotes in the cite web tags, and they appear immediately below proposed text so that people can see how the quotes support the article paraphrasing.

Also, I am just not aware of whatever navigation concerns you mean. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Simple - like me most of the time - scroll up...scroll down...navigate. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I just didn't know if maybe you meant some kind of load time issue or the page becoming slow. For posts like the one I just made, the whole point is to have people read the contents of the source box, and the fact I used a source template was just an organizational thing. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

PA

Do not call (or ask) if other users are nuts, it is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You are involved in a discussion at WP:AN

You can find the discussion here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

I checked the edit history to find out who posted this and now I will use your contribution history to find out the correct link. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Time to and stop digging. You've already done time for misbehavior with the block on 05-15-18 and didn't get back editing until late 05-17-2018, right? So the diffs they need to provide are from that day forward. Please don't make this about you and BMK. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably best to go edit butterfly articles for awhile. Be pragmatic.--MONGO 00:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I could sure use some help at Terence Hogan - the thief that got away!! What intrigue...and a nice diversion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I literally just wanted to check on the state of the dossier article last month after doing a lot of work on it and helping fashion the lead a year prior, and I made that batch of comments. But then the hostile goading responses sucked me back in, so I put in a bunch of time and effort I hadn't been planning on, doing all that research and writing, and I thought for sure that would be the end of it, not that people would include it, but that it would at least change the discussion away from the "no RS's say this" mantra that was getting sung. And then the response to that sucked me back in even more. I swear, it was just supposed to be me noting some problems and people being like gee whiz you're right, let's fix them! but instead it has turned out to be some strange combination of that scene from the Sopranos where all the mobsters are watching and fantasizing about the Godfather movies and Silvio quotes the Pacino line "Just when I thought I was out—they pull me back in!", and an evening getting savagely mugged in Portland, Oregon. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I hear ya!! I was enjoying the opportunity to write without deadlines or pressure from the network, etc. and just focus on a bit of article creation/promotion, GA/FA/FP reviewing, working collaboratively on ag & livestock-related articles, fish & wildlife articles, spend time on Commons...go fishing on the weekends, or tour with my biker buds, shoot some nature picts, scuba dive, etc....and then I volunteered to help out at NPP and AfC and oh my gawwwd, that's when I got tossed into the political arena . One of the things that helped the most in dealing with some of these highly disruptive situations was watching Masem work with his unwavering composure and consistent tone despite being under fire. He can say in few words what takes me a paragraph, and what he says is pure-D common sense, although there are some who'll disagree...always are, so I maintain -0- expectations. I've also spent time discussing scenarios with a few other admins/editors I hold in high regard, not all of whom share my views but understanding the different perspectives is helpful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Discussion concerning you

Link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Factchecker_atyourservice Casprings (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

^{Atsme📞📧} 03:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Free Clue

(Please note that none of the following expresses any opinion on your behavior or the underlying content dispute. I do not form such opinions before I have examined the evidence for myself, and I have not done that yet in this case).

Having watched many arbcom cases, here is a strategic tip: it is almost always a good strategy to make few or no comments after your initial response. I know that it is basic human nature to defend yourself from what you (rightly or wrongly) see as outrageous assertions, but the Arbs have been dealing with this sort of thing for a long time, and pretty much ignore anything not backed up with specific diffs. (It was a tactical mistake by the filer to link to threads rather than diffs.) At the very least, instead of responding, set a timer and only respond after 48 hours if nobody else has questioned the assertion by then. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Too far

This is going too far. I'm talking about the last couple of paragraphs where you suggest that User:BullRangifer was calling you an a-hole by reverting IP vandalism here. Assuming bad faith and casting aspersions like that is inappropriate in any context, but it is particularly bad in this case since it directly violates your interaction ban. Note that this doesn't fall under the exemption clause of your ban which states that discussing Bullrangifer on admin boards is only ok in threads "where BullRangifer's edits or behavior are specifically being discussed." (emphasis in original) Your ban also states that "casting aspersions are still prohibited on any page." This paragraph is also an I-ban violation. ~Awilley (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. I'm not going to acknowledge that an IBAN prevents me from talking about reasons why the IBAN should never have been imposed (and Bull's attack essay deleted instead).

Also wouldn't your comment be better posted at the AE filing? Factchecker_atyourservice 07:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't a comment, it was a warning that you have apparently chosen to disregard by similarly suggesting that BR's post to an article talk page about Ruger guns was an indirect threat to you. These kind of bad faith assumptions are toxic in a collaborative working environment and don't fall under WP:BANEX (talking about the ban itself). Because of this I am placing a block on your account for 1 week, given you have previously received blocks for iban violations and personal attacks. If you need to write anything more at the AE report you can post it here with the {{help}} template and someone can copy it over for you. It may be in your best interest, however, to take some time off and let the dust settle here while you do something you enjoy. ~Awilley (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Ahh well I'm sure this was supposed to serve as an important lesson for me, but for you, this is a teachable moment on the ability to communicate clearly—next time there is any basis for doubt that your comment is a warning of an imminent block—may I suggest you might throw in the word "warning" or "block" or even a red hand GIF, just so the target doesn't think you are merely expressing an opinion about an AE case in progress, where you have also commented.

As for "assuming good faith"—as stated, in addition to the countless other ways Bull made it clear he was talking about me, he stalked me to Jimbo's talk page to shout excerpts from the essay directly at me, addressing me in the second person and explaining how my alleged fringe source view made me a "lunatic charlatan" and was not helpful:

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

This was all WELL after I had repeatedly begged for more prominent use of New York Times, Washington Post, and other high-quality fact sources that, not for nothing, are not exactly pro-Trump outlets. Bull knew I was talking about these sources, and not Infowars.

The TBAN was placed because I refused to take my complaints about Bull's conduct to AE, and instead confronted him directly on his talk page to try to get the insults to stop and get him to delete the essay. Well, now we're at AE and the suggestion I'm not allowed to talk about how Bull has goaded me is ridiculous. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I really would advise you to drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Slatersteven on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I'm only going to add, to rebut the claim that I completely imagined that Bull was directing his essay at me:

If you are trying to consult a respect figure for advice, and someone shows up to drown out your question by loudly shouting excerpts from his speech entitled A LENGTHY DIATRIBE ABOUT ASSHOLES, it is really kind of pointless and misleading to then claim the speech is not about the person it is being used to silence and discredit.

After the stalking which I detailed at the AE case page, Bull responded to my complaints about being targeted with the essay by saying "They keep mentioning my essay, which was not written about or to them, but since they self-identify with some of the traits and behaviors mentioned in relation to our policies, they decide to take it personally and try to censor my private essay and my talk page."

That's the mind-numbingly obnoxious part of it: first he tells me right in my fact that the essay is about me, then he uses my anger about that to claim I have spontaneously read the essay and found that it described me accurately and then got mad at that. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know or care whether BullRangifer behaved badly. As I mentioned before, I refuse to form opinions on such things unless I have examined the evidence myself. I also don't know or care whether you have behaved badly for the same reasons. And I have just about zero interest in finding out. My advice is the same either way. Drop it. Simply stop responding. Don't type the word "BullRangifer" anywhere on Wikipedia. Don't read anything written by BullRangifer. If you see his signature, skip that post and leave it unread forever. Spend zero time thinking about BullRangifer. There are admins and arbitrators looking at both of you. Let them deal with any issues that come up from now on. Drop by the Arbcom case and post a single sentence linking to this post and say "I have decided to follow Guy Macon's advice", then do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right, I just can't believe I'm being called a liar so baldly. Dropping it. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

'BZZZZZZTTT! WRONG ANSWER!! The 6th though 16th words in the comment above are the exact opposite of dropping it. Don't try to get in one last point. Just stop.

One minor error in what I wrote above: you cannot currently post to the Arbcom board, but if you are willing to make a simple declarative statement that you are taking my advice -- without any last little digs or muttering "but I am right!" under your breath -- I will be glad to post it on your behalf. If sincere, it may mean the difference between no action taken and a topic ban or total interaction ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Without elaborating on my reasons in a way that could be perceived as "not dropping it", once this proceeding is over I plan to log out for multiple years. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that your username, "Factchecker atyourservice", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.

Andrevan@ 20:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan Is this a bad joke that I am missing? Otherwise I would advice you to retract your message. PackMecEng (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: You are kidding, right?! Jbh ^Talk 20:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. There is nothing wrong with his username, and if a serious attempt to report it as not meeting our username policy is made, that attempt will go down in flames. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Username policy specifically blocks words which are similar to power structures in Wikipedia's community. For example, we don't call admins "moderators," but that word is not allowed in user names. I would argue that "factchecker" implies some structural power position which, while it doesn't exist per se, is still a violation of the username policy that names not be misleading or imply some moderator-level position. Andrevan@ 21:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Where no such concern has arisen in the past', and the user with this username is well-known, any forced renaming verges on pedantry at best. I would point out that time is better spent on real problems than on problems no one appears to have seen over a period of years. Collect (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works. If the concern has never arisen in the past and a consensus of users determine that the username is in fact disruptive, the user would be compelled to change usernames. Of course, this hasn't occurred, all that has happened is that I templated the user with a notice to start a discussion. If the discussion comes to a consensus that this name is not disruptive, I will of course not take any action. Andrevan@ 21:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

At this point, it would see most do not have an issue with their name. PackMecEng (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess we should ask FCAYS himself if he gets inundated with requests to check facts. Or perhaps only at times of spiritual contemplation? Or if he is particularly bothered by enquiries from dyslexic telecoms engineers. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC):

I could say that no one will mistake FACYS as a fact checker. But then, he could respond that no one could mistake me for being objective.:) Objective3000 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's the most objective comment I've seen today. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan - as his user page reveals: "I edit using my given English name, Mr. Factchecker". Could be satire...I dunno. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• We are talking about new editors who won't look up user pages, like us silly people. Considering the dark background behind the username text, it does tend to look very “official”. Compromise: Dump the inverted text. Not only does it indicate some ‘officiallty’, the excessive HTML coding is damn annoying when editing TPs. Just my un-objective position. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the username, though I hate the black and white thingies, that my old eyes find very confusing. That's a matter of accessibility, and I would urge the editor to change that. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Off topic. Frankly, I’d like to see a limit on the signature text length. Which would have to be grandfathered. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Considering this editor is currently blocked, this appears to be harassment. Perhaps this could have at least waited until the block expired?--MONGO 01:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't think blocked from this page. Just wisely staying silent. O3000 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with MONGO that this appears to be harassment. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I also tend to agree. This sort of petty harassment, combined with what I see on the pages in question (a huge fight to keep in any claim that there is plenty of evidence against Trump and a huge fight to keep out any claim that there is little or no evidence against Trump) makes me more likely to believe that FCAYS was addressing a legitimate NPOV problem in a rather hamfisted way, was bullied for his trouble, reacted poorly, and is now being singled out while equally bad behavior by his attackers is largely ignored. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't seen anything yet [3], Guy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

My response is here:[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

repeated false claims
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whilst I would argue the name implies a degree of self assurance and "opinianation" that may not be warranted I am not sure it is enough to breach our naming guideline. But would also remind people that AGF runs both ways, some of us have not tried to keep stuff out, we have said that the arguments he is using are flawed (such as using sources that say "There is little evidence against Trump" to support the statement "there is no evidence against Trump", a claim still being made).Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I tend to be quite sensitive to username problems, more sensitive, in fact, than the community at large, but I see nothing wrong with Factchecker's username except that when I see it in full, I'm frequently reminded of Firesign Theatre's "Rocky Rococo at your cervix!" from "The Adventures of Nick Danger, Third Eye", but that's my particular kink. IMO Factchecker has some behavioral issues, but his username is not one of them, and I urge Ardrevan to drop the stick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AE response to Jytdog

Requesting somebody to copy this into my responses at the AE case page. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Huon (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

User:MONGO, User:JFG, User:Mr Ernie, User:PackMecEng, and others, I can't send out Thanks due to the block but I appreciate your speaking up for me and hope you will step away from the keyboard before the sun goes down today and go drink some beer / etc. or make fun of Americans if you're not one. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Espionage

Disclosure: The only organization I have ever spied for was the U.S. Mint. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha! That raises more questions than answers. PackMecEng (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Boomerang me if you must, but Wikipedia is under attack by Russian/GOP agents and partisans. FCAYS is probably one of them I know you've already criticized this guy but he needs to be de-sysop'd pronto—he should not be able to access anybody's IP. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)