Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:36, 3 January 2020

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Jweiss11

Closed with no action. See the Result section for admin comments. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Jweiss11

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:BLOCKEVADE

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

[1] has a tban that applies to this article
[2] has a tban that applies to this article
[3] has a tban that applies to this article
[4] xhas a tban that applies to this article
[5] has a tban that applies to this article
[6] has a tban that applies to this article
[7] has a tban that applies to this article
[8] has a tban that applies to this article
[9] has a tban that applies to this article
[10] has a tban that applies to this article
[11] xhas a tban that applies to this article

And this list could go on and on.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[12] Explanation

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

Jweiss was well aware that Ngo and Quillette are connected, he personally added Ngo's work at Quillette to the lede of Ngo's article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quillette&diff=prev&oldid=930921808

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jweiss11 has been editing the Quillette article,[13] edited by Andy Ngo in contravention of an indefinite topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo [14]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning Jweiss11

Statement by Jweiss11

As I stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jweiss11, based on my discussion with with Bishonen on my talk page in the wake of the sanction, in particular her comment, "...Or maybe appeal the ban if you think it's worth it (it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject)" on September 11, it was my judgement that that ban would not apply to Quillette. None of my edits there or elsewhere since then have been related to the sanctioned topic. See also comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jweiss11 from Loksmythe, Springee, and Paulmcdonald to that effect. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone's comments here. I want to respond to a couple items. First, per Bishonen's comment about this edit, I understand the argument that the entirety of the Quillette article would fall under the ban because of the banned subject's connection to it. That's not an argument I agree with, and it certainly wasn't my working understanding going into this incident, but that argument seems coherent enough. However, if we are working under the assumption that my editing of the Quillette article is okay so long as it doesn't deal with content directly related to the banned topic, I'd say it's not legitimate to argue that the removal of a stray character following a sentence that has a citation that mentions the banned topic qualifies as a violation. I vaguely remember making that edit. I make many like it all time even when in more of read mode as a I surf around and notice a glaring typographical or layout issue, particularly in the lead of an article. The motivation for that edit was utterly unrelated to any specific meaningful content.

Second, @El C:, are you considered an involved admin here? That seems curious to me given your role as the first responder to Bacondrum's related edit war. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: here's the relevant link to your first-response to Bacondrum's edit war, which also admonished me based on a mistaken count of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quillette&diff=932171468&oldid=932171283. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

See this edit at Talk:Quillette, in which Bacondrum strikes several of Jweiss11's comments. In the edit summary, Bacondrum justifies their action by citing a policy that allows for the striking of comments made by sockpuppets. Unless Bacondrum wishes to suggest that Jweiss11 is a sockpuppet, there was no justification for striking those posts. In the ANI thread, Bacondrum has also come across as overeager to get Jweiss in trouble. It's time to back off and let cooler heads weigh in. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bacondrum has rage quit Wikipedia after being criticized for repeatedly posting his comments on this page in the wrong section. So much for cooler heads prevailing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Three points:

Regardinging Bacondrum's striking or reversion of Jweiss11's comments, assuming the topic ban does apply to that article, those would probably be justified under WP:BANREVERT (which applies to violations of topic-bans, not merely sockpuppetry); Bacondrum merely linked to the wrong policy.
Regarding the scope of the topic ban, the sanction itself is clearly worded as applying to all pages connected with Andy Ngo, not just the page Andy Ngo specifically.
Regarding whether Quillette is connected to Andy Ngo (or closely connected enough), Ngo was well-known and widely-reported on as a somewhat infamous editor at Quillette before he quit or was let go (under somewhat controversial circumstances, which have a paragraph devoted to them on Ngo's page); Jweiss11 is aware of this, here and here (it looks like Bacondrum got the wrong link above.) Whether that connection is enough to be a topic-ban violation is another question, but it seems at least worth clarifying.

Those seem to be the important points. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement SN54129

Here from ANEW, so will repeat myself—with a couple of tweaks for context—particularly regarding the matter of blocks n' bans.

It would seem as if Bacondrum was reverting in line with policy; after all, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. It may be that other parties were unintentionally enabling a breach of the topic ban—covered as it is by WP:BMB—and that is not something they deserve criticism for, just education. However, warning Bacondrum for edit warring over something explicitly covered by WP:3RRNO (#3) seems rather undeserved also.

Regarding doubts raised as to whether the page is within scope (It is your claim that the article Quillette is covered by the Andy Ngo topic ban. However, that has not been established), they are unfounded. As noted, Bishonen quite explicitly T-banned Jweiss11 from from all pages connected with Andy Ngo; I find it unlikely that, on consideration, anyone is really suggesting that the talk page of an article in which the subject is directly discussed multiple times (as on T:Quillette) is not a page connected to the article. If, of course, they believe that the Tban is unfair, then the usual routes of appeal are open to them. But I don't think anyone argues that ignoring a topic ban is an effective way to contest it. ——SN 54129 11:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised User:Aquillion has said much of this, with more brevity and much improvement, apologies. But I'd also add that Bacondrum has received an "official" warning for edit-warring, which should probably be expunged. ——SN 54129 11:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmacdonald: please post in your own section, not others', and that includes the "Uninvolved administrators" section also, as you are very much involved. Many thanks. ——SN 54129 10:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

As I said at the ANI discussion, I see this as a bad faith accusation by the filing editor. They recently went on a bit of a warpath removing Jweiss11's comments from the Quillette talk page [[16]]. As I've read topic bans enforced in the past, if an editor is banned from topic X then they cannot post to that article (or talk page) nor can they discuss that topic at other articles. So if you are Tbanned from Trump articles you can't edit Trump's personal BLP article, his presidential article, articles about his business etc. You also can't edit Trump Casino related materiel in say the Las Vegas strip article. It doesn't mean you can't edit an article about Las Vegas or the strip just because Trump has a casino on the strip. If you were editing the Las Vegas strip article to discuss the Caesars Palace you haven't violated the Tban. The claim that a Tban related to Andy Ngo is effectively a Tban from the Quillette article is laughable. It comes from the same type of common sense that thought it was reasonable to delete another editor's talk page comments... 5 times despite those edits being restored by two other editors. Would we also say the Wall Street Journal article is off limits because one of Ngo's early, controversies involved work for the WSJ?

Jweiss11's edits to the Quillette article were totally unrelated to the topic of Andy Ngo's employment by the site. They also were well within the scope of good editing practice and respectful disagreement. The behavior of Bacondrum is really that which needs review. Not just for the edit warring but for failing to understand basic concepts that help to prevent talk page animosity. Questioning if the Andy Ngo tban applied to the Quillette page was reasonable. The disruptive behavior before and after are not. I would suggest closing with a clear warning that Bacondrun needs to review policies related to CIVIL and CONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, please see @Bishonen:'s comments here [[17]]. you are not allowed to talk about Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia, except in the context of appealing this ban, or of asking for explanation and clarification, as you're doing now. That includes user talkpages.. At no point didn Jweiss11 talk about Ngo or his employment, even obliquely, at the Quillette article. Springee (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen:, do you consider the whole Quillette article and talk page to be part of the Tban or just the part with an Andy Ngo references? I would argue that this is a stretch to call the whole subject Ngo related and this will be used to justify ignoring/striking legitimate talk page comments and as a way to build steamroll a "new" consensus on some disputed content vs working towards a compromise. Springee (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kyohyi

A number of editors are hanging on the "all pages connected to" aspect of the topic ban. I think it's worth noting that Jweiss11 asked for clarification regarding the ban, and received two comments from the imposing administrator. [18] [19] These posts to me indicate that it was intended to be limited to Andy Ngo (or possibly Andy Ngo broadly construed), and not every thing that someone can posit as a link to Andy Ngo. Though it would probably be best for the imposing admin to clarify their intended scope. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I believe clarification was sought when the Tban was imposed, unfortunately admins commenting at the time merely pointed to [WP: TBAN], and didn't really go any further on what "connected to" meant. This leads me to believe that "all pages connected to" really means "broadly construed", and broadly construed is defined in TBAN. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Jweiss, you shouldn't have made the judgment[20] that the T-ban would not apply to Quillette; you should have asked. As for your attempt to use a comment by Paulmacdonald as a prop, that cuts no ice with me. If anybody is inclined to give weight to Paulmacdonald's opinion on the basis that he's an admin, I warmly recommend them to read this discusssion, with particular attention to Paul's contributions, especially this response to a question. Compare also Black Kite's comment below.

Your edits to Quillette as enumerated by Bacondrum are generally very minor and harmless. However, note this edit, where you copyedit a sentence with a very visible footnote about Ngo (indeed with the "ref name" Vox-Ngo, and the actual title being "The assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo, explained"). You didn't notice, I guess. But if you're going to make dodgy judgments such as that Quillette does not come under your T-ban, then you need to be very noticing altogether. Asking is safer.

That said, I would go by my usual principle here, which is to let a first T-ban vio go with a warning. (I see this as one vio, even though it's several edits.) Especially since, quoting Springee, "At no point did Jweiss11 talk about Ngo or his employment, even obliquely". Bishonen | talk 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

- @Paulmcdonald:, please create a section of your own and place all comments you wish to make there. The reason you're "suddenly" a topic of discussion here is that Jweiss11 referred to your ANI comment in their post above, so it's not really sudden on my part or Black Kite's. We do expect more of administrators, see WP:ADMINCOND: "Administrators are expected to lead by example". That, I presume, was the reason User:Black Kite found your ANI comment disturbing: a sysop is expected to be well-informed when making comments, or else refrain from making them. The "links and changes [you] looked at" before commenting at ANI were clearly insufficient. Looking at the article Andy Ngo, which was the basis of the topic ban, before commenting would have been a good idea. Ngo's work for Quillette is mentioned there. Or, as Black Kite suggests, taking a good look at Jweiss's contributions. (User:Serial Number 54129, your ping of Paul won't have worked, but nm, I'm pinging him now.) Bishonen | talk 16:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Springee:. Yes, I think the Quillette article is covered by the topic ban. But I don't think Jweiss's decision that it wasn't was made in any kind of bad faith — his edits were not tendentious AFAICS. He'd better have asked, that's all. But as I've already said, I'm against sanctioning him for this. Indeed, if he is sanctioned — which I presume would mean a block — I'm thinking of lifting the topic ban. Not retroactively, of course, but for the future. I don't want any editor to have to constantly worry whether they're violating a T-ban or not. Compare User:EdJohnston's comment here. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Jweiss11: As for your suggestion that El C is involved, no he isn't. (At least, for your question about it to make sense, I'm assuming that when you wrote "El C, are you considered an involved admin here? That seems curious to me", you meant to say "are you considered an uninvolved admin?") Per WP:INVOLVED, "An administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Italics in original. What you link to regarding El C is administrative action. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Paul McDonald, please move the comments you have made, here and below in the uninvolved admin section, to your own section (add names with pings so that it's clear who you're responding to, the way I'm doing here). The rule about it is to be found in the big pink box at the top of the page: "Statements must be made in separate sections." I agree it's not easy to find. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Paulmcdonald

I apologize. Apparently there is a rule or expectation that we only comment in sections based on our userid. I found no reference to that anywhere in this document, so I followed standard Wikipedia behavior and replied in-line.

If the links that I looked at were insufficient (again, that's possible) the fix is easy: post the link(s) that support your conclusion. In order to "prove someone didn't do something" we would need to examine every edit that the user made. Instead, we need to "prove someone did do something" which only requires posting the evidence. If I'm wrong, I'll change my position. Show me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the editor was aware of the connection. Thanks to those who posted clarifying information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic: it looks like Jweiss was under the impression that there was no conflict, which is the claim. If consensus is to say that the topic ban should be extended to this other article, that's fair. I say that should that be the conclusion it be clarified now and we simply move forward. And if consensus is to say that the topic ban should not be extended to this other article that's also fair. The conclusion then would be that we also simply move forward. I lean toward the latter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved per request

Comment I have no objection to anyone reviewing any comments I have made. I also would recommend that no one give extra credit to me or anyone else based on Wikipedia administrator status. Note the essay Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator! for any details. Each argument should stand on its own merits regardless of who made them. Why am I suddenly a topic of consideration in this discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question on this edit noted above, I'm not exactly understanding what was edited. It looks like it might have just been removal of a carriage return--if that's the case, it could have been easy to not notice the content of the paragraph. What am I missing there?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

WP:INVOLVED says One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. – Levivich 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

@Paulmcdonald: AE follows the rules of arbitration cases so is a little different from many places, but yes, you are expect to only comment in named sections.

I don't think it's particularly plausible that Jweiss11 was not aware of Quillette's connection to Andy Ngo considering edits like this [21] [22] [23] which I found by looking through the histories. Note that I stopped after finding those examples.

But anyway, even if we didn't know of edits like this, or we think maybe he completely forgot about the connection, considering that the article Andy Ngo mentions Quillette in the lead and his leaving Quillette in the body I don't think it's unreasonable for us to assume that Jweiss11 was aware of the connection without needing evidence.

If Jweiss11 denies they were aware, perhaps we can AGF. But AFAICT, Jweiss11 has never said they weren't aware. Instead they've never answered when asked, and concentrated on the fact that they feel what they were told suggests it's not a violation despite any connection.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by User:Jweiss11's comment at ANI "the sanction only applied to that one article". They said they got this impression in part from the comment "(it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject)". But that comment has an important modifier "article subject".

In my opinion, Quillette is clearly part of that article subject. Maybe Andy Ngo is not a particularly big part of Quillette, although enough that his name is mentioned in one of the ref titles albeit not really in relation to what the reference is used for, and that he is mentioned in 2 of the refs currently supporting a while paragraph. But significantly, at the moment his work for Quillette seems to be a somewhat big part of his notability.

It's still a very narrow topic ban, other than Quillette, there aren't many articles likely affected. E.g. Daily Vanguard, Antifa (United States), Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, Rose City Antifa are some of the few where there may be concerns. (Articles like Portland, Oregon, Portland State University for example seem too disconnected.)

Editors may disagree whether it applies to the entire article of Quillette etc. But I don't see anyone can plausibly claim it doesn't apply where Andy Ngo is directly mention, or using something written by Andy Ngo as a ref. While this may not have happened here, it demonstrates the importance of the distinction between one article, and one article subject.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jweiss11

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

This request seems to be incomplete at this time. El_C 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: I'm not sure, but in any case, you need to inform Jweiss11 on their user talk page that this report exists. El_C 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Jweiss11's talk page, but there seems to be no notification there concerning this AE report. El_C 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: I'm beginning to question your level of competence here. Why do you continue to comment in this section (four times already!)?El_C 04:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: there seems to be a firm connection between Quillette and Andy Ngo, so to say you thought the ban does not encompass it is surprising. El_C 18:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: Topic ban's scope is clear: all pages connected with Andy Ngo. At the very least, some clarifications should have been sought. El_C 19:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are objections, I intend to close this with a warning per Bishonen. The spectrum dividing Black Kite and DGG isn't likely to be bridged —obviously, I lean more toward the former— but in terms of sanctions, I usually apply a warning for first-time topic ban violations, anyway. So, I suggest we just do that and move on. El_C 02:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I don't know what you're referring to. Please don't make me search for it and just provide the relevant links. El_C 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I don't see how that makes me involved. I also closed the AN3 report. But someone else can close this report as they see fit, sure. El_C 04:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: the way I see it, I was basically about to do Jweiss11 a favour by closing this report (earlier rather than later, that is) with only a warning. But they can have someone else close it now — it really makes no difference to me, either way. El_C 15:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little concerned that some editors seem to assume a level of stupidity on the behalf of administrators. Jweiss11 was quite aware that the Quilette article was related to Ngo - how could they not be when they'd already been topic-banned from Ngo and Quillette is mentioned in a significant part of Ngo's article? Phil Bridger at the ANI performed a remarkable feat of AGF by saying "The scope of the topic ban is clear from the user talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo." If Jweiss wasn't aware that Ngo was connected to Quillette before then he does now.". But they were quite aware of the link. Yes, Bacondrum's editing was sub-par here - being right (and he was) doesn't give you the right to edit-war. Incidentally, I am somewhat concerned by this comment from a sysop (User:Paulmcdonald) - "It's evident to me that Jweiss11 was not consciously aware of any connection (based on talk comments end editor history) and the connection to the banned topic is not obvious--in fact, it seems to be quite a stretch to say they are related." when there's a whole paragraph about Quillette in Ngo's article which Jweiss is very familiar with and topic-banned from. This is actually quite disturbing, to be honest. Other admin's comments welcome. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what's disturbing about it? It's possible I'm incorrect. If so, just point that out-mistakes happen. Was this one? Show me, no big deal. Based on the links and changes I looked at, I don't see it--and the one mentioned above looks like just a carriage return removal which could have been done without reading the content. But I haven't reviewed every edit he made. Make your case, just make it clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it is worrying. You said it was "evident" that Jweiss11 wasn't aware of any connection when even a cursory scan of their contributions would have made it clear that they were absolutely quite aware of it. I'm concerned that you didn't see that. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still haven't seen it. Rather than being accusatory toward me, perhaps you could just show your evidence. I'm asking.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article Andy Ngo has for many months in the lede paragraph pointed out that he works/had worked for Quillette. The idea that Jweiss11 did not know this is zero, especially as they have actually edited that sentence... Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Just a thought, but perhaps you should have led with that when I asked for it. We are supposed to work together to make Wikipedia better--it's not a battle zone.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of either the magazine or the person until today. Looking at the discussion here and at ANI, I definitely do not consider the editing here to be a violation of the topic ban if they do not concern any of the columns or other work by Ngo. As pointed out at ANI, and in the lede of the Ngo article, Ngo has worked at numerous other media outlets. A topic ban on Ngo does not rationally cover everything about articles about those other publications. Nor does it cover an article about Ngo's home town or any of other places he has lived, or everyone who has ever commented on any of Ngo's work. There is thus no violation by JWeiss11. A"firm connection" has to be also relevant to be the basis for a violation DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point that the connection is tenuous. The Quillette article proper does not mention Ngo at all, and while two references do, that's two of many, one in a title and one in a summary. I'm usually pretty liberal with "broadly construed", but I think the simple fact that a publication has published something by or written something about a person making the entire article about that publication off limits is a bridge too far. Normally, we would only consider topic bans in regards to tangentially related articles to ban the portions of those articles which mention the subject (in this case, for the Quillette article, that would be the two references which do name Ngo.) So, my thought would be to close this as not a violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although Ngo's article actually points out in the lede paragraph that he works/worked for Quillette, has done for many months, and Jweiss11 even actually edited it to point out when he left ... Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Quillette article isn't closely enough related to Andy Ngo to require Jweiss11 to be banned from that article. If there was some extra reason for concern about Jweiss11's behavior at Quillette a new ban on that article might be applied. But there isn't such a reason. I suggest the AE complaint be closed as No action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt very much that Jweiss11 was unaware that Ngo worked for Quillette. However, since the article on Quillette doesn't even mention Ngo, let alone is substantially about him, a topic ban on Ngo does not cover Quillette, even if Ngo works or has worked there and even if Jweiss11 is fully aware of that. (Now, of course, if Jweiss11 added material about Ngo to the Quillette article, or edited anything already there about Ngo, that's a very different matter, and the topic ban would of course prohibit that.) If one thinks Jweiss11 should in fact be topic banned from editing about Quillette as well, that can be discussed, but at least to my thinking, currently he is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are generally considered to be "broadly construed" in the sense that a topic ban from Andy Ngo should prevent a person from editing material about Andy Ngo anywhere on the project (not just the Andy Ngo article). But we have to draw a line somewhere. We can't say that the user is banned from editing United States because Andy Ngo lives in the United States. "Broadly construed" is intentionally obscure because it's impossible to draw a clear line that covers all possible edits. I see edits like this as pushing the boundary, though not quite crossing the line. I would support closing this with no action and a clarification/warning that the topic ban covers more than just the Ngo article and that Jweiss11 should ask for clarification before making edits that could be seen as borderline. ~Awilley (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced, but consensus is clearly against me here, so I agree with this. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with No action. This report has been open for five days, and it unlikely that a consensus can be found on whether the Quillette article is covered by Jweiss11's topic ban from Andy Ngo. Even those who believe it *is* a ban violation generally don't favor a sanction this time around. User:El_C and User:Black Kite argued that Jweiss11 *did* violate his ban. But at this time, both User:El_C and User:Black Kite agree with either no action or a warning. Several admins requested a clarification or warning. Since there wasn't consensus on applicability of the ban, I don't think a *clarification* is possible. (Though a brand new ban that prevents Jweiss11 from editing Quillette could be decided on by any admin who thinks that DS applies and there is enough abuse to justify a ban). If any admin wants to give a warning, can they please go ahead and leave a warning at User talk:Jweiss11. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BullRangifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

December 21, 2019 violation of WP:NPA. Stated that I was either acting in bad faith or had "a competency issue"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

July 20, 2018- "BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions"
March 13, 2019- "The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated."
April 24, 2019-"Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources. "

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 (see above)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not sure if this is even the right venue for this complaint since the personal attack occurred on my user talk page. However, filing this since my ANI complaint was closed by El C, who instructed me to bring it here. The issue began when I nominated FBI secret society for deletion, believing in did not meet our guidelines for inclusion. That article happened to have been created by user:MrX, who then came to my talk page to make a bad faith accusation against me [24] based on the fact we had a disagreement on another article talk page. He then doubled down on his assumption of bad faith and threatened me "My accusation of bad faith is exactly what was called for. Watch yourself". BullRangifer came to my user page to attack me completely unprovoked (I have not had any direct contact with him in months) to back up Mr. X. [25] The attack of my competence was the same WP:PERSONALATTACK that he made here which resulted in the March 13 warning issued by user:GoldenRing. Both Mr. X's and BullRangifer's behavior is unacceptable and I should not have to tolerate WP:HARASSMENT. BullRangifer's behavior is especially troubling though since I have made a voluntary effort to avoid interaction with him and the personal attack he made was exactly the same as what he was previously warned about.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer:To clear up any confusion about any sanction that I am under, here is confirmation from User:Awilley himself. Your comment was a clear personal attack as per WP:CIRNOT which appears on the page you linked to. To make matters worse, you had no business getting involved here since the discussion on my talk page had absolutely nothing to do with you. Also, I'd like to ask what you meant by "especially if one has a COI of the negative kind" [26] Are you saying I have a WP:COI, not sure? And now you just questioned my competency yet again in your response below.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:Can you provide any diffs to support my alleged WP:Hounding of you? The other very old issue you brought up has nothing to do with AP2 and has already been resolved (despite the objection of the other person involved), making it irrelevant here.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer:So after attacking me, now you want to make peace and be my friend? Why? because you're under scrutiny? I'm not holding a grudge, you're the one who came to attack me. I just want to be treated fairly, not have my competence called into question every time I say or do something you disagree with.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion:Here we go again, you love to take my comments out of context and I have never even once called another editor incompetent (so I suggest you strike that allegation):

#1I was making a valid point after Mr. X insisted that I inserted WP:OR, I said he was mistaken, not incompetence.
#2 I was calling out Mr. X for using WP:PRIMARY sources to justify his assertion that the word "found" should be used in relation to impeachment. [27] Of course he know better, he was just making a really weak argument.
#3 After another editor claimed However Trump was found GUILTY of abuse of power and obstruction of congress by a "jury" of 535 members" [28], I was making a point that Bill Clinton was impeached and then acquitted by the senate (thus the history lesson).
#4 A response to Mr. X who said McConnell created the bizarre situation by acting as Trump's surrogate. [29] The rest of my response which you conveniently omitted was We do not need to start a debate about who is to blame.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#5 My entire post needs to be read. I was attacked by Neutrality, who provided misleading diffs (basically the same thing you're doing now), I did nothing wrong in the two diffs Neutrality provided and my full response (which you can read) proves it. Yes, I was frustrated that someone who calls themselves Neutrality provides only one side of the story.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few final thoughts. To all the admins (and particularity user:Awilley) calling my filing against BullRangifer vexatious, my question, is how do you reconcile that with the fact that every single one of those complaints it was recognized that BullRangifer's behavior was inappropriate? Maybe I wouldn't file complaints if someone took some action. How many warnings does one person get? Maybe BullRaniger's behavior would actually change if someone followed through with the warnings for a change. I can't see why BR would ever take a warning from any of you seriously after all this. All of you are enabling him. And you just want to silence me. That doesn't solve the problem, BullRangifer treats other editors the same way he treats me, but I guess you don't want to hear from them eithier. As long as he keeps editing from the left, he's golden. @DGG:Thank you for looking at this objectively. There clearly is bias exhibited by some of the admins. I've asked user:MrX to provide diffs of me WP:HOUNDING him and he has not done so. Can anyone explain to me how nominating a single article for deletion is hounding? I'd also like to note, I've nominated hundreds of articles for deletion in the past, so this is nothing out of the ordinary for me. Finally, @MastCell:Every interaction, I've ever had with you has been exclusively negative. Let's look at your contributions. You haven't done anything for nearly a month and your sole contribution for today was to pile on here. So what does that say about you? It's been very clear to me for sometime that you are not only one of the most biased admins on wikipedia, but you're also on a mission to get me banned. I have a very difficult time assuming any good faith about you since a review of you other sporadic contributions to wikipedia lead me to believe you a just here to administratively enforce bias.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

Opening statement

Unless Awilley's one year sanction from April 13, 2019, on Rusf10 for their vexatious dramaboard filings against me has expired or has been lifted, this is a SECOND violation of the sanction in two days. This will be the FIFTH such frivolous filing, and the sanction was issued after the THIRD. Even if it's expired, this obsessive behavior should resurrect it, and with a vengeance.

MrX provided this link as evidence the sanction is still in effect, so this is indeed a SECOND violation within two days.

This is a repeat of this closed filing at AN/I two days ago, closed by El C as not a personal attack. That should have been enough for Rusf10 to cease and desist.

Why Rusf10 is so fixated on me is puzzling. I have a talk page. Why don't they just talk to me? Why is their first reflex a battleground one? Why escalate differences, when defusion is better? "Blessed are the peacemakers" because they do not take perceived offenses to dramaboards.

Lest there be any confusion, the sanction on me only applies to article talk pages. My criticism of Rusf10 was rare; it was very specific; it was explained; it was on their personal talk page and not an article talk page; and it was not gratuitous or uncivil. Lack of competency is an accusation that should not be made lightly. I will let others decide whether my judgment of Rusf10's starting of that AfD was wrong, especially since it seemed to be a revenge AfD directed at MrX.

I see this as a thin-skinned response by labeling my justified criticism as a personal attack. The appropriate response is a ban hammer, multiple flying slimy-trout boomerangs, and other sanctions for holding a grudge and now trotting it out as a continuation of Rusf10's previous battleground behaviors. There are a number of behavioral violations here.

A couple days ago SPECIFICO wrote this: "In my opinion this report is boomerang-worthy on its own 2 feet. This is the kind of documented behavior that led to Rusf10's sanction and it would have been better to dispense a TBAN at the outset."

At the very least, this is an abuse of the Arbitration Committee, and at worst a question of a double sanction violation, competency issues, and obsessive harassment behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Rusf10

Okay, Rusf10, so AFTER this started, Awilley let you know the sanction was deprecated. That's nice to know now.

Did you fail to notice his continued "warning about filling vexatious requests"?

Following up from several pings I got from AN/I the other day, yes the sanction is depricated, and sorry for not logging it. It slipped my mind at the time. In the absence of a formal sanction, you should still consider this a warning about filling vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban. ~ Awilley 23:45, 26 December 2019

I suggest you take that to heart and drop this renewal of your obsessive abuse of drama boards to settle minor slights which can be dealt with on talk pages. I have one. You're welcome to discuss things with me. I'd rather make friends than see someone gathering and saving small scraps of worthless paper for years so they can later make a huge bonfire. Don't hold grudges. Be a peacemaker. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MONGO

MONGO, thanks for the nice list of my participation on private talk pages and drama boards. The ONLY link which would, in the past, have any relevance here is the one to Spygate, and that one earned me a sanction which I have heeded. The context of my comment to User:Phmoreno was ignored, but so be it. They are now blocked. My comment was precise and accurate, but it was too sharp for an article talk page. Lesson learned. I don't do that anymore.

My sanction applies solely to article talk pages. I am not forbidden from expressing my opinions on private talk pages or participating in drama board discussions, and my comments are no worse than what is allowed for everyone else. What has been described falsely as "personal attacks" are criticisms. Drama boards are specifically designed for exactly that type of comment. I do not make them on article talk pages...anymore. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Aquillion

Aquillion, this is actually Rusf10's FIFTH filing against me, and the last two were after Awilley had sanctioned and warned them for doing this type of thing. Even the clarification today contained a warning. The filings usually come without any warning.

We have a whole dispute resolution process which is skipped right over. I have a talk page which can be used. Instead, the nuclear option is used immediately. There is warlike behavior and there is peacekeeping behavior. The latter is not chosen, and that's what I consider battleground behavior. It's disruptive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MrX

MrX, the "accusation of having autism (Asperger syndrome)" is a false statement. Yes, seen with hindsight, my wondering/inquisitive comment was awkward, and I regret it and have apologized for it. As I have already explained to Onetwothreeip, I was seeking, in good faith, to see if there was some extenuating circumstance which could somehow excuse their uncollaborative editing patterns. That's how I am. Too much compassion. Others have since explained to me that I should not allow extenuating circumstances to affect my judgments about whether editing is according to our policies or not. Just look at the behavior.

I will not repeat the attempt to seek information from Onetwothreeip, or any other editor, about such matters in the future. It's far too easy for misunderstandings to occur and feelings get hurt. I don't want that. I clearly erred. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Awilley

Awilley, when you suggest I could retract my comment, are you referring to this one on a private talk page, the comment deemed by El C to not be a personal attack? I want to be sure I understand you correctly. I could do that, but are you sure you want to set such a precedent for censorship of uncomfortable, yet civil, private talk page discussion?

The alternative would be for Rusf10 to civilly discuss the matter with me, rather than immediately activating this AE nuclear option. I'm certainly open to discussing this with you and/or Rusf10. I always have been.

They are already aware that more than one editor considers some of their AfDs to be personal revenge, rather than policy-based. I was referring to non-policy based AfDs, not proper ones. There can be disagreement on that matter, and proper discussion should be used to come to an understanding.

Regardless, I appreciate outside viewpoints and constructive criticism, because I certainly can't "see myself as others see me." Those who know me here also know that I'm easily amenable to third-party opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to RaiderAspect

RaiderAspect, you write: "Speculating that another user has Asperger syndrome and thus their opinions can be dismissed..." I totally admit my speculation was improper, I have apologized for it, and stricken it. The reason for my speculation was anything but for the reason you give. It was to seek the existence of an extenuating circumstance that would help me understand, and partially excuse, an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior, totally unrelated to content or opinions, that is not amenable to the explanations and appeals from myriad editors and admins.

Because my son is an Aspie, and several members of my wife's family are as well, I know the symptoms and some of the behavioral patterns well. It's been our life for decades. Unlike the word "autism", which has a universally negative connotation, we consider Aspies to be a special class of often very gifted people with special abilities and talents. The negative side relates to social interactions, communication difficulties, and frequent misunderstandings.

Regardless of all that, I should not have speculated about that matter and will not do it again. (You may not have read what I have written about that.) After I had written the offensive comment, it was explained to me by several involved editors that I should not seek to find extenuating circumstances to excuse that editor's disruptive behavior. I should just look at the behavior and judge accordingly. I expect they will be brought before this or another drama board soon by someone who will bother to gather a few diffs. A few days worth would be enough, but I'm not the person to do it. I do not like these places. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Awilley

Awilley, thanks for that link to the last two bullet points of WP:CIRNOT. I absolutely agree, and that's why I will not be using that again, as I have previously explained. It's a counterproductive means of communication. Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Thucydides411

Thucydides411, context matters. The problem with Rusf10's actions is related to their misuse of drama boards, obsessive behavior toward me, and battlefield modus operandi. These boards are supposed to be used as a last resort. Disagreements, criticisms, and even personal attacks (which mine was not), should not be brought here unless other means have been exhausted. Rusf10's pattern is to take ONE criticism from me (and it may not be about them at all), and then, immediately and without any warning or attempt to seek a more peaceful resolution, drag me to a drama board and claim it was a personal attack, often with urging from MONGO. It's a battlefield, dispute-escalation, mentality. This place needs peacemakers, not warriors.

I don't know about you. Maybe you're perfect. Maybe your every word and comment is always unambiguous, perfectly worded, and never viewed as offensive. I'm not perfect. I'd rather get a response, be given an opportunity to see things from the other person's perspective, and given an opportunity to apologize and refactor my comment. That is usually my reaction. None of that happens with Rusf10. It's a knee jerk reaction. I get dragged here immediately for one seeming offense, usually judged by others to not be a personal attack.

Whether it was or not is of secondary importance. It's Rusf10's warlike way of dealing with the situation, and then abusing drama boards, that's the problem. In my young days, a very wise man told me: "The 'problem' is not the 'situation', it's how you deal with it." Rusf10 turns a "situation" into a "problem". They need other tools in their toolbox than the red nuclear button of drama boards. Many here realize it must be removed from them, because they have proved they cannot be trusted with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Rusf10 is incorrect in stating that I came to their talk page to make a bad faith accusation against them. In fact, I made a good faith accusation about their bad faith deletion nomination of an article that I wrote, because the nomination occurred 76 minutes after I reverted their edit on another article. Given the suspicious circumstances and my previous observations of Rusf10's conduct, my assertion that their AfD nomination was done for revenge was perfectly reasonable. - Mr X 🖋 23:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert: 18:48 ➜ AfD: 20:04. - Mr X 🖋 00:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm not the first victim of Rusf10's revenge AfDs. See User talk:Rusf10#AfD ←This was less than three months ago.

These can't all be coincidences. I request that an admin review this repeated WP:HOUNDING by Rusf10 and consider appropriate sanctions. - Mr X 🖋 00:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird that MONGO would bring up so many BullRangifer comments from March and April. If these were genuine concerns of MONGO's, why did he fail to raise them nine months ago?

The Asperger's comment was awkward, but I believe it was made in good faith. The recent comments made to Onetwothreeip were probably the result of considerable frustration about recurrent editing behavior that was causing concern among several editors. That frustration was shared by myself and a couple of of other editors, but I believe everyone involved in the discussion was trying to seek understanding and resolution. Onetwothreeip was obviously offended by the harsh tone and assumptions, but I doubt that was anyone's intent. - Mr X 🖋 04:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Bullrangifer has been warned in the past to not call into question others "competencies" or to question their "competenance" and for battleground behavior. Since that warning, they have continued to personalize disputes and to question others competencies. It needs to be noted that Rusf10 brought this complaint to AN/I at first where administrator El C stated it should be here at AE,[31] so this is not forum shopping. Amazingly, even though BullRangifer has been repeatedly cautioned to not question the competency of others he does so TWICE alone in his opening statement here. For BullRangifer, Wikipedia is a battleground where he has created numerous essays in his userspace denigrating Donald Trump, any and all of his allies, FoxNews, conservatives and those that edit from an opposing viewpoint to his. BullRangifer focus is almost entirely within the AP2 topic area. Questioning his opponents competencies, insulting them, POV pushing and violating UNDUE are not helping to alleviate the acrimonious nature of editing in these arena.

123IP seems to be seriously confused, and hold illogical expectations, about the article, its format, and its purpose

Not only are a number of newcomers NOTHERE, but several of the regulars who attack RS and push conspiracy theories need topic bans. Their lack of competence is quite evident because they show they are more interested in pushing fringe theories found in unreliable sources than in following policy

I really get tired of experienced editors who show a disregard for our RS policy. We follow that policy, and we only change our content when the RS change. We don't make changes, especially a total reversal of a whole article (in this case) based on weak information, poor sources, or the hem hawing utterances of believers in conspiracy theories, even when they are Barr and Trump

hate to mention the editor, and not just the content, but we're looking at a case of severe incompetence on display, or just plain POV deletionism. This is a frivolous AfD. We document what RS say here, and since they document (not just "allege) "that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history" (Rusf10), we are supposed to document what they say. If Rusf10 doesn't get that, they should be topic banned from American politics, because they consistently take the side opposite RS on all things Trump. That's disruptive and incompetent. Bullrangifer was warned about this incident and it was of particular note that when he first stated WP:Competence he piped it as incompetence.

I'm really beginning to wonder if you might have Asperger syndrome, like my son. That's not an insult, just a recognition that it would explain your untraditional way of dealing with this and with your uncollaborative, solo, editing patterns. I can AGF about that. Otherwise, you're just being uncollaborative and disruptive, and there's no AGF for that. It would also explain why you don't react normally to all the complaints about your behavior. Normal people try to mesh in and edit collaboratively, but you push on like a bull in a china shop Questions if editor has Aspergers, even though the editor has never stated they do anywhere, then insinuates they are not a "normal person".

You're still calling RS "fake news"? That should earn you a topic ban for working against our RS policy. That repeated claim is evidence you are NOTHERE to follow our policies, but to push your fringe beliefs based on unreliable sources. This lead to a NPA sanction for one year starting in April 2019 [32]

At Wikipedia one cannot support both RS and Trump at the same time WP:BATTLEGROUND

Or do Trump supporters find support for their delusional beliefs by reading content at the Western Journal In this edit, BullRangifer adds the word "delusional" to his previous comment, thereby labelling Trump supporters beliefs "delusional".

Here we have a tiny subset of editors who try to include views from unreliable sources, and even try to use those sources as references. They lack the competence to vet sources, which seriously impacts their editing and discussions here. Once again questions editors "competence". In same edit they also state "Because these editors are so at odds with RS, which are the basis of all editing here, they should be monitored carefully. They cannot be trusted. They often create problems and disruption because they imbibe these unreliable sources. Note that not all Trump voters are like this, but the hardcore supporters are, and a few of them edit here" WP:BATTLEGROUND

The president and his GOP sycophants are flailing about and saying all kinds of ridiculous things Is making a predetermination that there is a potential conspiracy theory brewing when no other RS have supported this notion.

I suspect you believe the "all mainstream news sources are fake news" mantra WP:NPA WP:BATTLEGROUND

~~--MONGO (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

To the admins commenting below, Rusf10 told me he took the initial complaint to AN/I as his previous complaints had little impact at AE. I mistakenly thought El C had recommended this go here or that it belonged here and I may have unnecessarily created a situation where I encouraged Rusf10 to file this here. However, for the record, my diffs are a mere cursory glance at what I see as insulting, belittling and policy violating personal commentary performed by BullRangifer against their ideological political opponents, behavior that was yet again demonstrated at the complainants talk just yesterday, where they offered about as poor an excuse of an apology as any I have read on this website. These are in no way a full compendium of those insults. You may wish to ignore this filing since it comes from someone you feel has some sort of vendetta against BullRangifer, but these diffs speak for themselves. No one made BullRangifer insult others...that is entirely on them. Your failure to act will only embolden the offender and likely lead to further complaints by others.--MONGO (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Onetwothreeip

I did not want to engage in this discussion but since I have been mentioned, and comments targeting me have been mentioned, I feel that I have to address this. I want to make it clear that I did not ask anybody to use me in this, but I have no objections to them doing so. I also want to state that I cannot see what this has to do with MrX, and the underlying dispute between them and Rusf10 seems too minor to need enforcement. I can't recall any negative encounters with MrX. I also do not want to be involved in back-and-forth where editors try to refute what I'm saying, so I will not bring up any new claims.

I have also been subject to incessant and ridiculous accusations of incompetency and confusion by BullRangifer, and now also an accusation of having autism (Asperger syndrome), as MONGO has shown. This chauvinistic attitude to others surely discourages new editors who do not agree that the best content is made by a process of two or more parties combating each other, and I worry for them. It's quite astounding that they now want to claim they support peacemaking.

I don't want to get involved in this particular dispute, but I feel that given I have been mentioned, I should attest that these have been certainly the most significant cases of a personal dispute that has been directed towards me on Wikipedia, and is really only a small amount that has been directed towards me by BullRangifer which has been going on for months. I wasn't aware that this sort of conduct was happening to other editors since I don't want to involve myself in other people's disputes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: How can accusing someone of having autism be in good faith? It's completely inappropriate, plain and simple. I was not personally offended at all by those remarks, I just think it shows rancorous immaturity unbecoming of this encyclopaedia. Disliking an editor is absolutely no excuse for that behaviour. The discussion in question only had two participants, them and myself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: An insult of that nature simply cannot be made acceptable by declaring that it isn't an insult, and then comparing the insulted editor to their own child. If anything, these make it worse. It's obvious that these were attempts to mitigate the anticipatable fallout from such a remark. We have no way of confirming that they are telling the truth here, and nor should we, but I would be more horrified if they did indeed have a close relative with autism and they still decided to use it as an insult against an editor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Thank you for clarifying that editors should not be casting autism as a disability of other editors, or indeed of other people. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: How can accusing someone of having autism be in good faith? While I wasn't personally offended, I found the comment to be completely inappropriate and quite disgusting to people who do have Asperger syndrome. There has simply been no apology for these remarks either. They explicitly apologised for offence that they caused, rather than for actually saying what they said, but even this is no apology since I wasn't offended. They clearly didn't believe the remarks were wrong. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000 Unfortunately the person made the accusation by using it as something negative. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000I am not making any statement in support of the filer. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Rusf10's three diffs under "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions" provide ample evidence to support a TBAN or Indef for Rusf10. BR can have another warning for his collection, only because Rusf10's response was so predictable. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this link and associated diffs, helpfully added just now by Thucydides411. The reason there's no equivalency between Rusf10 and BullRangifer is that the latter, despite occasional volatility and user space soapboxing, is a prolific, collaborative, and policy-based editor, whereas I have yet to see any solid contribution by Rusf10, and a lot of personalization of disputes, OR, ignoring sourcing guidelines, etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, you are focusing too narrowly in my opinion. It's like ticketing a motorist for speeding while wearing Lululemon, rather than for speeding. The threads and links I've cited above show a pattern of hostile battleground behavior by Rusf10 that's not limited to noticeboard filings. It's a fundamental behavioral pattern of his. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It appears to me that @DGG:'s participation here was reluctant but that his comments were repeatedly requested and he was being called unresponsive before he first appeared. Without disagreeing with your principle, it's not clear what DGG might have done better here. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion (BullRangifer)

As with their previous AE requests against BullRangifer, Rusf10 continues to have unclean hands in the topic area - see my previous comment here. Rusf10 disagreed with my assessment, obviously, as I'm sure they will here, but I am simply not seeing how these recent diffs are substantially better than the conduct they're trying to get BullRangifer and MrX sanctioned for. First, on Donald Trump, they've repeatedly implied that other established editors with extensive history editing US politics are ignorant of basic facts about Wikipedia and the impeachment process:

Here, None of this is WP:OR, it is a process outlined in the United States Constitution, I suggest you read Impeachment in the United States to better understand how the process works. (directed at MrX)
Here, Wow! You don't even understand reliable sources. (directed at MrX)
Here, You need to not only read the constitution, but also a history lesson.

In another circumstance these might be minor, but I feel they're clearly comparable to the comments they're asking for sanctions over in this request - and note specifically that two of the implications of incompetence they level in these diffs are directed at MrX. It seems silly that he'd address established editors in a tone that is clearly questioning their WP:COMPETENCE, then mere days later be shocked when someone takes a similar tone with him. Likewise, he continues to take a general WP:BATTLEGROUND tone when discussing American politics:

Here, Can you please still to the factual points here rather than inserting your own biased interpretation of the situation? (directed at MrX again!)
Here, First, of all this thread isn't about me, so stop trying to deflect because you want to get your buddy Snoogans off the hot seat. ... And I have one suggestion: change your username, it is very misleading, you do not even have the slightest semblance of neutrality.

Finally, the context for the last one brings up another point: Rusf10 has repeatedly filed requests for sanctions against people who he has a history of disputes with on pages related to US politics - eg. [33], [34], and of course this is, as mentioned, something like his fourth filing against BullRangifer in particular. No one else, that I can see, has filed WP:AE requests against BullRangifier at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RaiderAspect

Speculating that another user has Asperger syndrome and thus their opinions can be dismissed should not be acceptable behaviour under any circumstances. That's seriously vicious. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thucydides411

A couple of points of order:

@Awilley: By suggesting possible sanctions against BullRangifer, you're implicitly stating that there is some merit to Rusf10's complaint. How can you then turn around and propose sanctions against Rusf10 for bringing a valid complaint?

You can't on the one hand admit that the complaint is valid (by suggesting the behavior the complaint discusses is sanctionable), but then on the other hand sanction the filer for bringing the complaint. That just makes no sense.

I'm taking much more than a "pot shot." I'm pointing out that Bishonen has been willing to grant sanctions when editors bring complaints against their ideological opponents - including when someone who is clearly an ideological opponent of Rusf10 brought a complaint against Rusf10. But in this case, with evidence of pretty egregious behavior (implying that someone has a disability) from a repeat offender, the fact that the filer is an "ideological opponent" of BullRangifer is suddenly worthy of a boomerang. This smacks of biased enforcement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Are you saying that Rusf10 brings complaints against ideological opponents than people on the other side of the ideological divide do? That doesn't accord at all with what I've seen (particularly as someone who was personally the target of a number of ideologically motivated enforcement complaints on this very board). From my standpoint, it just looks like you're proposing a ban on Rusf10 bringing complaints against your ideological allies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pretty simple question for you: this was pretty clearly a complaint by an ideological opponent (using your term) of Rusf10, attempting to get Rusf10 sanctioned. You proposed a topic ban in that case. You didn't call for a boomerang against the proposer, or express indignation that the proposer was trying to get their ideological opponents banned. But in this case, you're willing to overlook BullRangifer's suggestion that another user has Asperger's syndrome (a pretty appalling thing for an editor to assert, not least because it's insulting to people with Asperger syndrome) because you perceive BullRangifer to be an "ideological opponent" of Rusf10 (in the same way that I perceive you to be an ideological ally of BullRangifer). So my question to you is this: why is it wrong in this case for Rusf10 to call for sanctions against their ideological opponent, but okay in the case I linked for one of Rusf10's ideological opponents to call for sanctions against Rusf10? Is the suggestion that another editor has Asperger syndrome less serious than what Rusf10 was accused of in that case? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Prefacing an obvious insult with, "This isn't meant as an insult, but ..." doesn't make it any less of an insult. If musing about whether another editor has a mental disability is not sanctionable behavior, I don't know what is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Ah, yes, of course, I'm at fault for taking issue with BullRangifer's public musings about other editors' possibly having Asperger syndrome /s. The lengths you lot are willing to go to avoid sanctioning someone you ideologically align with is incredible. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever. You're defending someone who speculates about other editors having Asperger syndrome, while at the same time posing as a defender of people with Asperger's. Your cynicism is unbelievable. That's what's toxic here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Thanks, I'll keep in mind that it's now apparently okay to speculate on Wikipedia that other people's misbehavior might be due to medical conditions. In fact, objecting to such insinuations is itself insulting to people with those medical conditions! The logical conclusion is that speculating about people's motives based on their ethnicity or religion will now be allowed, and criticizing such speculation will of course be viewed as an insult to those ethnic and religious groups. Good to know that this is the rule that Wikipedia editors and admins are now apparently promoting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, Awilley, Bishonen, Doug Weller, and MastCell: It is widely acknowledged here that BullRangifer's comments (particularly about Asperger syndrome) were out of line, and BR has been warned in the past about this behavior. Yet Bishonen has argued that since Rusf10 is an "ideological opponent" of BullRangifer, it is Rusf10 who should be sanctioned. Let me make a prediction: this principle will not be uniformly applied in the future. Nearly 100% of compaints here at WP:AE are lodged by editors against their ideological opponents. People don't tend to lodge complaints against people they agree with. In the many times that MrX has lodged complaints against their "ideological opponents" here at AE, has Bishonen ever complained that MrX was just targeting opponents? It's widely acknowledged here that BR's behavior was inappropriate, so it can't be claimed that this case is different because it lacks merit. What's being claimed is that Rusf10 has made a valid complaint, but with the bad intention of getting an opponent sanctioned. This describes approximately every single valid AE case ever filed.

So I predict that this new principle (thou shalt not attempt to get sanctions applied against your ideological opponents at AE) will not be applied uniformly. It will be used - as here - opportunistically by admins to boomerang complaints lodged by editors they ideologically do not align with. I'd really like any of the admins here to actually attempt to explain why this new principle is not prima facie absurd: if editor A complains about editor B, who has been speculating about other editors misbehaving because of Asperger syndrome, but editor A is an "ideological opponent" of editor B, then editor A should be boomeranged. I'd also like to see any admin to try to claim, with a straight face, that this principle will actually be applied in the same way if editor B is someone whose politics doesn't align with the prevailing views of the admin corps around here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: BullRangifer has now been repeatedly warned (in July 2018, March 2019 and April 2019, as Rusf10 linked) about the very same behavior that Rusf10 is complaining about here. You accuse Rusf10 of making "vexatious" complaints, but the fact is that administrators have repeatedly agreed with the *substance* of Rusf10's complaints about BR's behavior, and have repeatedly issued official warnings to BR as a result. BR has been told that he is skating on "thin ice", and has repeatedly avoided sanction by apologizing and promising not to repeat the behavior that Rusf10 is complaining about here. In this very complaint, the following admins have admitted that BR's comments were out of line: Bishonen, Awilley, Doug Weller, Johnuniq, DGG. A number of admins have suggested that no action is needed because they trust BR will not continue this misbehavior. In other words, the *substance* of Rusf10's complaint is valid. If you find Rusf10's repeated, valid (because they have led to warnings against BR) complaints about BR "vexatious", then the simple answer is for BR to stop misbehaving. Maybe instead of repeatedly stepping in to defend BR and call for sanctions against Rusf10, as you have done several times now, you should sanction the person whose misbehavior has led to these complaints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

@Thucydides411: You might consider the possibility that your labeling of a suggestion that someone has Asperger’s an insult, might be an insult to anyone with Asperger’s, particularly if multiple members of the suggester's extended family have such. It was in bad form for BR to bring this up; but not sanctionable as it appeared in good faith and followed by an apology. OTOH, repeatedly bringing folk to AE and failing to have them sanctioned sounds like something sanctionworthy, if for no other reason than to save, that precious commodity, time. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: I'll make one more comment and bow out. Why would you use the word "accuse"? It's not an offense or crime to have Asperger's. O3000 (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The recipe here contains an overabundance of aspersion. (Too much salt ruins the stew.) Some of those that are here to support the filer are, unwittingly, not helping the filer, nor themselves. I suggest someone close this before multiple participants are sanctioned. Not that I would mind that result. I still go for restrictions from filing in any AE or AN forum for the filer (Rusf10). And, I am disturbed by some of the comments made by supporters of the filer. Every one of us has some level of mental, social, or physical aspect outside the norm. How can that be an insult? But – another day. O3000 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thucydides411: keep in mind that any behavior here may be examined, now or in future. There is nothing so damning as one's own words. O3000 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Awilley, how about including something like after a specific number of warnings have been issued in a given year, (based on this case, let's say 10 – 20), the editor can be t-banned. It removes some of the ambiguity. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PackMecEng

So are we just pretending that speculating an editor has Asperger is okay now? Just curious, because that looks like exactly what is going on here. I mean the overwhelimingly obvious answer to that question is no, of course that is not okay... Ever, full stop. With that being the case I fail to understand how this request could be inappropriate. That is even before considering they were directed to file here from ANI. Now BullRangifer to their credit seems to recognize the issue with what they did and vowed never to do that again. Which I think solves that particular issue. PackMecEng (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of have to ask, what is the purpose of the topic ban here? It seems largely unrelated to anything in this request and comes off as punitive rather than preventive. PackMecEng (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BullRangifer

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

I have some things going on IRL at the moment that prevent me from looking into this thoroughly, but on the surface it feels very deja-vu...which is what I was trying to prevent with the sanctions I applied last year. Technically neither user is in breach of those sanctions. (BR did not make the comment on an article talk page where it would have been inappropriate, and I retired diff Rusf10's sanction a couple months ago at the suggestion of User:DGG, though I forgot to notify/log it at that time. (Sorry for the confusion there.)
The ideal outcome here would be for BR to retract the comment and/or apologize and for Rusf10 to stop abusing administrative noticeboards to get retribution against ideological opponents for minor slights. It would also be helpful if BR stopped framing POV pushing as a WP:COMPETENCE issue (something I've asked them to do many times).
I'm not sure if further sanctions are appropriate, and I don't have the time to pursue it. Off the top of my head three options come to mind: a ban on BR speculating on the "competence" of other editors, a ban on Rusf10 making reports at administrative noticeboards, or a mutual interaction ban. (Not sure if the last one is warranted or whether I'd support it if it were...ibans usually end up being more trouble than they're worth.) ~Awilley (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thucydides411, I don't see why there can't be fault on both sides. BullRangifer making unhelpful or insensitive personal comments, and Rusf10 overreacting to those comments and using them five times as an excuse to haul BR to admin noticeboards? And this after both have been warned about those specific behaviors. ~Awilley (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thucydides411: This is not the place to be taking pot shots at Bishonen. The AE thread you linked is apples and oranges. Yes Rusf10 had also been making personal comments and assuming bad faith, but that was in addition to other problems like making false statements about living people and equating academic [sources] with liberal and untrustworthy. ~Awilley (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer, you might benefit from reading the last two bullet points of WP:CIRNOT ~Awilley (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Ibans often end up being more trouble than they're worth. OTOH I'm pretty tired of seeing Rusf10's use of admin noticeboards against ideological opponents, in particular against BullRangifer, for, as Awilley says, "minor slights". Aquillion makes several good points, with good examples: Rusf10's own behaviour is certainly no better than that of the opponents he is in the habit of taking to admin noticeboards to try to get them banned or otherwise removed from the area. I strongly support Awilley's "middle" suggestion: that Rusf10 be banned from making reports at administrative noticeboards. (I would not prevent him from joining in discussions on any noticeboards, only from filing reports.) Note Awilley's warning of Rusf10 about filing vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents. That warning was admittedly posted a quarter of an hour after Rusf10 filed this complaint, so it is not to be given huge weight, but still. If I had received such a warning, I would have removed my complaint; Rusf10, instead, continued to post further accusations and arguments here.[35][36][37][38] I do think it's vexatious. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: I should perhaps have clarified what boards I'm proposing banning Rusf from. It's this one, WP:AE, plus the ones with "Administrators" in the name: WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:ANEW. I'm not including WP:ARCA, where the decisions are made by arbitrators, not ordinary mortal admins. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Thucydides411: My ideological allies? Charming. Happy new year to you too. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Thucydides411: indeed, that aspersion is out of line. El_C 17:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the Asperger's comment made by Bullrangifer. The speculation was whether, like Bullrangifer's son, the editor might have the same problem and if so that could explain their behavior. He explicitly said that it wasn't an insult. Maybe he shouldn't have made the comment but it wasn't an aspersion and certainly not worthy of sanction. I don't see any reason for an IBAN here but I also agree that banning Rusf10 from making reports at Admin boards" is a good idea and that if we don't do it now we are likely to be back here again soon. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find that suggesting someone with Asperger's syndrome automatically has a mental disability (which I read as mental health problem) an aspersion. Some sufferers also have mental health problems, but (at least from the perspective I see it from and which I think is the one generally accepted now) neither autism nor Asperger's are themselves mental disabilities. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This lack of good faith is just making the atmosphere here more toxic. Anyone want to tell Greta Thunberg she has a mental disability? Doug Weller talk 21:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bishonen and Doug Weller that it is time that Rusf10 was prevented from using drama boards to launch attacks against those that disagree with their views, given their recent record in doing so. Black Kite (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see BR has accepted that this sort of comment is unjustified. It doesn't matter whether one considers that having a particular.condition is innocuous or even more or less usual around here. There is no justification for saying or implying that anyone's efforts here are due to some thing which can possibly be regarded as a disability. This is a clearcut violation of NPA; It's not as terrible a violation as implying as saying it's due to something that most people here might detest, but thats a matter of degree--the principle is the same.Considering BR's statement, I see no need to sanction. I will fell very differently about it if there is a recurrence--with respect not just to Rusf but any editor here.

Calling another editor incompetent is a little different, because competence is in fact required. But using it against one's opponents in a long-running difference of opinion is a not an acceptable tactic. I wouldn't class this as a PA exactly, though I know some do. But it's a unhelpful way of conducting a discussion. I tend to interpret relying on it as a recognition that one has reached a point where there is nothing more actually pertinent to say; when one has nothing helpful to say, it's better to not say anything.

I do not even understand the suggestion of banning Rusf from AE. Not providing an avenue for people to complain is an extreme step, and the only reason for this would be using it for repeated vexatious complaints that are very generally agreed to have no basis. But here they've made a complaint which a good many of us -- including BR himself-- feel does have at least some basis. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: ~~not from AE~~. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did suggest banning Rusf from taking his opponents to AE. If that amounts to not providing an avenue for people to complain and is such an extreme step, what are we doing preventing non-autoconfirmed users from opening complaints at AE? Something that was decided here. Note especially Johnuniq's argument that "if the accused needs to be taken to AE, someone in good standing will notice. Permitting WP:AE to be used for campaigns is corrosive for the community". Bishonen | talk 10:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. I didn't use to consider AE one of the drama boards, but I now realise that it clearly is, eg the aspersions and lack of good faith about "ideological allies". Yes, if someone needs to be taken here, it shouldn't be by Rusf10 - I don't trust their judgement and I'm sure if it were an obvious need there are others that would bring the editor here. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: "the only reason for this would be ... repeated vexatious requests". Well, yes - when an editor has filed four AE requests and at least two ANI requests against the same person (without - as far as I can see - any actual action so far in any of those cases), you do start to wonder about it. When I saw "BullRangifer" as a title here I guessed who had filed it before I read it. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But now he filed a case which has resulted in actual action--exactly the ideal action for a situation like this--BR has recognized the inappropriateness of his remarks, and said he'll try to avoid repeating them. This is what process is for: finding resolutions. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the actual content of this complaint, I see two issues raised by Rusf10 in his original post: 1) Rusf10 asks for sanctions against BullRangifer for personal attacks, and 2) Rusf10 was upset that MrX accused him of WP:HOUNDing.
As far as personal attacks, it's evident from diffs supplied in this thread that Rusf10 routinely attacks other editors in terms as bad, or worse, than those for which he seeks to have BullRangifer sanctioned. And MrX's concern about hounding seems entirely justified - it's pretty clear that Rusf10 got into a dispute with MrX; found the FBI article by reviewing MrX's contribution history; and then nominated it for deletion - which is textbook hounding. (Rusf10 has a history of similar behavior, as pointed out above and in this thread).
Rusf10's complaint about personal attacks appears frivolous, or at least hypocritical; the most charitable explanation is that he lacks the self-awareness to recognize the gap between the way he expects to be treated and the way he's comfortable treating others. His complaint about hounding accusations highlights the fact that he does appear to have hounded MrX (and others, elsewhere). On that basis, I would favor either reinstating Rusf10's prior sanction prohibiting his (ab)use of the noticeboards, or a topic ban from American politics, which appears to be the problem area for him. MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thucydides411, I think you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick and won't let go. Bishonen wrote: "I'm pretty tired of seeing Rusf10's use of admin noticeboards against ideological opponents... for, as Awilley says, 'minor slights'" (emphasis mine). You're perseverating that Rusf10 is being punished for complaining about his ideological opponents, but Bishonen is saying something quite different. It's the "minor slights" part—Rusf10 repeatedly files frivolous, vexatious complaints. (In this case, his stated concern about personal attacks and incivility is belied by his own frequent recourse to such behavior). Filing vexatious complaints against ideological opponents is problematic, disruptive behavior—it indicates bad-faith weaponization of our dispute-resolution system. Whether or not you agree that Rusf10 has engaged in such behavior, you are intelligent enough to understand it conceptually, and to distinguish it from mere persecution for complaining about "ideological opponents". MastCell ^Talk 05:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that some sanction against Rusf10 is warranted given these events on 21 December 2019:

18:02 Rusf10 changed "found" to "charged" at Donald Trump: diff.
18:48 MrX reverted: diff.
19:08 Rusf10 posted at Talk:Donald Trump objecting to MrX's revert: diff.
20:04 Rusf10 nominated FBI secret society (created by MrX in January 2018) at AfD: permalink.

Rusf10's other AfD nominations before and after the above were on 10 December 2019 and 26 December 2019. That is too blatant to ignore for a topic under discretionary sanctions.

BullRangifer needs to find another way of interacting with opponents. I infer there won't be any further mentions of competence or medical conditions so I suppose no action is needed regarding that. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note about previous sanction: User:MastCell says above, "I would favor either reinstating Rusf10's prior sanction prohibiting his (ab)use of the noticeboards..." I just wanted to clarify that the previous sanction did not actually ban Rusf10 from noticeboards. It only provided an automatic disincentive for filing frivolous reports in the form of a topic ban if a report was closed with "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous. I liked that sanction better than a full ban because it still allowed for legitimate filings about serious issues. (I also believe if it were still in effect it would have prevented the current filing which looks like it might be headed toward a "no action" or boomerang close. Or at least prompted Rusf10 to first explore alternate methods of dispute resolution before opening threads at AN/I and here.)
I also have a question. I retired the "auto-boomerang" sanction based on DGG's assertion that it was against Arbcom policy. I took that at face value and without question since DGG is a former arb. @DGG: Could you please elaborate a bit on this? What part of Arbcom policy prohibits sanctions like this? This seems important since we're considering a similar sanction here. ~Awilley (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also be interested as I don't know the answer, perhaps it's since my time. Note that DGG is once again an Arb. Doug Weller talk 22:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal. OK, this has surely been open long enough, and it's time to summarize. There seems to be a rough consensus among uninvolved admins for banning Rusf10 from filing reports at the admin noticeboards, though it has also been suggested that is an overly limiting sanction. I suggest going with Awilley's original "autoboomerang" sanction of a topic ban[39] — the one he retired under the mistaken impression that DGG knew of a secret arbcom policy that it violated. (If there had been such a policy, I believe Doug Weller would have heard of it, which he has not,[40] and DGG himself would have been willing to answer questions about it, which he apparently is not.[41][42]) But retired as one of Awilley's "boutique sanctions" or not, there's nothing to prevent a consensus of admins here from tailoring a sanction for Rusf10. Therefore, and because I'm impressed by Awilley's argument above that a one-month topic ban from the area at issue (American politics) is better than a full noticeboard ban because it still allows for legitimate filings about serious issues, I propose no action against BullRangifer, and a one-month topic ban of Rusf10 from post-1932 American politics. This thread isn't very active any more, so I'd appreciate it if any comments or objections are made below in the next 24 hours or, well, not much more. It's not fair to keep users hanging forever and a day. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I am quite prepared to answer, but I lie to think for a day or two , especially when there's a question of whether I may have made a previous error.

When I personally talk about "policy" in any context I mean not just formal wordings of policy statements, but the actual effective policy, which which is equally based upon standard practice. The rules are not what we merely say they are, but what we actually do. I did make an error it not making this plain at the time. If I had meant the wording of a specific decision I would have quoted it. I apologize for any confusion. that's my fault. What I meant to say and should have said, is that speaking in a private capacity, I do not think any arb com has ever sanctioned anybody for bringing a case before it. The most that's ever done is to close the case without taking action. When arb com lets admins enforce its sanctions, it is understood that they do it within the scope of arb com practice. To think that a single person may do on their own initiative to enforce a decision what the entire committee in group decisions has never has thought appropriate is absurd--it would be giving people greater power than the committee itself uses. Additionally, I think the committee made it very plain in the Framgate decision that unfair practices by the WMF or anyone else would not be tolerated or enforced. Fairness is policy; fairness is the very basis of any disciplinary policy. And this again, which is the last thing I will say in the present discussion, is my personal opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I can support either the 1-month topic ban or a reinstatement of the "auto-boomerang" sanction (a bit less ex post facto), but I'd also appreciate it if the close included language that acknowledged/formalized BullRangifer's commitment to stop speculating about the WP:Competence of other users. If BR reneges on that it would be nice to have something to point to that isn't buried inside walls-of-text. ~Awilley (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for reinstating the auto-boomerang sanction for Rusf10, I don't think that should be the result of our discussion here; I think you should just do it yourself, Awilley, on your own discretion, on the basis that you made a mistake in deprecating it. I remain in favour of a one-month ban from Am pol. About BullRangifer's commitment to stop speculating about the competence of other users: yes, I totally agree; is there a specific diff to refer to? This one? Bishonen | talk 19:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. On the commitment, yes, that diff, as well as, "I should not have speculated about that matter [Aspergers] and will not do it again." ~Awilley (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support a TBAN on Rusf10, as a vexatious litigant. I also think a one way IBAN is justified. Guy (help!) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: One-way IBAN against Rusf10 or BullRangifer? It was BullRangifer who initiated the interaction on Rusf10's talk page that led to this report. ~Awilley (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Thucydides request for my further comment:

Let me first make it clear that I am giving only my personal views. This is not specific to politics; politics is what concerns man yof us right now, and perhaps in a more immediate and Real Life-related way than most of the things we argue about. But we've had similar problems with medical topics, and bitcoin, and even WP format. The mode of working in Wikipedia where the method of editing is essentially to try and see what you can get away with, (more conventionally known as WP:BRD), and what you can get away with depends on who will come out to support you (more conventionally known as WP:consensus). The nature of discussion here is that disagreements escalate. Everyone in this discussion knows that the practical way of winning arguments is to provoke or just wait out one's opponents in the hope they will do something that will get them blocked or topic-banned. If a few like-minded people cooperate in this against a minority view, they will usually succeed. The actual merits are irrelevant, and the most recent example of utter triviality is the infobox wars. The usual technique is to get ones opponent blocked for complaining about a topic ban, and then getting them banned permanently when they in frustration use sockpuppettry.

We are unlikely to completely put an end to this, given the limitations of our methods. I think it's the responsibility of those who care for the retention of editors and the maintenance of NPOV, to at least avoid making maters worse for temporary advantage. I don't think that those proposing increased stickyness and unappealability fully realize how that could be used against them also. Punishing people from making complaints leads to individual problems getting worse, instead of getting solved--it is complaints that can lead to solutions. It's the sort of thing the WMF tried last summer. We should learn from the example, not imitate the convenient but immoral procedures of unappealable or difficult to appeal private action.

I'm not going to say more as an individual, for it's rather predictable this is likely to arise where it must be dealt with it differently in cooperation with my fellow arbitrators, and I don't want to pre-judge what may be decided. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a a lot of confused thinking about editor retention, and this isn't the venue in which to unpack it. But on a basic level, good editors can burn out and leave a topic area, or the project, when they are exposed to vexatious and frivolous litigation. Restraining vexatious litigation helps us retain good editors. The idea that Rusf10 should be left to continue making frivolous AE complaints in the interest of "editor retention" is back-asswards, to put it mildly. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the final decision should "include language that acknowledged/formalized BullRangifer's commitment to stop speculating about the WP:Competence of other users." As for Rusf10, I support a TBan and a ban from Admin boards including AE - as has been said before, if there's an important issue about another editor someone will bring it up, and I don't trust Rusf10's judgement. I don't support an iban. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going over this again I'd like to add that as a general principal I'd rather not see Arbitrators, even if not yet officially in place, commenting here. I noticed on DGG's talk page that when it was suggested that it was inappropriate for him to post here he replied that he was enjoying his last days of freedom. I don't think that's the way it works for publicly elected officials anywhere. The day you're elected you've got the prestige of the post and IMHO it makes little difference if you haven't officially taken up the position. AE is almost as old as ArbCom and was so far as I know was never seen as a venue where Arbitrators were expected to get involved and opine on matters. Even if an Arbitrator says they are speaking as an individual that's still a bit of a fiction. Think about the reaction to someone like Johnson, Trump or Putin saying "mind you I'm only speaking as an individual". There's no avoiding the fact that many people will still treat the statement as carrying more weight. We need to keep AE and ArbCom separate as much as we can - separation of powers is important. I don't think it matters terribly that DGG did edit here (although I'm still puzzled about the policy issue), but I wanted to say this for the record. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm against an IBAN too. Personally, I hope Awilley puts Rusf10 back under the auto-boomerang sanction, as a good alternative to a full TBAN from filing at admin noticeboards. DGG is off on his own with his reluctantly produced supposed "arbcom policy", and it does not impact consensus here. (Also, has any editor ever wasted Arbcom's time with multiple vexatious filings, to the point of a need for a sanction to be considered? In actual practice, if that happened, a clerk would simply remove it. RFAR and this noticeboard are so different that a parallel is simply not fruitful.) I'm about ready to make the call, per the comments above, that BullRangifer is reminded that he has committed to not speculating about the competence of other users. Rusf10 is topic banned for one month from post-1932 American politics. There is not consensus for an IBAN. The question remains: should Rusf10 also be banned from filing complaints at the admin noticeboards, as Doug Weller thinks? For myself, I'd say not, per Awilley, and because I'm hoping the milder autoboomerang sanction will be reinstated by him. Anybody, before we close? Bishonen | talk 16:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: if others are happy with him continuing to uses the Admin boards I'll withdraw my suggestion, but we still might want to warn him. @SPECIFICO: I'm pretty sure that DGG's first comment wasn't a response to someone here, but I may have missed something. In any case I think what I wrote is correct as a general principal and that if DGG did get a request about his opinion on policy it would be better for him to comment outside this section - although I still don't think it would be appropriate for an Arb to comment. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so shall we make it BullRangifer is reminded that he has committed to not speculating about the competence of other users. Rusf10 is topic banned for one month from post-1932 American politics and reminded that he has been warned by Awilley here about filling vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents. Unless you have something else pending concerning Rufs, Awilley? Bishonen | talk 20:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Here come the Suns

Here come the Suns is topic banned from the ARBPIA pages, broadly construed, for six months. I also blocked the user for one month for edit warring and harassment. El_C 21:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Here come the Suns

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Here come the Suns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ARBPIA4 :

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

22:18, 28 December 2019 "you have just basically admitted to lying"
22:26, 28 December 2019 "Simply put: you lied"
22:59, 28 December 2019 "You lied."

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

Alerted, 13 September 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At Auja al-Hafir, Here come the Suns (=HctS) removes some stuff, I revert it, discussion then ensues on the talk page. HctS says stuff is unsourced, I quote the source in the article (Morris, Benny (1993) Israel's Border Wars, 1949 - 1956. Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War. Oxford University Press,p. 356). (NB: I do not have the book in front of me, but I have read it earlier). When I said that I don't have the book in front of me, HctS called me the above diffs, even after I said that I consider this a WP:PA (link) Huldra (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I never claimed I had read the source in this instance. Yes, I relied on the info in the Wikipedia article.

Secondly, note HctS edit-summary here: "what;'s this "occupation: nonsense? It is Israeli territory, both before and after 1956".

Alas, anyone can check that Auja al-Hafir was in the middle of the demilitarised zone, between Israel and Egypt. (See eg the map in the 1949 Armistice Agreements-article). Now, I could could go on saying every 10 minutes that HctS lied, alas, that is not the way I edit.

Here are just some of the edits HctS have made in the past month or so, concerning me:

23:21, 28 November 2019. "your POV edits"
23:42, 1 December 2019 "You are the classic WP:NOTHERE editor"
00:10, 2 December 2019 "The misleading nature of her comment above is permeates her Wikipedia editing"
04:20, 2 December 2019 "But I do object to editors like you and Huldra misrepresenting the nature of other editors' arguments or the nature of previous discussions"
23:28, 20 December 2019 "You are not here to build an encyclopedia but to push a POV and play games"
00:08, 21 December "Like I said, you are here to push a POV, not to build quality articles."
22:21, 28 December 2019: "At this point, you need to walk away. Alternately, I could ask El_C to tell you to walk way, as you are being disruptive."
22:43, 28 December 2019: "That is pretty much the definition of being disruptive."

Note also that HctS received 04:38, 2 December 2019 a "friendly advice" from an admin: "You and Huldra appear to have some history (the details of which I am not aware and into which I do not want to wade) but I ask you to please keep your comments on topic."

I also note that HctS is following me around, (Of the 26 articles where we have edited 1 day or less apart, only Talk:Auja al-Hafir, and on their own user page did HctS edit first. Note also that many of those common articles have typically less than 10 views pr day, say Lone Tree Brewery, Awarta, Auja al-Hafir)

Funnily, in their rush to undo my edits, HctS even manage to undo my rv of vandalism (rv to red-linked article)(!) link

All in all; is this behaviour acceptable? Huldra (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My full edit line here is: "Stop making up things: not in source that they were residents of Awarta", it is because the source never said the perpetrators were residents of Awarta, still that was said in the Awarta- article.

User:El C, if there is an interaction ban, you need to be very specific with the terms. Even if HctS is not allowed to comment about me on talk-pages, are they allowed to follow me around and undo my edits every day? Huldra (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C, if so, then I think you have to specify a time limit, say, HctS are not allowed to edit any article I have edited for x days following my edit. (Otherwise we will get into endless arguments about what was a revert, or not) Huldra (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C: again, I suspect we will have endless discussions about what is a revert/not revert. Would edits like this (just after my edit here) be counted as a revert of me? Huldra (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C: It is partially a revert, they reintroduced "(the perpetrators were later found to have indeed come from Awarta)", which I removed as duplicate information, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Here come the Suns

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 Here come the Suns

As Huldra notes, I challenged some of the statements in the article as unsourced. She reinstated them, still w/o a source, initially claiming (in an edit summary) that they were supported by a source (UNSCR 108). In the subsequent discussion on the talk page, I pointed out that 108 does not actually support the statement in question, and asked for a source. Huldra pointed me to a book by Morris. I responded that we need a specific source (e.g a page number). At that point she claimed the statement is supported by Morris, page 356 ([43]). Subsequently, she admitted she did not check the book to see if that is true, and in fact is not in possession of that book so could not have possibly checked it before claiming the statement is supported by that page. She basically just made it up. I don't know what to call those actions except a lie.

Response to Sharab Salam : She did not quote anything from a source, and I have not misquoted her. That source was in the article in support of a different sentence, and she claimed, without reading it, that it also supports the claim I removed. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - I did assume a mistake was made, when I pointed out that the source she is referencing is used for another statement. She then admitted she had not read the source. Is it acceptable editing to claim a source supports something, when you have not checked that source, and can't check it since you don't have the source ? Note that contrary to what Zero0000 claims, she did "suggest the source might support it", she claimed it does. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @El C: I take your point, and I have stricken out the claims of "lying". Can you address my question - Is it acceptable editing to claim a source supports something, when you have not checked that source, and can't check it since you don't have the source? Here come the Suns (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: "I never claimed I had read the source in this instance"- After you said the material is in Morris's book, I asked for a specific source, to which you replied "The source is in the article: Morris: Israel's Border Wars, p. 356. "[44]- what is that, if not a claim that you read page 356 of Morris and found the claim is sourced to it? Here come the Suns (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - What is a "one way interaction ban"? I can't comment on her editing, but she can comment on mine? With pearls like "Stop making up things" [45]? Here come the Suns (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I see Zero0000 has taken issue with my use of "misrepresentation". Perhaps he'd like to clarify this, then (and note his use of "deliberate") "You think you score points here by deliberately misrepresenting sources? " [46]. It seems like more than one interaction ban is required here. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @El C: I fixed the link, above. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @El C: Thank you. So will there be consequences for that ? I don't think I have done anything that these two (Huldra, Zero) haven't also done, directed toward me. I at least struck out my offending comments. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @El C: Apologies for the refactoring, I was editing in my own section and hadn't seen you had already replied. To the point: It is hardly "one infraction". Where we have Huldra complaining of me calling her edits "POV", we have Zero0000 describing my edits as "giving only a nationalistic assertion "[47]. I could easily find more (just now, we have SharabSalam opining that "there was a "reasonable cause" to say that HctS was deliberately misrepresenting the source") just tell me how many you'd need. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @El C: I agree that each side is unlikely to convince the other of their positions, and I also accept that my responses have been less than optimal at times. I regret that, and will endeavor to do better in the future. What concerns me at this juncture, though, is that you seem on the cusp of imposing a restriction on me, alone, when comparable actions by the other side will be given a pass. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on my "comparable actions" statement , above. I've been accused of following these editors around and undoing their edits, and this appears to be the basis of the suggestion for a 1-way interaction ban. Well, let's look a the following:

[48] - I edit Beilin–Abu Mazen agreement, 3 hours later, Zero0000 is there to partially revert me [49]
[50], I edit Awarta, 30 minutes later Zero0000 is there to revert me
[51], I edit Zionism, 4 hours later Zero0000 is there to revert me
[52], I edit Nabi Samwil, 10 hours later Zero0000 is there to partially revert me
[53] I edit Rafah, 7 hours later is there to partially revert me

These are just from the last 2 weeks. There are many more. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SharabSalam

Huldra said "but I read it when I was working on the Al-Hamma Incident and Al-Hamma, Tiberias" why did Here come the Suns misquote that?. Keep in mind that she quoted the source. Here come the Suns didn't see the source and yet removed it and repeatedly called Huldra a liar. There is no lying here. There is apparent POV-pushing and incompetence by Here come the Suns.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I am worried of how you are handling this issue. You are ignoring what Here come the Suns is saying. He just falsely said that Huldra admitted she didnt read the source. That is not true. This is the incompetence I referred to earlier. This editor is unable to understand even simple English. She literally said "I read it when I was working on the Al-Hamma Incident and Al-Hamma, Tiberias". Yet, this editor keeps saying she admitted she didn't read the source. Based on this behaviour, trust me this will not be the last time this editor will come again to this board.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C no, he is saying that she has admitted that she didn't read the source. She didnt say she didnt read the source. She said she doesnt have it at the moment. HstS has no right to say something isn't in the source when he literally has no access to it. This trolling behaviour by calling other editors liars in the talk page multiple times should not be forgiven. See also Zero post below. Did you read it? --SharabSalam (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, where is the apology? I am not seeing any apology made by "HctS" to Huldra. If you clicked ctrl-f in this page and searched for "apolo" you will find other editors who apologies for their mistake. Their mistakes werent even as grave as HctS mistake and yet there is no apology made in Huldra's talk page or even here by HctS.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, there was a "reasonable cause" to say that HctS was deliberately misrepresenting the source. See the discussion. HctS regularly and in daily basis accuses Huldra of lying.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

There was a paragraph in the article which had a citation only in the middle of the paragraph, so one could only guess whether the source supported all of the paragraph or only the part before the citation. Nothing to get excited about.

First HctS changed some of the paragraph both before and after the citation, giving only a nationalistic assertion as an edit summary.

Then HctS changed "village" into "junction" without explanation or source. (Actually it had a Town Planning Scheme awarded in 1947, so it wasn't just a road junction.)

Finally, HctS removed a sentence. Since it followed the citation it can be called unsourced, but it is true and easy to source and the rest of HctS's edit summary is false.

Huldra proposed on the talk page that the source given in the middle of the article might support all of it. Neither Huldra nor HctS had the source available, so it came down to "Have you checked the source?" backwards and forwards. As a content dispute it is trivial, and tomorrow I will edit on the basis of the same source (which does in fact support most of the paragraph). The problem here is that HctS crossed the line by repeatedly calling Huldra a liar. This is an unacceptable way of conducting a dispute. Zero^talk 13:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, now HctS has written "you are misrepresenting what it says" to me, which is another accusation of dishonesty. One would think that in the midst of a case against HctS for casting aspersions, s/he would at least be more careful. Clearly s/he just doesn't get it. Zero^talk 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have 6912 pages on my watchlist, including all ARBPIA articles that I'm aware of. I can make mistakes, but I am happy with all the partial reverts that HctS lists, all of which were good edits that I carefully explained. Zero^talk 06:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Here come the Suns

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

@Here come the Suns: "Lying" is casting aspersions. Please don't do that. Assume mistakes were made, instead. Otherwise, I have yet to review this request in detail, so I reserve my judgment, for now. El_C 13:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: even so, best to assume there's been an oversight rather than exclaim these are lies. El_C 15:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: thanks for striking. Indeed, counting on one's recollection is not optimal. Best to have the source at hand to confirm as well as provide the exact page number/s, excerpt if requested, and so on. El_C 16:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: unless I'm missing something, HctS is saying she hasn't read it in this instance. El_C 21:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: the offending comments have been retracted. That means that forgiveness here is actually quite viable. Although the retraction does fall short of an actual apology. El_C 21:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Huldra's latest diffs, perhaps a one-way interaction ban would be sensible, after all. El_C 23:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: misrepresentation does not necessarily imply accusations of dishonesty or bad faith. One could claim misrepresentation to be taking place in error, therefore, in good faith. El_C 23:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: they would not be allowed to do so. El_C 23:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: the link for your latest diff is broken. El_C 23:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: they would be allowed to edit the same articles, just not interact with you or to undo your edits. El_C 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: "deliberately misrepresenting sources" (italics is my emphasis) is, indeed, an aspersion. El_C 23:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: for one such comment? No, not likely. El_C 23:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: please refrain from refactoring comments that have been replied to. El_C 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: no, that is not a revert. El_C 23:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: oh, okay. El_C 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: perhaps so — perhaps not. I don't know. I am admittedly not greatly familiar with the dispute. I am also unable to immediately go through walls of text which involve multiple sources. El_C 00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: clearly, the two sides are not going to agree on fundamental questions. The question is whether a civil discussion devoid of accusations of bad faith can commence. Sorry to say, but I'm feeling less than optimistic at this time. El_C 00:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: I'm actually inclined to see what other uninvolved admins have to say before doing anything unilateral. El_C 00:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns: I find it reasonable to assume that Zero has those articles watchlisted. El_C 00:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over Talk:Auja al-Hafir and at the diffs above, it is clear that Here come the Suns is being far too confrontational. That particularly applies to a topic under discretionary sanctions. I would take guidance from El_C but anything from a final warning about WP:AGF and WP:FOC to a ban of some kind seems appropriate. A warning for a topic like this would be backed by the likelihood of a broadly-construed topic ban if similar problems occur again. I would add that HctS's most recent post at talk (23:26, 29 December 2019) fails to engage with the comment HctS was replying to. The earlier comment included a quote from the reference and a reply should address whether or not the quote verifies the disputed article text, with reasoning. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by EmilCioran1195

The appeal by EmilCioran1195 is declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrators" 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: EmilCioran1195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – EmilCioran1195 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 2 week block for "ARBPIA and NPA violations"

Administrator imposing the sanction: El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by EmilCioran1195

what "ARBPIA and NPA violations" have I supposedly committed? I haven't edited a single article on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. And if calling someone biased after them calling me biased is a "Personal Attack", then shouldn't the other user be blocked too? Surely for a 2-week block an admin has to provide diffs? This admin is clearly involved in the dispute, and has a habit of showing up wherever I edit... not even edit, but simply comment on a Talk page. And blocked for 2 weeks, for my contributions on this Talk Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eva_Bartlett EmilCioran1195 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Another user has warned (including adding the awareness criteria ^[54]) the OP about ARBPIA and NPA.^[55] The OP's response was "errant nonsense."^[56]

The page is clearly marked as 500-30, with a notice at the top of the page which reads: 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.

Even notwithstanding that, ARBPIA4 has clarified that this involves any edits which relate to ARBPIA, in general, regardless of the page even falling under ARBPIA itself, which this page does. This restriction, if anything, becomes more applicable for ARBPIA-related edits which are combative in nature, I challenge.

Again, the reference is to any page, not article per se., a distinction which the OP fails to recognize.^[57][58]

As for my supposed ("clear"?) involvement in the dispute — there is simply no basis for that assertion. I am, however, incidentally, the uninvolved admin who indefinitely semiprotected the article itself^[59] (although these violations took place on the article talk page).

Anyway, as the admin who recently blocked the user for a different violation in another article, Drmies pinged me^[60] so that I would evaluate the situation. El_C 14:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved editor Drmies

I suppose I am "involved" in this matter, which came about because I saw this conflict between EmilCioran and ZScarpia, where the latter, unhindered by reliable secondary sources or a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and conventions on reliable sources, was edit-warring to get some fairly trivial content in. I did note that EmilCioran was editing in an area covered by ARBPIA and, after having found that this was the second time they were in an area covered by arbitration remedies, alerted El C. Yes.

That this wouldn't be covered by ArbPia is silly: there was a template on the top of Talk:Eva Bartlett already. No, El C is not involved in this matter in any administrative way. No, what EmilCioran alleges, that El C is essentially hounding them, is a lie that won't hold up. Yes, they did accuse their opponent of being "partisan", and when I asked them to not make that mistake, of accusing someone without evidence, they just said "well look at their contributions". And to make something clear: in the matter of the content, I agreed with EmilCioran, though for different reasons, just in case someone claims I was opposed to their edits.

I think there are only a few relevant questions here. a. How long until the editor is indef-blocked for being, at heart, NOTHERE? b. Who will be the first to link this account, which is so obviously not new, so versed in policy, and so adept at trolling, to the sock master? c. And what will the tone of their denial be like? Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

Drmies's above description of what happened is inaccurate in a number of ways. I edited the article once only, to revert the previous change it is true, but to refer to to that as edit warring is perhaps a rather unkind exagerration. The edit I reverted was by Snooganssnoogans. Contrary to the impression given by Drmies above, EmilCioran1195 didn't edit the article itself; he or she only became involved after I opened a talkpage discussion, which I did after Drmies reverted my revert. I could see that EmilCioran1195's edit count was less than 500, so I pointed out the ARBPIA editnotice at the top of the talkpage. I also posted an ARBPIA discretionary sanctions warning notice on EmilCioran1195's user talkpage. EmilCioran1195 immediately deleted the user talkpage notice, then returned to the article talkpage and posted another two comments[61][62]. ← ZScarpia 02:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by EmilCioran1195

Result of the appeal by EmilCioran1195

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

I would decline this block appeal. As it says at the top of Talk:Eva Bartlett, in 'Further information' on the DS notice, we see:

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

The relevant phrase here is "not disruptive". At this moment User:EmilCioran1195 has just 111 edits so they are not yet extended-confirmed. ~~To clarify, they did not themselves edit the Eva Bartlett article, though they posted on talk~~. Their comments are still visible on the talk page at Talk:Eva Bartlett. El_C's block seems to have been issued for misbehavior on the talk page. The worst comment by EmilCioran1195 that I could find is:

You've totally missed the point there. And as a clearly partisan editor, you've decided to take the focus off yourself by accusing everyone else of being partisan. Perhaps it's best you leave it out, eh? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC).

I don't perceive that User:El C was involved. They previously interacted with EmilCioran1195 on 10 December when they blocked them for edit warring under the WP:GS/IRANPOL community sanctions. It would be easier to understand EmiCioran1195's defence if they had not so completely removed all the admin notices from their talk page. El_C had notified them of IRANPOL with this notice on 29 November. Previously they had received this notice from User:Bbb23 about their early interest in the Bartlett article. Bbb23 observed "For a new user you seem to be displaying a battleground mentality very early on.." And, "Your personal opinion of others is fine outside of Wikipedia, but if I see you express it in an edit summary (or on a Talk page) again, you risk being blocked." Further down on the same talk page, we see this comment from User:HSukePup on 6 November: "EmilCioran1195 is still engaging in edit warring. Nearly all of his edit across various articles are being undone. Could we just block him already?" EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bbb23, I missed that EmilCioran1195 had edited the Eva Bartlett article back on August 17 and 18, as shown below. So the violations include both the article edits (disallowed by WP:ARBPIA4#ARBPIA General Sanctions}, and the disruptive comments on Talk:Eva Bartlett in December. Those are the posts noticed by El C which led to the current block. Adding to the complaints about poor behavior on the Talk page, we need to include she's been universally outed as a conspiracy theorist and crackpot. This is the 'crackpot' edit summary mentioned by Bbb23 which caused him to leave a warning on Emil's talk on 18 August. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EmilCioran1195 edited the Bartlett article twice: (1) August 17 removing material and (2) August 18 removing the same material. It was the second edit that generated my warning because of the edit summary: "undue weight. she's been universally outed as a conspiracy theorist and crackpot - in this rare case, self-designation shouldn't be given any weight in lede".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline the appeal due to the inappropriate attitude evident in their every comment at Talk:Eva Bartlett#Free Gaza Movement: third boat voyage. In particular, El_C's action was very much within discretionary sanctions limits for the reply of "errant nonsense" to a very polite pointer to the "requirement for having made 500 edits before contributing here" with a gentle reminder regarding WP:NPA. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline appeal. The overall approach was unhelpful and combative, and the "Errant nonsense" bit especially needless and disruptive. If something like this happens again, I think a topic ban would be well in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 391: / Line 391: @@
 ====Statement by PackMecEng====
 So are we just pretending that speculating an editor has Asperger is okay now? Just curious, because that looks like exactly what is going on here. I mean the overwhelimingly obvious answer to that question is no, of course that is not okay... Ever, full stop. With that being the case I fail to understand how this request could be inappropriate. That is even before considering they were directed to file here from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#Unsolicited_Personal_Attack_by_BullRangifer ANI]. Now BullRangifer to their credit seems to recognize the issue with what they did and vowed never to do that again. Which I think solves that particular issue. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
+I kind of have to ask, what is the purpose of the topic ban here? It seems largely unrelated to anything in this request and comes off as punitive rather than preventive. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards