Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

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

Thewolfchild

By a consensus of uninvolved admins, Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all pages, material, and discussion related to gun control, broadly construed, due to an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior despite previous warnings. He may appeal this topic ban no sooner than 3 months from its imposition. Any appeal is more likely to be viewed favorably if he can provide positive evidence that he will avoid previously problematic issues such as personalizing disputes, making personal attacks, ridiculing or disparaging other editors, impeding the formation of consensus, and canvassing. MastCell Talk 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Thewolfchild User who is submitting this request for enforcement K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Thewolfchild (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/Gun_control#Battleground_conduct AE: Thewolfchild is warned The March 2018 AE discussion (AE:Thewolfchild) detailed a pattern of battleground behaviour, directed at me (largely) & other contributors. It closed with a warning to TWC to not personalise disputes; avoid 'clerking' / impeding consensus; canvassing, & more. However, such behaviour has continued: 24 April, Creating drama / aspersions: "This constant bickering..." & "that huge train-wreck of an RfC..." (TWC's inability to let go of the RfC was discussed at the prior AE). TWC edit warred to prevent collapsing off-topic material: [1] & [2]. Added for clarity: I did not collapse TWC's comments nor reverted him; that was done by another contributor: [3] & [4]. 14 May 2018, Hounding / issuing threats: suggesting that all firearms articles that I edited "(33 and counting!)" should be listed at WP:GUNS to discuss "what, if any, further actions or sanctions are required" & "This should be examined, this should all be examined, and thoroughly." After pushback, TWC seems to have backtracked a bit: "the main goal here is to review the edits, not the editor" [5]. This still leaves open the door that, perhaps, a secondary goal is to "review" (i.e. lightly harass) the editor. 8 April 2018 & same, Clerking discussions / redacting comments. I reverted TWC once [6]; the other revert was by the OP. This resulted in a discussion on my TP (User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/April#April 2018), with belittling: "like some probational-acting-deputy-admin-in-training", etc. 7 May 2018 More clerking, after an admin specifically told TWC "Don't ask for closes" [7]. 18:34, 5 May 2018, Personalisation of disputes: "your friend K.e. basically told me...". In response to the "friend" reference (a second time), I posted on TWC's TP: 19:11, 5 May 2018. (Prior reference to "friends": 15 April 2018). TWC then requested that I "please keep it off [his] talk page": 22:51, 5 May. Previous sanctions Given a warning (AE:Thewolfchild) on 25 March 2018 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Block log DS awareness Alerted about relevant DS on 0:55, 22 February 2018. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I believe that these diffs display battleground behaviour and targeting of my contributions. They also show no learning curve in terms of Wiki norms; e.g., this (unrelated) ANI about TWC closed w/o sanctions, but provided this illuminating diff by TWC: 11 April. Since TWC doesn't want me on his TP and reacts strongly even to mild cricism (e.g.: I'm genuinely shocked, shocked!...), I'm bringing this report here. @Pudeo: Re ...far from actual personal attacks, I did not use the words “personal attacks” in my statement; please read it more carefully before commenting. On your other point, I indeed participated in the H&K TP, where I provided a detailed rationale & review of sources: Sample material in question, which was all cited to the manufacturer's web site. @PackMecEng: Re ...you left that comment on their talk page right after they asked you not to post there anymore, I'm afraid that you got the timeline wrong. I added times to the diffs for clarity: TWC's request to "keep off" his TP comes last. Separately, I see that you participated in the 1st AE, where you accused others of "bludgeoning, threats, and badgering" [8] & "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONG" [9], yet you don't see the same in TWC's behaviour. General comment: Since my first interaction w/ TWC, which I can only describe as a series of emotionally unhinged outbursts ([10], [11] (bottom of page) & [12]), TWC seems to have had a preoccupation with my editing. Despite having stated several times that he's not a member of WP:GUNS, TWC's suddenly so concerned for firearms articles that he's willing to recruit WP:GUNS editors to "thoroughly" examine my contributions? Specific to the H&K aticle, I had suggested the participants raise the issue at either WP:NPOVN or WP:NOT: Applicable policies. This was ignored by TWC in favour of apparently conspiratorial thinking ("To what end?") and the suggestion that "as many [WP:GUNS] editors as possible be made aware of this activity" [13]. The latter may also violate the spirit of the warning given to TWC against canvassing by "using project pages". In any case, project TPs are not designed for involved editors to discuss possible "sanctions" against an editor who they may disagree with; that looked to me like a threat. Lastly, the redactions by TWC are problematic because he was specifically warned about 'clerking' discussions, with a separate warning on his TP: "just stop acting like a clerk". This comment does not warrant placing an RPA template. That’s why I was puzzled as to why TWC insisted on redacting it, to the point of edit warring and badgering me on my Talk page. This suggests ownership to me, same as was brought up in the first AE discussion. Or as NeilN puts it: "...what was seen as disruptive was you [TWC] having to get your two cents in everywhere" [14]. In summary, some admins were calling for a topic ban at the 1st AE, so a warning was a fair outcome. The conditions were not that hard to follow, but here we are. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @Springee: ...a provocation and uncivil. K.e.c. should not have restored the collapse..., this implies that I was uncivil and / or was provoking TWC. That's not the case as I did not collapse TWC's comments nor reverted him in this case; that was done by another contributor: [15] & [16]. I added this to the original statement for clarity. General comment: Re my edits allegedly being about essentially demonizing firearms in general, we can't go about editing these articles as if firearms were people too; BLP policies do not apply to them. Regarding TWC's list, what it shows is that our firearms articles suffer from a significant amount of unsourced / self-sourced promotional material and trivia, or what TWC calls content of neutral, encyclopedic value. I liked this bit of self-cited "origins story", with distinct settler-colonialist undertones: In 1919, Chief Lame Deer from a Cheyenne tribe approached Arthur Savage to purchase lever-action rifles for the Indian reservation. The two men struck a deal — the tribe would get discounted rifles and Savage would get the tribe's support and endorsement. It was at this time in the company's history, that Arthur Savage added the Indian head logo — a direct gift from the Chief — to the company name. References In Savage Arms. I'm always happy to discuss my edits, but since TWC's idea of me is that I'm set on "demonising" firearms, I'm not sure he's the right person for the task. In short, TWC has not been a positive presence in these articles. His participation has mostly amounted to disruption of talk pages & bullying of other participants. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Notification 14 May Discussion concerning Thewolfchild 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 Thewolfchild Well, let's start by calling this what it really is... a pre-emptive strike. As K.e noted in point #2, on the H&K416 talk page, I had suggested that some of the edits he has made to firearm-related articles be reviewed at WT:GUNS. He clearly is not happy about the prospect of that occurring. But the facts are this: in the 6 months prior to Feb 14, K.e. didn't edit a single firearm-related article. Then the Stoneman shooting occurred, he was heavily involved in the editing of that article from the beginning, along with the mass-shootings in the U.S. article, and since then (the past 3 months, Feb 14 - May 14), he has gone on a spree, removing and altering content to numerous (approx 50, perhaps more) firearm-related articles on a massive scale (see here, this is just major edits and does not include numerous minor edits). His editing has the single-minded objective of removing content of neutral, encyclopedic value, while at the same time pushing for the addition of "criminal use", "use in mass-shootings", and other controversial material, essentially demonizing firearms in general. Just because he adds (the almost standard now) edit summary; "remove per wp:catalog, will save on talk page" doesn't really mean anything. Multiple editors have objected to these edits (see the Glock talk page) but K.e. either just stands his ground or doesn't engage. I don't feel a single editor should be changing the entire encyclopaedic presentation of firearms on WP, while at the same time, completely dismissing the Firearms Project, it's scope and it's members. Hence the reason that I suggested the review, other editors agreed... and now we have this "AE complaint". As for the rest of K.e.'s report, (other than the minutiae he went digging for from weeks ago), the gist of it is some of my talk page posts are sarcastic. Well, let's gauge that against the condescending arrogance of his comments, the ones that aren't appallingly hypocritical or just outright bullshit. Look no further than his comments here; "badgering", "edit-warring", "threats", "hounding", "harrassment", "emotionally unhinged", "conspiratorial thinking", "canvassing", "ownership", "clerking" (ad nauseum), etc., etc., etc. At what point does an admin see that this clearly crosses the line from "report" to "blatant, personal attacks"...? Not to mention that this is basically abuse of a project function. Like K.e's, my contribs speak for themselves. I've made enough edits to firearm-related articles (though few and usually minor) over the years to show that I don't have a "sudden interest" in this subject. However, I haven't made any significant content edits to firearm-related articles since the Stoneman shooting (save for reverts, even to changes I agree with but were done improperly), instead my edits have been mostly confined to talk pages. Since that event, there has been this persistent, topic-wide debate between two entrenched factions of editors and IP users (call them what you will, "pro-gun", "anti-gun", whatever...), constantly debating and changing content, most of which leads to article disruption (how many pages have been protected now?) and/or page-fill/time-sinks on talk pages. Most of my posts have called out against this; look no further than K.e.'s point #1 for an example of this. Yes, I have a recent AE warning, and while I clearly stated that I disagreed with both the way that report was handled and some of Neil's warning afterward, I don't feel that I've violated that warning. Tagging one comment as RPA (which was not an issue until K.e. made it one days later), posting one simple close request or un-collapsing my own comment, hardly qualifies as "clerking", nor do I see it as a violation of the warning I rec'd (2 months ago now) or the AE sanctions in general. In other words, I think this is a big waste of time. How many reports has K.e. filed here now anyway? He can't just come running here every time he doesn't like what someone posts on a sanctioned talk page. Perhaps a boomerang is in order and if I really cared about all this, mayne I push for that, but really... enough of this nonsense already. - theWOLFchild 23:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @ Bishonen - I already memtioned the allegations of "hounding" and "harrassing" above as I don't see how that's been demonstrated. I've largely avoided K.e. since the last AE report, except, as seen in the very diffs he's provided, where he has "hounded and harassed" me and I asked him on his talk page to both explain and stop this behaviour. I'm aware of what Neil's warning stated, but the simple fact is, I had no idea just how extreme it was intended to be, nor exactly what all activities are considered "clerking" (eg: the "don't ask for closes" bit; At all? Ever?) Since that comment, I've asked for for exactly one close. A simple, straight forward and uncontroversial close that no one took issue with - until K.e. brought it up here. I redacted exactly one comment, that again was discussed, resolved and uncontroversial - until days later when K.e. reverted, collapsed and basically shit-disturbed a minor issue that had nothing do do with him. Nothing. And I un-collapsed my own comment. I see where Neil has said below; Also, if an editor feels there is a pattern of inappropriate collapses, bring that issue (with solid evidence) to AE., but first, why would anyone need to do that, just to un-collapse their own comment? Isn't that just straight-forward disruptive behaviour that any admin can address at any time? And conversely, where was it shown here, (with solid evidence) that I have such a history of disruptively un-collapsing my own comments, that I should've assumed that the warning extended to me 'never being allowed to un-collapse my own comment again'? The point is, I take it that these warnings are to prevent disruption to the project, especially to articles which fall under AE sanctions, and I don't see how these three three minor actions noted above can in any way be construed as being disruptive, nor do I see how they clearly violate the warning issued, as it is written. Lastly, in regards to comments about my post at the HK416 talk page; I have seen on other project talk pages where editors have posted concerns about changes being made to articles that fall under the scope of that project, how is this any different? (And this isn't just me, other editors agree with that post). I had noted that multiple editors were expressing concern over the content removals to that article (concerns that were not being addressed). Then I noticed the same issue at the Glock talk page. At that time, I had no idea as to the extent of the issue (I only have 3 or 4 firearm articles on my watchlist) and when I started to look further, I also 'blinked in disbelief' when I saw just how many articles were affected and how much content was being arbitrarily removed, all quietly under the radar, and all by a single editor! An editor whom others have expressed neutrality concerns about in the past in regards to this topic. There are ≈ 50 articles affected (so far), why try address this on 50 article talk pages when we have a central project talk page to review this on, all at once? Now, something that is repeatedly and conveniently being overlooked is the immediate (and last) comment I posted after the "proposal" comment, where I wrote: the main goal here is to review the edits, not the editor. Further, as you noted, I suggested that as many editors as possible review these content removals, not just people that don't like K.e. or just me on my own. The more editors involved, the more neutral and transparent the process. Beyond that, the simple fact is I had no intention of taking part, because I wanted to avoid accusations of bias. But that said, the simple fact is if these edits were found to be in violation of the AE sanctions, any other editor could post a report about that here. I've seen where one editor has reminded another that an article has fallen under sanctions before, so just what is the issue here? How is this considered to be "personalizing"? How can this be construed as a "threat"? K.e. made the edits, I can't help that, and I didn't start the (multiple) discussions complaining about those edits. Lastly, as you well know, editors can't impose sanctions, bans, blocks etc., it's supposed to be uninvolved admins that do that. Editors can only file reports, and I haven't even done that. I was still listing out all the content removals when this report popped up, clearly to prevent those mass content removals that are causing such discontent from being reviewed. This is distraction, and it seems to be working. - theWOLFchild 00:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Pudeo Petty complaints about word choices that are far from actual personal attacks. K.e.coffman, you should go back to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Heckler & Koch_HK416#Recent_edit because five people disagreed with your removal of the "intricate detail". I really don't think just citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE gives you the mandate for this deletionist streak on gun articles because the policy's just against "unexplained statistics". People agreed WP:PROMO material should be removed, but self-published sources are allowed for non-controversial claims (WP:SPS). And you also removed important information such as the weight of the weapon from the infobox. If you really think that's "intricate detail" you should start a RfC to remove it from Template:Infobox weapon, not do it article by article. Also anyone is allowed to remove personal attacks per WP:RPA, but yeah, it tends to lead to a controversy if you do that because PAs can be ambiguous. --Pudeo (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Toddst1 I'm not at all a fan of wolfie, in fact I think in general he's a great example of how an editor should not behave. However, in reviewing this RFAR/E that I stumbled upon, I can't find anything that would be actionable as a violation of his sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I think TWC's response here speaks for itself and negates what I wrote above. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Dlthewave I would encourage folks to consider the context of point #1. Sure, we often see poor word choices during spirited discussions, but this is something different. TWC chose to start a new section in the midst of an ongoing discussion to complain about the fact that the discussion was taking place as well as the outcome of the RfC and the amount of "disruption" in this subject area. I tried to collapse the unproductive side conversation which ensued but TWC insisted on keeping it open. TWC was also among a group of editors who opposed efforts to rewrite the WP:GUNS style guide to comply with the outcome of an RfC. Their contributions to this discussion amount to nothing more than whining about the RfC and more allusions to disruption, with no real effort to move forward. I'll leave it to TWC to explain which instances of "disruption" they are referring to. This incivility has a chilling effect on the consensus building process and may well be discouraging editors from participating in gun politics-related discussions, an area which is in desperate need of additional neutral voices. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC) TWC's problematic behavior is not limited to gun politics. Over the past several months they've shown ownership at Federal Bureau of Investigation as well: In a talk page discussion (permalink to section) TWC advised a new user that if you're planning on making major/mass changes to an article, especially one as significant as this one, I would suggest that you first work them out in your sandbox, that way you're not filling up the page history as well as all the watchpages of those editors who have this page on their watchlist. Also, once you've written out all the changes you wish to make, you can propose them on the talk page. They repeated the demand on the user's talk page, leaving out the fact that editors are also welcome to edit the article directly without first proposing changes. This was all in response to a fairly small series of edits. More recently, TWC reverted an edit with the reason "perhaps propose this on talk as a more abbreviated version could be added to "controversy" section", again implying that changes need to be proposed first. In the ensuing discussion, TWC adds As it is, It's somewhat lengthy, the writing needs improvement and it should probably go to the "controversy" section (if it's to be re-added). I'm not necessarily against re-adding, but I haven't read through all the attached sources yet. I will do that shortly, and perhaps add some suggestions. But this is a high-profile, high traffic page, so I wouldn't be surprised if others have some comments and suggestions to add as well. Give it a day, there's no harm in that. Talk soon. This is essentially a demand that content be kept out of the article until it has been reviewed and approved by TWC and other unnamed editors. Of note is the fact that this seems to have convinced the other editor to drop the proposed edit and leave the discussion, even though no policy-based rationale for outright removal was provided. (I've since reopened this discussion, I didn't include recent developments here but folks are welcome to take a look at the ongoing conversation.) –dlthewave ☎ 17:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng This is getting a little silly. 1 - I was part of that RFC and it basically went the way I voted, but it certainly was a heated train wreck. I still feel back for Fish and karate on that mess of a RFC coming with the right close, but one no one would appreciate. 2 - Seeing as they have not seemed to follow K.e.coffman to any other articles hounding is a bit of a stretch. But the unilateral large scrubbing of over 33 articles did create issues and disruptions on several of those articles that everyone is still trying to workout. 3 - Has been covered above by Pudeo, but not sure why you took it upon yourself to insert yourself in that situation two days after it was done. Second revert should of just been left alone and done by someone else in my opinion. Finally everything in this part is over a month old at this point. 4 - It appears they were not part of the discussion there and reading it over two people in the discussion asked it to be closed. Posting a neutral request on the proper board does not seem like a violation of NeilN's request from the looks of it. 5 - Seems minor, though your response was not exactly helpful. Especially when you left that comment on their talk page right after they asked you not to post there anymore. The "shocked!" did not come off as serious in the context of the discussion. At this point seems like you two could use a break from one another. PackMecEng (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman You are right on the time stamp, I was mistaken sorry about that. In regards to my previous comments at AE you posted, kind of an ad hominem attack there but different situation in response to a more disruptive editor posting about me specifically. Not relevant or equal. PackMecEng (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @Geogene: you seem to have it a little backwards here. Several people that work on that project have already stated above that the disruption is K.e.coffman gutting parts of several gun related articles in a aparently POV manner and has issues collaborating with people of different views leading to WP:PUSH type of situations. As for intimidating the invader, which is an odd thing to say since it is K.e. that has repeatedly brought people here they disagree with. PackMecEng (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC) @Bishonen: Habbit would be the correct term here, in reference to bring in people they disagree with. A search through the archives shows that pretty well. Even being dragger here two previous times with no sanctions shows the hounding KEC is doing here with a chilling effect on other contributors. As to beyond the pale and disbelief blinking, those are good ones by the way, from what I can tell it was never posted at GUNS unless I am not seeing it. Though I will admit GUNS would of been a better place to fix all the issues caused by KEC than one of the disrupted articles talk pages. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Springee I've been reluctant to post here. Like Dlthewave and PackMecEng I've been active on some of the articles in question and typically I'm on the same side of the debate as TWC and PackMecEng (opposite K.e.coffman and Dlthewave). TWC is certainly not dry in their presentation. If K.e.coffman has any flaws they aren't terse comments directed at others. K.e.coffman is very calm even in disagreement but can also be politely pushy. Both editors are trying to make a better encyclopedia. That said, I don't see merit to this ARE. First point was disparaging an RfC. OK, well that RfC was a train wreck. See PackMecEng's comments above. The scrubbing of gun articles was something I've also noticed as well. I felt K.e.c was often too aggressive but in general I haven't wanted to get involved. I think they were doing it in good faith but too dogmatically and without thinking about what readers might find of value. Given the range of articles impacted, WP:Firearms (WP:guns) is the most obvious place to start a discussion regarding what sort of information is going to be of interest to readers etc. I reviewed the H&K HK416 cuts, Talk:Heckler & Koch_HK416#Recent_edit, and found that many were good (and credit to K.e.c for always leaving talk page comments noting the changes) but others were questionable. I argued that perhaps 1/4 of the material either shouldn't have been removed or could have been easily fixed (remove promotional language, keep the factual statements). If that was true across the other articles then yes, the content should be reviewed. In a reply above K.e.c noted that TWC isn't a WP:Firearms project member. Why would that matter? I'm not either but that didn't stop K.e.c from reproachfully suggesting my edits/comments in the area were unwelcome advocacy (twice if I recall). The collapsing of "off topic discussions", like the removal of personal attacks, is a dangerous game. I don't blame TWC for getting annoyed with some of that behavior. When editors who are participants on the talk page and on opposing sides of a contentious issue collapse one another's posts it certainly will come across as provocative. Dlthewave collapsed TWC's comments (from the original complaint [[17]]) and TWC likely, and not unreasonably, didn't appreciate it [[18]]. It would be different if an uninvolved admin had collapsed the comments. The worst thing I see in this whole list was the redacting of what TWC felt was a personal attack. I think that was a borderline case and it would have been better to let it go or ask an uninvolved editor to help. This seems like a lot to do about not much. Springee (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I have to agree with PackMecEng's comment here [[19]] which disagrees with Geogene's assessment. NeilN, I would request that involved editors should seek consensus before collapsing comments. K.e.c's complaint included the claim that reversing this collapse of TWC's comments was a violation of their edit restrictions. [[20]] I would see such a collapse of my comments as a provocation and uncivil. K.e.c. should not have restored the collapse after it was removed. Perhaps a clear option for dealing with such provocations would be helpful if TWC isn't allowed to reverse them directly. Springee (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC) dlthewave, while I can see your recent complaint about the FBI page do keep in mind that you went to that article and reverted TWC more or less out of the blue and without a really strong talk page justification. Not that you aren't allowed to make such a change and with your input the consensus just became 3:1 for the new material. But consider what you did. You inserted yourself into a discussion that wasn't overly heated or confrontational and made changes that are likely to increase tensions. BTW, I'm not saying that was your intent but we (and I'm sure this points at me too) should think about how others might view our edits, not just what our intent might be. I can see why, given your other editor interactions with TWC, they might be rather defensive about that. Springee (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein, NeilN, MastCell, Bishonen, Drmies, and Thryduulf: For what it's worth, I would like to suggest the 3 month appeal window. If this were a time limited block then I can see the logic in waiting 6 months rather than 3 (harder to just wait it out). However, since the topic ban indef what's the harm in allowing a 3 month vs 6 month appeal? If TWC gets things in order then the extra 3 months is no longer needed to protect Wikipedia and thus is nothing more than punishment. On the other hand, if they can't show things have improved then the topic block stays in place. Springee (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Waleswatcher I've had some recent interactions with TWC that were unpleasant and verging on uncivil, for instance this. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Geogene TWC's response here is bad enough by itself to suggest admin intervention. Not only do they not see any issue with their previous suggestion of setting up some kind of Project Firearms taskforce to spy on K.e.coffman's (K) edits in an organized manner, TWC took K's concern about that bizarre and aberrant suggestion as an admission of being guilty of...something (a pre-emptive strike....He clearly is not happy about the prospect of that occurring). Then TWC reveals an OWN mentality when they begin trying to insinuate doubt into whether K should be editing firearms articles at all due to a short tenure (But the facts are this: in the 6 months prior to Feb 14, K.e. didn't edit a single firearm-related article) and because K may not be editing with the motivations of a firearms enthusiast (Then the Stoneman shooting occurred, he was heavily involved in the editing of that article from the beginning, along with the mass-shootings in the U.S. article). TWC then makes a vexatious complaint about K being too prolific (since then (the past 3 months, Feb 14 - May 14), he has gone on a spree, removing and altering content to numerous (approx 50, perhaps more) firearm-related articles on a massive scale). And finally, he complains about K, in effect, not asking Project Firearms for permission to edit firearms articles: ( I don't feel a single editor should be changing the entire encyclopaedic presentation of firearms on WP, while at the same time, completely dismissing the Firearms Project, it's scope and it's members). K.e.coffman is now editing firearms articles, TWC sees this as an incursion on his longstanding territory, and is trying to intimidate the invader. This is unacceptable behavior from TWC; Admins should remove him from the conflict area. Geogene (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Drmies Preliminaries first: I've had some run-ins with The Wolfchild but I think we've been getting along better--at any rate my decreasing powers of memory make it hard for me to carry grudges. Anyway, I think I kind of like em; they remind me of good old Dennis, with whom I still have to have a beer. On the other hand, I've sided with Coffman a few times on content things, and I am aware of their habit of seeking arbitration resolutions, which kind of sucks cause that makes things complicated. Reading over the diffs and then reading over the comments, it is tempting to say that INDEED there are not the hugest, disruptivest matters--but then one overlooks the previous history, and that's the problem here. Wolfchild, I read your list of quotations, the words that you argue make this turn from report into personal attacks: the problem here is, sorry, that Coffman has a good point. These are things that you do. And I'll tell you what, it was a very minor thing that you just did that reminded me that there was a thread here--you just archived a bunch of stuff on that AR-15 style talk page, which is fine! absolutely fine--but it brought me back here, and yes, there is something to this clerking bit, the accusation that you are doing more than just housekeeping. I'll leave it to the admins (if any of em want to jump into the gun thing) to weigh the diffs presented by Coffman, but I do think they should look carefully at them, since I do think that on occasion you can be a bit...aggressive, maybe, in your out-of-article behavior. I'm trying to phrase this delicately; I'm sure I'm not succeeding. But I'm really with Geogene, above, with whom I just edit-conflicted. Your response here kind of proves the point, and there are other topic areas where there is less of an opportunity for things to get out of hand. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Bishonen, you're right--I guess it's my confirmation bias: I've looked at those two earlier requests (because I have had run-ins with the same editors, I think), and I look at very few others, so I extrapolated unjustifiably. My apologies to K.e.coffman. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Lklundin I agree with the criticisms formulated by user K.e.coffman. User Thewolfchild seems to have no understanding of what a collaborative effort is. The contributions of an editor is not measured simply in terms of their actual edits, but just as much in terms of how they affect other contributors that they interact with. With respect to the latter, user Thewolfchild uses basically every opportunity to demonstrate that they have no regard for how their actions may negatively impact other editors. Based on that, I support the request. Lklundin (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Since some contributions here may be out of general interest in the matter, I wanted to detail my specific interactions with Thewolfchild. In connection with this minor edit [21] I had apparently made an formatting error and had unfortunately not even understood that I had made an error. Since Thewolfchild's subsequent revert had an edit summary that was not very helpful I tried to understand what the problem was with this message to his talk page: [22]. This caused Thewolfchild to post this [23] on the talk page of the article itself, describing my contributions with words such as 'monkeying about' and 'ridiculous' using an overall condescending language, that as an example of abusive language is worth a read. I had by then seen and fixed my error and I took note of the importance of not making a mistake while contributing to Wikipedia. When I later went back and made more substantial contributions to the article, it did occur to me that the Thewolfchild's behaviour is something that could cause other editors to question their motivation for continuing their effort on Wikipedia. So when my Watchlist indicated that Thewolfchild's editing behaviour was a topic here, I felt I should contribute my experience. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Ｔｏｍ Hello, I hope I can write understandable, especially because I a absolutely not used to write in this areas of en:WP. For me it is quite clear, that here a case is just between two users. One of them has done his job in an area for a good while .. a second wants to enter and to be a new "primate". I would suggest to evaluate the working force which has been spend for this project. It is more or less ridiculous to push away authors which have done and do their job for the purpose of this project. HTH --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC) I'll try to explain more ... sorry for googletranslation: "If someone is new somewhere, you first see who has the most experience. This is a process as it is practiced in many areas of this company. New colleagues are always kindly welcomed. How it goes then lies in the positive contributions. For Karl-EE and D-David that was completely indifferent. They were not interested in content, nor to help [24] each other, but in structural changes, as D-David clearly[25] demonstrated. In the Ottoman Empire, the fratricide on the inauguration of a new sultan from the 15th to the 17th century was common. See Fratricide#Ottoman_Empire. We do not want something like that in this company. The complainant Karl-EE should be ashamed of what. Both (Karl-EE and D-David) did not remain without guilt. The constant pursuit of the work of Wolf and others had no other purpose than to keep them from the work and to fulfill the own mission of Karl-EE and D-David. This is like playing chess - whoever pulls first has the advantage. But that is not in the sense of this company. Complainant Karl-EE should be reminded. This is a colloborative project. I can say that I had no problems with Wolf. I can not understand why Wolf would have any restrictions." I hope that is not to weired. I just try to explain the situation. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by 72bikers Hello, I would like to point out the editor who started this discussion has been guilty of some very uncivil behavior and he himself has made personal attacks such as this [26]. So I would say it takes two to tango. The other editors who have come here who share his views (seem intent on removing obstacles to there views) and claimed inappropriate behavior, have themselves also have been uncivil at times and have engaged in harassment. Such as but not limited to making repeated unsubstantiated warnings, even after ask to not post on numerous talk pages because of this. -72bikers (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Thewolfchild This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'll await input from User:Thewolfchild. TWC, could you please comment here, or else indicate whether or not you intend to? Bishonen | talk 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC). It seems Thewolfchild can't help themselves. I'd block for a week. This shows poor judgment in determining what is a redactable personal attack and they were also told not to ask for closes. Since maintain or "clerk" any discussions still seems unclear to them despite my followups, I'd add "they must not touch other editors' comments for any reason on any talk page except their own". --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC) @Springee: Other editors can handle that with an appropriate edit summary at which point the discussion should not be re-collapsed without seeking the advice of an uninvolved admin. Also, if an editor feels there is a pattern of inappropriate collapses, bring that issue (with solid evidence) to AE. --NeilN talk to me 14:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC) I suppose TWC's question above, "How many reports has K.e. filed here now anyway?" was rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway: three reports AFAIK. This one in December 2017, which concerned American politics, nothing to do with gun control, and led to a warning, this report concerning you, TWC in March 2018, which also led to a warning; and now this ongoing report, which claims you have violated that warning. The reason I'm answering a rhetorical question is that I don't want it to become a meme, for lack of contradiction, that KEC comes "running here every time he doesn't like what someone posts on a sanctioned talk page", and because it worries me a little to see Drmies apparently buying into it ("I am aware of their habit of seeking arbitration resolutions, which kind of sucks" — their habit, really?). Anyway, I recommend admins to read the original report from March 2018, which contained some very strong admin statements, and ended in a strong warning, phrased and logged by NeilN. Note, as soon as the next day, NeilN warned TWC again for being too bold with talk page actions and "clerking", despite just having been warned against it.[27] What concerns me most, though, is the personalising of disputes. This recent post, on the talkpage of some model of carbine rifle, from an editor who was fairly recently warned "not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language ("comment on the content, not the contributor")", is so far beyond the pale it can't even see the pale. It's an article talkpage, but TWC nevertheless posts a proposal to list all articles KEC has removed content from at WT:GUNS (sic, the firearms wikiproject talkpage), to have as many editors as possible review "this activity" en masse, and then determine "what, if any, further actions or sanctions are required". All this at WT:GUNS! Of course that sort of thing is by no means what project pages, or article talkpages, are for. I blinked in some disbelief when I saw it. I propose a topic ban from gun and gun-control related pages (broadly construed) and discussions for TWC, to be appealed in the usual ways, but also specifically with a recommended appeal here in six months, which will be viewed favorably iff TWC is then able to show they've been editing in other areas without hounding or harassing other users. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC). The March 2018 AE report on Thewolfchild was closed with a series of warnings to Thewolfchild about his behavior. He seems to have set about systematically disregarding those warnings: "not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language": K.e.coffman's evidence, and Bishonen's comment above, show Thewolfchild doing exactly that. "not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions": Again, K.e.coffman's evidence shows Thewolfchild continuing to aggressively over-police talkpages (e.g. [28]). "to acknowledge consensus can change and having external events bring increased scrutiny and change to potential walled gardens of articles can be beneficial and should not be ridiculed": K.e. coffman presents evidence that Thewolfchild continued to resist and ridicule the impact of outside scrutiny (and the result of an RfC) on the walled garden of firearms articles ([29]). The previous AE thread also closed with a warning that "canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon". Yet here's Thewolfchild, suggesting that the Firearms WikiProject should conduct a targeted "review" of all of K.e.coffman's contributions in the topic area. As others have pointed out, this suggestion shows a profound misunderstanding of the role of WikiProjects and of our policies on article ownership and "hounding" other editors. (I'll give WikiProject members the benefit of the doubt and assume that they similarly recognized the inappropriateness of this suggestion and pushed back against it). Thewolfchild's comments here are similarly suffused with an inappropriate "ownership" mentality. In any case, at the previous AE request, I argued that Thewolfchild should be indefinitely topic-banned from firearms-related content. At the time, I was in the minority, and I accepted warnings as a suitable alternative. Everything I've seen in the interim has confirmed my initial impression: this is an editor who cannot comport himself productively in this topic area, and who is a net-negative in the effort to build encyclopedic coverage of firearms. His point-by-point flouting of the previous set of warnings is conclusive, and I would recommend an indefinite topic-ban from firearms-related articles, pages, and material, with an option to appeal once six months have elapsed. MastCell Talk 18:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC) I think that NeilN as issuer of the previous warning should decide what to do here. A block would be understandable. Sandstein 18:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC) My recommendation was implemented and we've ended up here. Time for another admin to take the lead, I think. --NeilN talk to me 18:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC) I agree with NeilN. There's no reason to make the issue "his" because he implemented the warning — on the contrary, if anything. I know this has been open for a while, but I suggest we wait for at least one or two more uninvolved admins to opine. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC). Something needs to be done here regarding TWC's actions, and there are two ways forward as I see it. The first is to give them a last chance, the second is to treat the warnings given last time they were here as their last chance and to sanction appropriately. I'm inclined towards the latter option as the evidence shows they have done almost the exact opposite in all cases, but a block feels punitive at this point so I suggest a time-limited topic ban (perhaps 3 months) from pages related to firearms (broadly interpreted), including but not limited to, articles, talk pages, project pages and drafts. I also think that the warnings should be converted into ongoing restrictions, specifcally TWC: Must not personalize disputes, use inflammatory language or make personal attacks. Must not mpede the formation of consensus, for example by being too bold with talk page actions. Specifically this means they not edit, collapse, refactor, reformat or remove any comments from any other user on any page other than their own user talk page (or its archives). The only exception is for obvious BLP violations. Must accept consensus can change and must not ridicule, disparage or resist discussions related to determining whether it has. Must not ridicule, disparage or resist increased scrutiny or wider input to discussions (or attempts to bring these) Must not engage in canvassing or otherwise attempt to manipulate consensus. Violation of these will result in topic bans, blocks and/or other sanctions as appropriate. These would apply across the whole project, but violations within the firearms topic area will be regarded as more serious and result in stronger sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC) I object to a time-limited topic ban, Thryduulf, because in my experience people often wait them out and then return to the area without having reconstructed their attitude any. If you think three months is suitable, I suggest instead an indefinite topic ban, to be appealed in three months at the earliest. (I know we can't stop people from appealing according to the usual rules, for instance tomorrow, but we can say it's unlikely to be viewed favorably before three months have passed.) I'd prefer six months, but I'll trim. Secondly, I also object to all the other restrictions you list, that are basically the old warnings refurbished; they're just too many; it's honestly too discouraging to have to edit under such a hailstorm of restrictions and restraints. I couldn't do it, and I also think it might invite, well, misuse by opponents. Instead, how about this? Thewolfchild is indefinitely topic banned from pages and discussions related to firearms, broadly construed. An appeal in no less than three months is likely to be viewed favourably provided they are then able to show their editing in other areas has avoided a) personalizing disputes, making personal attacks, ridiculing or disparaging other editors and b) impeding the formation of consensus, for example by being too bold with talk page actions, or canvassing. What do you say, @Sandstein, NeilN, and MastCell:? And @Drmies:, or do you count yourself as involved? Bishonen | talk 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC). @Bishonen: I would not oppose that (or six months if other prefer). Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC) I don't think that I have examined this case closely enough to be able to voice an opinion. Sandstein 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Bishonen, I don't consider myself involved but I think The Wolfchild does--I think they have a tendency, ahem, to personalize disputes, and the last thing we need is yet another censured editor who takes up our time and resources by arguing that blah blah etc. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC) @Bishonen: I think a three-month timer for an appeal would be fine (I see that Springee has requested this as well). I guess 3 months is no more or less arbitrary than 6 months; the main point of these timers is to prevent the inevitable instantaneous, vexatious appeal, and also to provide time for an editor to show an actual change in his or her behavior. That said, I do disagree, mildly, with your proposed wording in one regard: I would remove the language about an appeal being "likely to be viewed favorably". As I mentioned in the March 2018 AE request, this editor had already been given quite a few "last chances" (even before the March 2018 warnings), and in each case abused the leeway and the benefit of the doubt that he was given. If/when he appeals this sanction, the bar should be set quite high given his previous track record and multiple failed "last chances", so I'd prefer not to create a presumption in favor of lifting the topic ban. He has a lot to prove in terms of being able to edit productively in this topic area. MastCell Talk 18:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC) I was also struck by Springee's sensible comment about three vs six months, MastCell. I'm fine with three. Do you think you could phrase something that avoids the "likely to be viewed favorably"? Bishonen | talk 19:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC). I'd probably keep the first sentence of your proposal, and change the second to something like: "He may appeal in no less than 3 months." I think it should be clear to him by now what he needs to work on. MastCell Talk 20:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC) OK. I spelled out the conditions and so on in order to distinguish the "appeal in no less than three months" from the formal right all users sanctioned per DS have to appeal right away. But hopefully we can take that as implied. So "Thewolfchild is indefinitely topic banned from pages and discussions related to firearms, broadly construed. They may appeal the ban in no less than three months." Is everyone all right with that? If we don't hear any objections from uninvolved admins, I suggest either you or I (HINT HINT: you!) do the paperwork in about 24 hours, MastCell. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC). Three months before appeal sounds good. I would prefer the "likely to be viewed favorably" wording to be included as getting yourself banned/blocked hits home and triggers a change in behavior the way other sanctions often don't, but will not press the issue. --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz

Poeticbent (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland, for six months. Sandstein 05:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Icewhiz User who is submitting this request for enforcement Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Icewhiz (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:ARBEE, page level article restrictions - 1RR (ARBPIA) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 15:29, 14 May 2018 User Icewhiz in less than one hour (!) removed all mentions of notable historian Anna Poray from over 60 articles. This massive POVPUSH was closely connected with Icewhiz's bad-faith AfD nomination. Citation restored by me, was reverted by Icewhiz in less than two minutes. 15:37, 14 May 2018 Exactly as above. Citation restored by me, was reverted by Icewhiz in less than two minutes. Got the message (!) and decided NOT to continue restoring citations pending request for enforcement. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Date Explanation Date Explanation If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Additional comments by editor filing complaint See explanation by NeilN accompanying his editing restrictions imposed on 18 April 2018 (quote) Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users. Poeticbent talk 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC) My reply to comment by Sandstein (16 May 2018). This has been going on for months thereby causing me great distress. For Icewhiz, all Polish sources are mere "opinions of Polish nationalists". Icewhiz 10:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC): use of recent sources from within Poland in regards to the estimate is questionable. Icewhiz 07:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC): The opinions of Polish nationalists (and lest I be accused for singling out a nation - the same is true of Russian, Ukrainian, or American nationalists) are for the most part WP:UNDUE, out of WP:PROPORTION, and possibly WP:FRINGE in the scope of scholarly discourse on Holocaust history. Icewhiz 07:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC): As for including opinions of PhD holders - if we were to include the opinion of every PhD published on the web - that would be a very wide inclusion criteria. Nationalism, as a movement as a whole, is not fringe. A specific flavor of nationalism (in this case - Polish nationalism) - is a small minority... Icewhiz 14:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC): surely there is a better source than Ambasador RP w Szwajcarii (Ambassador to Switzerland) Icewhiz 11:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC): Institute of National Remembrance. That's not a peer reviewed publication or an academic publisher, but a government run organization. A better source, if available, preferably in English, would be an improvement. What followed was a series of disruptive edits in mainspace along the same lines, meant only to inflict pain. If it wasn't Icewhiz but someone else, I would immediately report this user as a WP:vandalism-only account which (at that point) it certainly was: Icewhiz 11:55, 25 April 2018 (-11,007)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ Quite a bit here is not sourced. The source in the lead is not a RS. Icewhiz 11:56, 25 April 2018 (-1,645) Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎References: not RS.) Icewhiz 11:57, 25 April 2018 (-268)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Bibliography: not RS) Icewhiz 11:59, 25 April 2018 (-933)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (remove non-RS.) Icewhiz 12:01, 25 April 2018 (-386)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Jews and the Church: not RS. Text left unmodified - other supporting ref.) Icewhiz 12:01, 25 April 2018 (-555)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Difficulties: not RS) Icewhiz 12:03, 25 April 2018 (-991)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Jews and the Church: Mislabelled authorship. Not a RS.) Icewhiz 12:04, 25 April 2018 (-561)‎ Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust ‎ (→‎Bibliography: not RS) I created that article with a lot of effort; and, I don't see how, with so many disruptive edits by Icewhiz within just several minutes, I could still pretend to continue to comment on content, not on the contributor anywhere in Wikipedia. However, it was just the beginning as I soon found out. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified, 6 May 2018. Discussion concerning Icewhiz 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 Icewhiz A number of comments: 1RR is not relevant. There is a page level restriction on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland‎, not on any page Poeticbent mentioned (some of which may not be under ARBEE - but most probably are). It seems this report was partially copy-pasted from a 1RR vio report I filed above. I was not notified of this AE filing by Poeticbent as required (the diff supplied [30] is a WP:POINTy BLP DS alert by Poeticbent - with text copy pasted from an alert I gave him after after he made this comment on a talk page, and given he made similar comments in the past (calling a work by a notable historian a "fabrication"). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray was made in good faith - despite the 45 WP:ILIKEIT votes that appeared in very short succession (from non-AfD regulars) after nomination. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (doesn't come close to meeting SIGCOV. BEFORE doesn't show much else. This was a librarian who in retirement ran a website http://www.savingjews.org/ which was also WP:SELFPUBLISHed as a book or e-book (publishing house listed as A. Poray), 7 refs in articles - 2 are by Poray herself, 2 are interviews on releasing the book (in sources that may not be RSes - however interviews do not establish notability regardless), 3 are obits). I have indeed removed references to WP:SPS - this is well grounded in policy. In most cases I left a cn needed tag (as I suspected the information was copied (possibly with overlaid editorial) from a primary RS initially - e.g. Yad Vashem). In some cases I suspect the subjects mentioned were possibly BLPs (e.g. the son/daughter of a WWII era person) - which I removed outright per SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Note that it seems that Poray, other than her self-published book, never published in a reliable source, so it doesn't seem she falls under (the use with caution exception) the Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (which doesn't apply to BLPs in any event). Regarding the Poray SPS I have engaged in discussion where reverted - see Talk:Żegota#Anna Poray - SPS. Also see PB's response - [31] (which contains personal attacks, addressing SPS with a very short and novel argument of "Anna Poray is not a WP:SPS publishing historian because she is deceased" (AFAIK self-published books do not become published on the death of their author)). The following 2 diffs are BLP violations by Poeticbent [32] and GizzyCatBella [33] (unless they have a RS for each of the 27 names showing they are dead - per WP:BDP we assume individuals less than 115 year old (birth year 1903) are alive.). GizzyCatBella has been inserting/resorting SPS content in a discretionary sanction area against policy - [34], [35], [36], [37]. including false information (see Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty and Talk:The Holocaust in Poland#"only occupied county with death penalty" for detailed refutation) from a questionable (Talk:The Holocaust in Poland#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source) author without discussing (I will note that I believe that a consensus has been reached with other editors to exclude) - repeatedly - [38][39][40][41][42]. (I will note I took this to RSN[43] - but it shouldn't have gone there - as there are no grounds for inclusion of information proven false, by a questionable author, in a self-published (iUniverse) setting). Note the IDHT given Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek (while editing as an IP for a month (self-admitted)) back in April following another attempt at using Kurek. Poeticbent has been inserting SPS content (over a very long period, however an exhaustive list of diffs will take time to compile) in several articles. He has been reverting removals (and for the most part not discussing constructively) - [44][45][46] (added when PB created the article),[47] (created by banned user Ecoleetage, Poray added by PB in 2008), [48]. I have been cleaning up poorly sourced and even outright fringe material (contrast Stawiski#Jewish community with the last version by Poeticbent whose actions have been commented on (not by myself - well before I started improving some of these articles), in the press outside of Wikipedia (this item does not mention Poeticbent by name, but if you follow the article history he is "On each occasion, the author of the Wikipedia Stawiski article immediately wiped out my edits") - I will note that this item makes the interesting observation that "Surprisingly, the Polish Wikipedia articles evidence greater willingness to admit Polish participation in massacres of Jews" (a pattern I have seen myself on many low traffic articles - I've been balancing some of the English Wikipedia articles using the Polish Wikipedia (tone and sourcing used there) - as the Polish Wikipedia is much less POVish, reflecting a diversity of Polish (and foreign) sources (as opposed to a very particular POV type of sources used in these enwiki articles)). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 23 (IIRC - created by Tymek, but heavily expanded by Poeticbent) are also instructive regarding the sort of content that has entered into the English Wikipedia in less visited topics. During these cleanup efforts, I have been personally attacked by Poeticbent several times. As an example, please see the following: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], in an edit summary - restoring SPS, [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. To sum up - removing a WP:SPS from articles, as mandated by policy, should not be attacked - definitely not on a personal level, and this is not a valid AE report (both in form (1RR, no notification) and in substance (removing a SPS is not a policy violation - to the contrary)). Despite the personal attacks, I have responded in a WP:CIVIL manner and on-topic (and I hope to the point, though I self-admit my writing may be winding) - addressing the content/sourcing dispute at hand, and not Poeticbent personally. Icewhiz (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @Masem: - my intention had been following an attempt at removing this clear SPS to proceed to the relevant talk pages and then to RSN if need be - following BRD. Many of these were added a long time ago when sourcing standards may have been laxer - it was not clear a-priori that removal would be challenged.Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @Masem: - regarding WP:FAIT - It is less than 60. I did not continue removing this SPS from other articles after being challenged by Poeticbent via reversion - I was not "apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed" while I was editing. I can revert all of my removals of this SPS in less than 15 minutes - this is much easier/faster than reviewing the articles and finding them in the first place - and I will do so myself if consensus is against this change (which I believe is well grounded in policy, this being self-published by an author not previously published in this field in a RS).Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I do however request that the following diffs with personal attacks by PB (a selection of item 9 above) be examined - [60][61][62][63][64][65][66].Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC) RE Piotrus - I did notify Poeticbent of the AfD. I want to note that the mass insertion of WP:QS authors self-published works (such as works by Ewa Kurek, Mark Paul, Anna Poray) is a serious WP:NPOV / WP:FRINGE issue. Take Poray for instance - Her self published work was present in some 50 Wikipedia article (in many of them - further reading or as reference that was not inline, much of this inserted by Poeticbent) - google scholar has her at 0 citations (scholar only accounting for academic use). Contrast this with Gross's Fear - 359 google scholar cites vs. 11 uses on Wikipedia (including articles on Gross and the book itself), or Neighbors 718 google scholar cites vs. 13 Wikipedia cites (4 of them being the book, Gross, a book award, and a list of books). Poeticbent has been inserting (and defending with great gusto) several of these WP:FRINGE WP:SPS works. At present, we have some articles that read like Alternate history - describing the Holocaust as a collaboration between Jews (Per Kurek they "had fun in the ghettos"[67] enjoying autonomy and self-governance under the Germans[68]) whose activities "'constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945" (see this diff - quote from Mark Paul - from NEIGHBOURS -On the Eve of the Holocaust,); Oddly (per Paul, Kurek, and Poray who have all written on the subject) the majority of Poles acted in a noble fashion and despite the Jewish persecution against them - acted in an organized and dis-organized effort to rescue Jews on a massive scale - although this was not recognized properly by Yad Vashem's righteous awards. (mainline historical writing, while extolling the few righteous, seeing rescuers as a persecuted minority (by Poles and Germans) - with Jews in Poland being killed at one of the highest rates (approaching 90%) in the Holocaust - the majority of survivors surviving outside of Poland - escaping (or being expelled to the gulags by the Soviets) to the east). This is the true disruption here - not only are these highly questionable authors, but more importantly - WP:FRINGE text from them is inserted into Wikipedia articles, in Wikipedia's voice and without balancing sources, in the first place - counter to WP:SPS / WP:BALASP / WP:FRINGE - attempts to rectify the situation are met with long discussions (with no policy legs), call for administrative action, and vehement personal attacks ([69][70][71][72][73][74][75]).Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Additional personal attack/WP:ASPERSIONS by Poeticbent - 15:33, 16 May 2018 - (selective quotation) you are being manipulated by a POV pusher with a deep bias against Polish people in general.... Dozens of Wikipedia articles about Poland are under attack by the same WP:TAG TEAM on the basis of a smear campaign by Israeli media. Instead of buying into this WP:GAME of casting aspersions .... It is a false claim made by notorious POV pushers. (it also describes Poray's work in a manner not congruent with Wikipedia policy or other RSes).Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: While the original circa 2008 additions by Poeticbent are not actionable, the multipe recent reverts by Poeticbent [76][77][78][79] [80] and GizzyCatBella [81], [82], [83], [84] - after they have been clearly challenged as WP:SPS (by a fringe author to boot - and USHMM incidentally collects everything holocauat related - also fringe /denialist) - are actionable as editors are supposed to adhere to core policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV in a sanctioned area. This is not a borderline source - this is a clear fringe, self published book, by a non expert who has not published in a RS on this topic. I will further note that the revert in the Zegota article violates BLP policy (both of them being alerted to) - assuming they did not verify that all 27 named individuals are dead - then they are assumed alive per BDP.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC) RE the diffs causing "great distress" above - the first 3 are to a page (talk and main) Poeticbent never edited (he did place a single oppose comment in the DYK nom). However, this page (talk and page) was edited heavily by GizzyCatBella at the time. This is quite interesting in regards to still open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella and the evidence therein, being possible additional evidence.Icewhiz (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC) RE Poeticbent: For Icewhiz, all Polish sources are mere "opinions of Polish nationalists". - this is a stmt easy to refute - as I've used Polish language sources (including nationalist ones - government in exile) for Aleksander Piotr Mohl e.g. [85][86][87][88][89], in Jan Grabowski (historian) (Polish language or Polish authors (in German and English)) - [90][91][92][93], or in Piotr Śmietański (where I removed text that was sourced to a blog which didn't actually make this claim, and then expanded the text there based on an article by two Polish historians) - [94][95]. These popped off the top of my head - but there are probably quite a few additional examples.Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC) RE Poeticbent : In regards to Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust diffs presented- this is an article (also after these removals, all the more prior to them) with serious V and NPOV problems, not reflecting mainline sources - in its present state, as a hagiography with dubious and false claims - it might be a net-negative for existence (the topic - is notable - and yes - there are some 6500+ recognized Polish rescuers of Jews). I removed self-published material from Mark Paul (a figure shrouded in mystery - little is known of him beyond his connection to KPK's good name committee - scant coverage of him, though his self-published writings have been referred to as an expression of the "ignoble ungrateful Jew" myth in a footnote in a RS - [96]) and Ewa Kurek (who is better known, but notorious - views described as outlandish ("Jews had fun in ghettos"), compared with David Irving, and described as a Holocaust Distorter [97][98][99][100]). Following adamant support for inclusion of this WP:SPS material (iUniverse in one case) by Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella - I took it to RSN - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul (which elicited comment also from a brand new account). However, I submit that supporting the inclusion of self-published material by authors described in RS as writing "myths" or engaging in "holocaust distortion" in an article about the holocaust - is a serious WP:NPOV and WP:V problem. While Poeticbent's authorship goes back a while, the support (discussion, reversion, and in other articles - addition) of Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella for these sources (Kurek, Paul) is current.Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella Please recognize that this is not the first time Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing that [101] The same happened to another historian Marek Chodakiewicz - 19 mass removals, some in the repetition of 2 minutes of each other. Attempts of discrediting and removal of other historians under false pretexts are constant and against the view of the majority of other editors.[102] That is not genuine effort to build Wikipedia on the part of Icewhiz; this is a massive POV pushing and violation of precepts. Once again, I urge the evaluating administrator to take a sound look at Icewhiz editing record on Polish history articles (please). This user should be topic banned in my honest belief.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by François Robere First of all, let me state the obvious: GizzyCatBella is everywhere. I haven't seen a single ANI case where she didn't appear to contribute some comment or another, invited or not. She may seem well-mannered, but make no mistake: It's WP:HOUNDING. The topic in question is subject to much abuse, not least by this editor. She adds questionable sources again and again - non-historian Leszek Pietrzak [103], borderline denialist Eva Kurek [104], self published Mark Paul [105], dated sources [106], political appointees [107], and even "light reading" books [108]; all the while questioning encyclopedias [109], respected scholars [110][111][112][113], the occasional paper of record [114] and other RS. This choice of sources seems to serve an agenda [115], and isn't helped by other editors' misconceptions of "what makes an RS" [116]. Problematic enough? It's happening in multiple articles at the same time. I submit that while Icewhiz's changes may have been swift, his judgment of sources is excellent and should be understood in the context of what I just described: recurring insertions of tendentious non-RS material to multiple articles at a time, with what appears to be an intent to sway an entire topic area towards a particular POV. Taken like this, Icewhiz's edits seem not only beneficial, but efficient. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Aside on conduct: I understand Icewhiz's outrage with Poeticbent's comments. The latter seems to have taken an interest in him and in myself, moving from derogatory comments that one admin characterized as "[reeking of] bad faith and shade" [117], to accusations of "gang attack on a woman" [118]. Needless to say this isn't acceptable. François Robere (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @My very best wishes: This seems to fall on whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. This would allow for eg. a published expert who also happens to write a blog, but not someone who only self-published. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @My very best wishes: Excuse me, but aren't our standards supposed to be higher then "her book is cited a number of times"? Especially in this topic area, where there's no shortage of good sources? And why should the removal of these sources be discussed, rather than their addition? If it's tendentious and poorly sourced, editors shouldn't add it to 50 articles simultaneously. Incidentally, it's the same editors who fought tooth and nail against having Gross, Grabowski, Bauer and other sources of impeccable scholarly reputation who are now pushing these sources every which way. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: A possible conduct problem could be the mass removal of those references What about mass additions? Would a pattern of using low-quality sources to justify contentious claims constitute a "conduct problem"? François Robere (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Comment by My very best wishes There is no policy that all references to self-published sources must be automatically removed. According to the policy, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The self-published book by this author has been cited in several other books [119] and sources. The author may or may not be notable, but still be an expert. Therefore, I think the removal would need a WP:Consensus in this case. It was done without consensus.My very best wishes (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @François Robere. Her book was cited by others a number of times. Does she qualify as an expert on the subject of Polish people helping Jews during German occupation? This is something debatable. So it needs to be discussed and decided. Blanket removal of references without an appropriate discussion and consensus, even after the objections were raised by another contributor, was grossly inappropriate, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Comment by Piotrus Mass removal of sources from dozens of articles in a controversial area should not be done without gaining consensus. I don't understand why there was no RSN discussion about her first, as would seem prudent. I doubt there is anything actionable here (AfD is hardly bad faith, it is totally fine to test the notability some topics through an occasional AfD), however I'd hope in the future Icehwiz will not mass remove sources (SPS or not) in controversial area without RSN discussion first (one, I will add, that should ping, if possible, editors who added said source in to the Wiki in the first place). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Comment Much as I may or may not sympathize with perhaps deleting the Anna Poray article (if this is the result of the AfD), I don't think wholesale deletion of 60 Anna Poray refs before her own article has been decided is the best approach, unless perhaps there is strong evidence all 60 refs were insidiously added to the Wiki by one single editor, or a coordinated simultaneous cabal of editors. Absent that, each deletion would have to be well justified by its own merits and for just cause. I am not a fan of eliminating refs willy nilly, and there is usually room to qualify WP:QS in the text or otherwise deprecating such arguments w/o memory holing them. XavierItzm (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by K.e.coffman I’m only tangentially involved in these disputes, but I’m sympathetic to Icewhiz’s position when it comes to obscure / WP:QS sources, having taken part in a number of RSN / TP discussions: RSN: Discussion (Paul; Kurek), as well as here: "only occupied county with death penalty”. In this AE, Anna Poray was referred as a “notable historian”, which is not really the case, when it comes to the definition of ‘historian’ as being “a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis”. The flowery language of “Poray-Wybranowska published a ground-breaking book entitled Those Who Risked Their Lives in 2007" is cited to the book itself. References Regarding the statement that this book is used in 60 Wikipedia articles – my general observation is that, with so much written about the Holocaust in Poland, better sources are surely available and there’s no need for non-peer-reviewed texts from WP:QS publishers. I’ve dealt with a situation in WW2 articles where many pages were citing the pulp writer Franz Kurowski; that’s not necessarily a sign of the reliability of an underlying source. In Poray's case, I would treat the book as a WP:QS source. There has to be a compelling reason to keep such sources in an article. And certainly not in situations when they are listed in "Further reading" or not used for citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Comment by E.M.Gregory I took a close look at Poray after noticing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray. She is certainly a WP:FRINGE, revisionist whose work is cited only by an ideologically extreme group of like-minded FRINGE historical revisionists, and by enthusiasts of this sort of invented, partisan history editing Wikipedia. It is damaging to the project to mislead our readers by supporting pages with sources/authors of this calibre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Comment by E-960 I find the constant push to use rhetoric as very detrimental to the overall discussion on the topic of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray, user E.M.Gregory continues to write that Poray is a WP:FRINGE scholar. But, let me ask you... would the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum list one of Poray's books if she was a FRINGE or REVISIONIST author?? Pls see here: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Collections Search - Polish Righteous, those who risked their lives by Anna Poray.. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Follow up comment. If you don't agree with Poray, that's fine, there are many notable scholars who over/under estimate things, but to just keep repeating that Poray is a WP:FRINGE author, is absolutely baseless. What is it about the Second World War or the Holocaust, that Poray got SO wrong to be completely discredited. --E-960 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Icewhiz This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'll just leave here the idea that the AfD mentioned seems to be populated with a number of people using CAPITAL LETTERS, as ... oddly, do some of the AE reports above this one. Examining the contrib history of some of said editors (not Poeticbent) may be interesting. Just an observation, like ... Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Waiting on icewhiz's response but the two examples above don't appear to be violations of 1RR since Icewhiz appears to have stopped after one revert. --regentspark (comment) 01:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I was going to recommend closing this with no action but Sandstein's comment below and Poeticbent's post on sources [120] gives me pause. It appears that Poeticbent doesn't understand what constitutes a reliable source and is then conflating this lack of understanding with the idea that Icewhiz is a biased editor. That's not a good combination. Perhaps a short, timed, topic ban might allow Poeticbent to edit in areas they are less passionate about and gain a better understanding of the how to of Wikipedia.--regentspark (comment) 12:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC) I would argue that mass removal of a specific named source or academic/historian/whatever of this size should have some type of broader discussion before the removal is acted along, along the lines of WP:FAIT (but same can be said about inserting such a yet-validated source/academic in a mass number of articles for the same reason). That itself in this case I can't say is actionable, but its the type of behavior that doesn't help avoid battlefield behavior in these topic areas. --Masem (t) 04:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Icewhiz, my only concern is that there's a balance between properly following BOLD/BRD to remove some SPS, and doing a mass wipe of them that would evoke issues related to FAIT. Even if the author's sources are all SPSs, the fact they were used across 60 some instances would have me check to see if it was a single editor that added them in the same time period (fully justifying a BRD removal), or if they have been used by many editors over a broad period of time and thus should be discussed better. SPSs are not automatically disqualified as RSes, but they should be reviewed carefully. As I said, on that aspect, there's nothing immediately actionable, but I do express the need for caution when doing such a large "change" even if one feels they are following BRD for that. --Masem (t) 06:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I do agree that per Icewhiz's diffs for Poeticbent and GizzyCatBella, reversion of removal of the sources that Icewhiz at least calls out as SPSs in the edit summary is problematic behavior in an area covered by an AE already. I'd definitely at least trout and caution both of them to restore/revert removal of sources that have been called out as a problem, and just a general call that when issues of a specific author or source are in question, it is generally better for cooperation/minimal disruption to seek consensus first. --Masem (t) 17:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Whether the work by Anna Poray should be used as a source, and for what, is a content issue which AE does not adjudicate. A possible conduct problem could be the mass removal of those references, but the request does not identify any conduct policy violated by this mass removal. The ArbCom principle in WP:FAIT applies only after the mass editor "is apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed", and it is not alleged here that the mass edits continued after such apprisal. Moreover, the removals seem to have been undertaken in good faith based on the opinion that the work is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia to cite (which I can prima facie understand, given that it is apparently self-published), and not with disruptive intent. I would therefore take no action here. Sandstein 14:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC) @François Robere: Mass edits (either removals or additions) can present conduct problems depending on the circumstances, but the hypothetical situation you describe is not before us and does not need to be decided here. Sandstein 17:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC) I've looked more closely at Icewhiz's counterallegations regarding Poeticbent. The charge of misusing SPS isn't something I'd act on, because it's close to a content dispute and it's not realistic to expect admins here to check the reliability of this number of sources; that would need an ArbCom case. But I think that Icewhiz's complaint regarding personal attacks by Poeticbent are actionable; one needs only to look at their most recent edit ("you are being manipulated by a POV pusher with a deep bias against Polish people in general") in addition to Icewhiz's examples to get the impression that this is somebody who operates in full WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. I think that a topic ban from the World War II history of Poland (the apparent topic of this set of disputes) would be appropriate here. Sandstein 20:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Discussion seems to have ceased. Unless admins object, I intend to close this by imposing the abovementioned topic ban against Poeticbent. Sandstein 07:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC) E-960, there are 275,377 items in that collection, and at any rate being in a library collection doesn't mean very much. Having read over all this I agree with Sandstein, Masem, and Regentspark. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher

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 Waleswatcher

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Waleswatcher (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/Gun_control :

Discretionary sanctions related to firearms articles. Link to DS warning on user page [[121]]

Talk pages showing DS notice Talk:AR-15_style_rifle

Talk:Colt_AR-15 - This page does not have a DS warning.

Relevant policies, guidelines wp:Disruptive editing, WP:consensus, in particular WP:NOCONSENSUS and wp:forumshop

With respect to disruptive editing,

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

And

4. Does not engage in consensus building:

a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

And

5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

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

Disruptive editing via failure to follow WP:BRD

1. Apr 5: The editor’s edits in the firearms space was a BRD failure involving a very significant reordering of the text of the AR-15 style rifle page [[122]] (Apr 5th). I restored the original order which was quickly reverted with a comment that I was the one who needed to get consensus to undo the bold change [[123]]
2. Apr 28: Next edit war use of “assault weapon” [[124]] (28 Apr) during active talk page discussion [[125]]. Re-reverting text to a non-consensus version while the talk page is active isn’t Bold, it’s WP:RECKLESS.
3. May 12: Active discussion regarding the article lead ["many"_in_lead] Editor makes wp:reckless change to lead (12 May)[[126]]. (18 May)I revert the change. Editor restores [[127]] Back and fourth (myself included) results in 3 day article lock. Talk page discussion still active. 34 hours after lock expires I restored the old stable text per WP:NOCON. Editor reverts claiming the article was stable for a week thus new consensus version.[[128]] Actually less than 6 days and the article was locked most of that time. WW's revert was reverted by another editor. ~2 days later WW restored their version claiming consensus based on an optimistic reading of consensus (20 May).[[129]] Most recently WW reverted an editor claiming another editor claimed consensus.

there is a consensus as per K.e.coffman above. It is you and other opposed editors that are being disruptive in preventing it from being implemented.[[130]]

1. May 12: Adds material to a subsection of the article (12 May, same morning as above BRD failure). [[131]]. I revert. Editor restores without going to talk page[[132]]. Finally goes to talk page [[133]] Finally informal survey starts [[134]]. Survey results in 10:10 non-consensus. Editor refuses to accept no consensus. Threatens to make nearly identical changes to article.[[135]]

By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC.[[136]]

Unless there are actual substantive objections (beyond "that's not the way I want it"), I will go ahead and do that as per WP:SYNC. [[137]]

There's nothing disruptive about that. It would be standard WP:BRD - except that I'm announcing what I'm intending to do (and why) in advance so it can be discussed, which makes it more careful (and less bold) than wiki standard. Now, do you care to comment on substance, or are you going to continue to be tendentious? [[138]]

The editor was cautioned by another editor who generally agreed with Waleswatcher’s editorial POV [[139]]. Acting anyway is WP:TEND

After 20 editors just weighed in on the discussion, editor suggests a new RfC to get their way.

OK, thanks. In that case I'll start an RfC or village pump discussion on this specific question: [[140]]

Anyway, when I get around to it I will take this to a larger audience at the village pump, so there's not much point in continuing to discuss it here now.[[141]]

1. May 16: Forumshoping. Against the advice of others an RfC at the Village Pump (not the article page) was created. It immediately closed down as wp:FORUMSHOP and being non-neutral (16 May).["AR-15_style_rifle"_of_the_article_"Colt_AR-15"_to_the_lead_of_its_parent_article], ["Should_the_section_Colt_AR-15#AR-15_style_rifle_be_a_copy_of_the_lead_of_AR-15_style_rifle"?]

1. May 14: WP:CIVIL Quoting, thus highlighting a swype error and then refusing to allow a simple correction.[[142]] This got admin attention [[143]]. I believe this would be a violation of both Direct Rudeness (d)belittling and by highlighting an erroneous Swype correction and other uncivil behaviors (e)quoting another editor out of context ... to malign them

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[144]])

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notification [[145]] Springee (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Waleswatcher

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 Dlthewave

Point #1 requires context to fully understand. It consists of moving the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section from near the bottom of the article to near the top.

18:06 4 April 2018 by Waleswatcher re-ordered sections to reflect importance, general interest, and the content of the lede

18:56 4 April 2018 by Springee Undid revision 834303022 by Waleswatcher (talk) please get consensus first.

20:25 4 April 2018 by Waleswatcher Undid revision 834308982 by Springee (talk) "Getting consensus" is not necessary for an edit on wikipedia. Rather, you should get consensus to undo. Please do not start an edit war. Use in crime and mass shootings is obviously more important than the modularity of the rifle, as is born out by the fact that one is discussed in the lede and the other not.)

Please get consensus first - I'm not sure how Waleswatcher was supposed to respond to or discuss this, as Springee didn't raise any objections to the content. Waleswatcher's reply (via edit summary) isn't exactly helpful either, but it certainly doesn't look like Springee was engaging in BRD. This looks more like an attempt to require a talk page proposal before making an edit. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude

I am involved here, and I am also the individual who suggested this venue in preference to AN/I. If you're wondering why the venue move, feel free to do a Ctrl+F search of Archive 983 of AN/I for any one of Waleswatcher, Springee or anybody who has posted a comment at Talk:AR-15 style rifle or Talk:Colt AR-15. There's been a spot of bother, you might notice. I'm also editorially involved over at those two articles ... or rather became involved recently ... because I looked at AN/I.

I'll post a comment here on my observations of Waleswatcher first. There's a couple of things that are obvious to me from them: a) they are a newbie and b) they are engaging in a crusade (whether this is a serious pet issue, or just the result of push back I don't know or care to comment). I have personally stayed out of the actual articles, so will comment only on things said on the talk page.

I'll assume that the newbie comment will confuse some given the ostensible ten years of having an account, so to start, please keep this comment in mind: In my defense, it's not as though wiki policies and guidelines and venues and RfCs and VPPs and ANIs are so easy to navigate.... It flies directly in the face of numerous other comments "educating" the other involved editors on policies and guidelines ranging from consensus to summary style, but it's rather apparently true.

Let me expound on an example:

By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC. Their defence of this was that SYNC cannot be ignored, but they later changed their defence to There's nothing disruptive about that. It would be standard WP:BRD - except that I'm announcing what I'm intending to do (and why) in advance so it can be discussed, which makes it more careful (and less bold) than wiki standard. In the next breath they suggested that I was being tendentious: Now, do you care to comment on substance, or are you going to continue to be tendentious? I highlight all of this to make a simple statement: these are poor readings, understandings, and intended applications of any of the policies cited and also of others not brought up.

I'm also going to point out that they don't understand involved editing, and don't really care to consider the opposition in any detail: e.g. this comment which is, I suggest rather generously, an inadequate summary of the opposition comments. Of course, that is caused by their demands to satisfy, which are both annoying, and non-collaborative. It also results in the erroneous belief that what is actually disruptive editing, is either standard BRD or proper editing etiquette. Indeed, that much can be surmised from dlthewave's third diff which is moving onus onto those who disagree (or dispute).

Waleswatcher has also received a softly worded warning from NeilN for forum shopping for a discussion they started at the village pump. Refer to this thread at Talk:Colt AR-15.

This is a bit jumbled and quickly put together, but it should cover many of the issues that have arisen from Waleswatchers' participation. I'm not going to advocate anything in particular, but will suggest that Waleswatcher needs their course corrected soon (ASAP). I haven't commented on anyone else's behaviour yet, though I might soon enough. There's a couple things that have given me pause, but nothing comparable to the above. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein would it suffice to point out that multi-party revert wars are a trend on AR-15 style rifle? Oshwah added admin protection to the article on May 13 to expire on May 16 after one set of edit-warring. A small edit-war broke out on May 18: First dispute Special:diff/841832337 and Special:diff/841835054, second dispute Special:diff/841843969, Special:diff/841856554 and Special:diff/841864230. Then the same dispute happened on May 20: Special:diff/842174926, Special:diff/842207275, Special:diff/842221331, Special:diff/842294023, and Special:diff/842364766. That's 10 reverts total, 8 of which are about one set of 938 bytes. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (slaterstven)

Both the filer and the accused have been up before ANI for various issues (in relation to this subject area), I am not sure either party is any more innocent then the other.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Waleswatcher

I have to object to Springee’s notification for this. Last night I saw the alert "you have new messages", but looking at my talk page I didn't see any change, so I discounted it. Looking at my talk page history I now see what happened - Springee deleted their previous comment on my talk page, which was a notification of another complaint that they opened and then closed later, and replaced it with this nearly identical new notice.

The only reason I found this at all is I thought it was odd I was messaged but there was nothing there. Had anyone else posted on my talk page around the same time, I might never have noticed. Rather than deleting content on someone else's talk page, why not leave the old notification, or at least add a note saying what they had done? It's just another example of how Springee interacts with me (and maybe others).

I'll respond at length later. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

---

General comment - in the ten years I have edited wikipedia I have only rarely been involved in contentious pages like these, and I freely admit that I am not very familiar with the dispute resolution process. I think it’s a problem that there is such a complex thicket of guidelines, policies, etc. The resulting wikilawyering creates a formidable barrier for entry and it makes it easy for editors experienced in these venues to force out editors they don’t like. This is probably the wrong venue to discuss that (indicative of the problem - I have no idea what the right venue is) but I thought it was worth mentioning as it’s fully in play in these articles.

Regarding the principles I'm accused of violating:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

In my experience this describes many editors on these gun-related pages. In particular, it describes Springee. A look at their history shows that they have been "editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors" - where “extended time” is several years in their case. This includes the deletion of reliable sources posted by me and other editors, for instance here, here, and here.

As for me, I’ve been editing these articles since last month. I do in fact hold the opinion that some of these articles should contain more information regarding mass shootings than they certainly do, and there is clearly opposition to that view. When I first started looking at them, I was puzzled by the lack of information in that regard. I'm far from the only one, even the international media has noticed this:

Also see this, where Springee is mentioned by name.

Next: 4. Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

I think it was my repeated requests for explanations that were disregarded, not the other way around. I tried to engage and find a compromise version but could hardly get any of the opposed editors to state what their objections were (in fairness, Springee was far from the worst in this). I do admit to feeling pretty frustrated by this attitude. Rather than discuss the content of my edits, their response was to revert because of lack of consensus, and then demand I achieve consensus before restoring the edit. But when trying to achieve consensus, most of the responses were complaints about BRD etc. rather than about the substance of the edit. As a result, every proposed edit devolved into a deadlock.

Added later: here's an example. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

See above. It seems to me I was the one requesting comments and being ignored.

I’m not going to respond to every specific point as this is already too long. I'll just make a few comments.

Regarding edit warring, note that Springee reverted AR-15 style rifle three times in 24 hours (06:28, May 12, 2018, 13:35, May 12, 2018, and 13:56, May 12, 2018). I am guilty of reverting twice that day. 72bikers brought an ANI complaint against me for those reverts, which was dismissed since it clearly didn't violate 3RR.

Regarding the forum shopping/VPP incident, I believed that the issue I (tried to) raise on VPP was sufficiently different that it merited a new discussion. The discussion on the talk page was regarding specific text I proposed to add to Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle, while on VPP the proposal was that that section be permanently WP:SYNCed to the lead of AR-15 style rifle, regardless of what was there or if it changed later. I thought (and still think) that would be a mechanism to help cut down on these disputes, since at least they could focus on AR-15 style rifle rather than both articles. I should have proposed that first, rather than proceeding as I did. I acknowledge I made a mess there, and I already apologized (and do so again now - I handled that incorrectly, sorry about that).

Regarding my “threats” to edit here: I said what I intended to do on the talk page (which was different from what we had been discussing, or at least I thought so - see above). I got a lot of opposition, I listened to it, and as a result I never made the edit.

Regarding the typo, Springee edited both their comment and my response. Editing my comment (and theirs after it was responded to) is a clear (if minor) violation of wiki's talk page guidelines WP:TPO (where it says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.", bold in the original). It annoyed me because I did not recognize that it was a typo when I responded (“clear lake of support” read as a rather poetic if non-standard phrase, and I was in a rush). Their edit changed the flavor of my response and I didn't like that, so I reverted. Their next edit showed as a revert of my revert, so I reverted that too and put a warning regarding WP:TPO on Springee's user page (by the way I don’t think this is a big deal; I'm responding only because Springee raised the issue). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

One other comment: I did reach out to two admins for help on this here and here. Neither responded - which is totally understandable for any number of reasons, I'm not blaming them, just pointing out that I asked for guidance in how to handle these disputes before it came to this. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Waleswatcher

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

• This is an underwhelming report. WP:BRD is not a community-adopted conduct policy or guideline and therefore, in my view, not something we can enforce here. The "lake"/"lack" issue is a minor matter that doesn't require arbitration enforcement. Unless this report is rewritten to indicate clearly which, if any, actual conduct guidelines or policies are violated, i wouldn't take action here. Sandstein 07:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Mr rnddude: Thanks for the diffs, but they don't help much in this request concerning Waleswatcher, because most of the edits in this edit war don't seem to be by Waleswatcher. Sandstein 05:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Unless an admin objects, I'll close this in 24 h as not actionable. That's not to say that there's no problematic editing going on here, but only that this thread does not contain actionable evidence of clear misconduct against specific editors. Sandstein 06:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice

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

Request concerning Factchecker atyourservice

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS:

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

1. May 22 IBAN violation.

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 May 2018 IBAN ban with BullRangifer.
2. 15 May 2018 31 hour block.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 3 May 2018 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [146]

Discussion concerning Factchecker atyourservice

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

Statement by Factchecker_atyourservice

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

Is he just saying I argued a lot?

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

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

1. Regarding the focus of my content arguments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have no control over other editors. That bit with the alleged plant in the Trump campaign is a separate issue and I have not been arguing about that. I mentioned a source only because Slater asked for one and there has been a troubling tendency by numerous editors to claim something comes from fringe sources without checking whether RS have talked about it. I am talking primarily about one issue with a smaller related issue: whether to talk about fact sourcing saying there is still no evidence of collusion—and to a lesser extent the question of whether it's OK to mention any RS commentary casting doubt on the collusion claims. These arguments go back to the beginning of April, wherein I noted with irony the extraordinarily weak / biased/ SPS sourcing used to justify an incredibly lengthy series of allegations and quotations from the dossier—such great sources as ["Paste: The Best Music, Movies, TV, Books, Games, Beer & More"], a sex-and-relationships editor for Cosmopolitan whose bio read "I’m a sex & relationships editor at Cosmopolitan.com. I’m not very serious. :)", a college intern writing for the UK edition of The Week during a 3-month stint at the magazine who is currently in her third year of college at BU. I also begged for better fact sourcing, without success. These discussion sections were "archived" by Bull in short order, frustrating the attempt to garner outside opinion. This strung-together daisy chain of weak and biased sourcing is used to justify 1500 words of what is essentially copy-paste from a primary source, so it's ironic to see such resistance to quoting one sentence from a multiple-reporter fact article from New York Times which is consistent with both repeated prior reports from the Times and reports from WaPo, BBC, LA Times, Reuters, NBC, etc., just as it was surprising to see so much resistance to my larger attempt to summarize fact and opinion on the subject. Anyway these are the only content issues I'm focused on.

2. Regarding the IBAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The IBAN was something that User:BullRangifer intentionally sought out to procure. Bull has some very peculiar attitudes towards editing Wikipedia: he sees himself as having a mission to maintain a blacklist of editors whom he must oppose for ideological reasons rather than discussing things with them. Specifically, he thinks Wikipedia is beset by "predominantly right-wing, paid political whitewashers" and that "the Koch brothers control many articles". He maintains Twitter and Facebook accounts, which I know about only because he has posted them on Wikipedia, which are rife with social activism hashtags that vaguely suggest marshalling of Wikipedia sources: "Reliable sources for #TheResistance; Join #TheResistance Promote #SocialJustice #SocialDemocracy Stop #PutinsPuppet @realDonaldTrump Luv @realDonaldTrump #PutinsPuppet; #TheResistance to #realDonaldTrump, #POTUS, #TrumpLeaks, #Putin, #PutinsPuppet, #StopPresidentBannon, #Treason, #Traitor, #Gaslighting, #MindControl, #TrumpLies, #ElectionFraud, #VoterSuppression" I, apparently, am on Bull's blacklist of users. He and User:SPECIFICO have a very specific tag-teaming strategy of using systematic dishonesty and abuse as a way of goading an editor into making angry comments that the user can then be blocked for. The strategy is outlined in this taunting comment by a sockpuppet that I believe was controlled by one of them: harass the person till they lash out, then seek a topic ban based on uncivil conduct. ("they just look the other way over and over until you're so frustrated you lash out then it's NPA! NPRA! Topic Ban! This user has a history yadda yadda. . . BTW congrats in advance on your topic ban. We're taking bets on who'll complain and who'll close.") Four days after I first posted at the Trump dossier article, Bull created an essay with the title (since changed) "A message for fringe political editors". The essay opened with the following: Wikipedia's Trump-related articles are often the subject of editing conflicts between editors who base their views and editing on reliable sources, and Trump followers and fringe editors whose ideas and editing are based on unreliable sources. This is largely due to the large amount of fake and distorted news these fringe editors imbibe. Hence such editors are on the fringe, and their views are generally rejected by the community. They are not allowed to create content based on fringe and unreliable sources. They also create a lot of disruption on talk pages because they engage in forbidden advocacy of these views and constantly criticize and oppose content which is based on reliable sources. They refuse to accept the consensus view. Some get away with a lot because they are civil POV pushers. It goes on, essentially, about delusional Infowars reading editors and the need to combat them, stuck in a "filtter bubble", consuming "fake news", fighting "a battle without good sources". This all perfectly encapsulates Bull's strategy for making discussion impossible: simply claim the person is referring to fringe sources: If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for fringe editors who push pro-Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories. Catch that little sleight of hand? What Bull is really saying is that if you disagree with something in the dossier article, as I had done just 4 days before the writing of this essay, then it's because you are a "fringe editor" pushing "conspiracy theories" based on "unreliable sources", thus earning the "disdain" of your betters. In any event—it was obvious enough that this essay was directed at me, but then when I posted about the same issue on Jimbo Wales talk page, Bull first responded that "Forum shopping this content dispute to Jimbo's page is not helpful. Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans", nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these Trump-Russia-investigation articles shows that we must be doing something right. While his words were directed at quackery and pseudoscience, they apply just as much to fringe political POV and conspiracy theories. Instead of allowing your thinking to be influenced by the Daily Caller, InfoWars, and Breitbart, get your information from RS. If the information they present becomes the subject of RS coverage, then, and only then, will we present it as sensible content, and not as fringe content with little mention". This was essentially a summary of his WP-space-linked essay, clearly and obviously claiming that I read those sources and I'm being influenced them. He then launched into an even lengthier diatribe against me, again on Jimbo's talk page, burying my completely legitimate question that did not have anything to do with fringe sources: This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Let's be clear about what's happening here. Those who object the most are editors who refuse to accept the RS-based conclusions that the Russians did interfere in the election, and that the Mueller investigation is a corrupt deep state plot to unseat Trump. To them it's all a nothingburger without evidence. To them, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Trump, and Putin are the only arbiters of "truth", and they use Wikipedia as their battlefield to fight for their "truth". Their efforts are literally an extension of Trump's real world battle against all forms of information and journalism which dares report anything negative against him. Wikipedia is not free from such efforts. They also believe that accusations against Russia and Trump are all a conspiracy theory concocted and sold by the mainstream media, which they consider fake news. They believe it's all a witch hunt against Trump and his campaign, not serious journalists doing their job, which includes documenting Trump's myriad self-inflicted wounds. They believe that the FBI, CIA, James Comey, and Robert Mueller are totally evil, corrupt, and engaged in a coup against Trump. This is the extreme right-wing view. These are the types of editors who object and obstruct the most on all our Trump-related articles. They are fringe political editors, many of whom should be topic banned. They operate with an ad hoc, policy-violating, "Trump Exemption" mentality, which means that anything negative about Trump, no matter how reliably sourced and notable, is fake news and must pass a much higher bar for inclusion than for any other public figure, politician, or president. This is the reality on these articles, and much of their argumentation is actually IDONTLIKEIT wikilawyering. It's rare that they actually make substantive attempts to present actual edit suggestions. They just complain....endlessly, and now it's spilled over to here. Mind you, there are a few Trump supporters who make serious attempts to edit collaboratively, but they are few, and they actually succeed in getting change because, rather than just complain, they use RS and follow policy. The intent of writing that essay and referring to it in order to shut down my question to Jimbo was unmistakeably to make a personal attack against me and discredit my question. In fact, Bull has even updated it to speak of the need to topic ban these people who "cite fringe sources" ("But between you and me we all know they're not really citing fringe sources, haha!") Yes, the latest revision of this little missive speaks of editors who "can't vet sources and know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources in real life" and says such miscreants are "unfit to edit American political subjects" Moving along, after I subsequently brought a bunch of fact sourcing and POV commentary for discussion, Bull and SPECIFICO took their displeasure to usertalk, where they continued with oblique snipes. That fact they kept up this canard of being beset by fringe sources—even in the face of a wall of top fact sourcing—yet still kept up with the insults, was what drove me to respond, and that's how I wound up with the IBAN. Then my block "related" to this TBAN actually arose out of my defending another user against PAs of a similar nature. SPECIFICO, later, engaged in a bizarre and maddening form of harassment which I detailed at his previous AE case here (have to expand the case section before the #deep link will work). Bull to this day protests his innocence and lack of any intent to provoke me ("I have been very careful to not engage with him or mention him"), notwithstanding the fact that he argues with me at the dossier page and then threatens me based on the TBAN when I reply. Sure, I guess maybe he has no intent to provoke. But the other day when we engaged in back-and-forth about the tban in the context of the AN discussion, and the discussion was then closed without action, his very next edit was to an article about one of the human sh**-sphincters, which just happened to have been "vandalized" by an IP. Bull showed up less than an hour later to fix this for totally innocent reasons, , then ... nothing more for 12 hours. So, was Bull diligently guarding against a recurrence of the previous incident of vandalism 7 years ago at that article ("i hate biology"), swooping in with lightning alacrity to fix "vandalism" just minutes before, or was he obliquely calling me an asshole hoping to provoke the Nth "iban violation" so he could demand sanctions again, since the AN filing had just been closed?

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

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

Statement by power~enwiki

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

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

Statement by (slatersteven)

Firstly it is hard to provide diffs of everything as there are about three or four places where the same issue is being hashed over by him. Also many of the threads are very long and convoluted, with random changes of emphasis (not to be fair by him, all the time). (in fact it may be even more [147], 2 months this has been going on for). I have no idea when they first raised this issue. [148], second (somewhat modified) but still the same matter raised. [149] third time (slightly re-worded and throwing in other issues as well). Note all three are running at once.

Then we have PA's and commenting on other users [150], not "Here is what I disagree with", not a PA but hardly constructive [151] followed by this edit summery [152]. [153]. I Will leave it to others (for now) to provide diffs for any other offenses, this has taken enough time to dig this lot out. As I said, two moths and hundreds of posts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Netoholic

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

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

Statement by JFG

I am moderately involved at Trump–Russia dossier, but was on wikibreak while most of the drama unfolded. This article has been a "work of love" by BullRangifer, who set out a few months ago to document every allegation and reaction in excruciating detail. His previous attempt at creating a standalone article List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations (created on 22 January 2018) was eventually merged back to Trump–Russia dossier on 2 March (see merge discussion). Since then, the dossier article has grown to encompass a lot of extraneous information, close to being an indictment of Trump, his campaign and cited people in wikivoice. My main contributions to the article consisted of trimming down the list of allegations into manageable paraphrase, in order to avoid copyvios.[154] When Factchecker came onto the scene, he tried to insert some mitigating information showing the other side of the coin (namely, that no collusion was found yet), and was repeatedly antagonized by BullRangifer and other editors. The "cage match" between BR and FC eventually led to the IBAN by NeilN. Given that BR is the main contributor and "defender" of the dossier article, this IBAN actually prevented FC from discussing content there (as he could not reply to BR without violating the IBAN), so that the IBAN in effect amounted to a TBAN on this subject. (IBAN did not apply to article talk pages, so my inference here was invalid.)

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

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

Statement by SPECIFICO

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

I was pinged here to this diff [155]] in which, under the heading "IBAN...", Factchecker makes a disparaging and false accusation to me that's either WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence or some other category of WP:NPA relating to me and an apparent sockpuppet or SPA. I hadn't planned to comment further in this complaint, but I'd be very disappointed if Admins did not sanction for that kind of behavior under their noses. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Statement by Galobtter

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

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

Statement by Atsme

I am dismayed to see that Casprings filed this case but not surprised - he opposed the material Factchecker proposed. He first tried to eliminate his opposition over at AN. My apologies if I've misunderstood, but I'm hard pressed to see it any other way based on what I've seen unfold at the Trump articles. We are dealing with a highly controversial topic; one that has created division, not just on WP, but around the world. We have editors editing Trump articles who have proudly displayed their political affiliations and animosity toward Trump on their user pages, all the while denying partisanship or bias when editing. Having been in the foxhole deflecting direct fire in the form of condescension and derogatory comments that totally misrepresent things I've said, I am not convinced that some editors are able to leave their biases at login, so yes, I sympathize with Factchecker, although he does tend to be far more verbose than I. To the admins who have to deal with this time sink, I extend my utmost respect because you damn well deserve it - but please don't expect me to name names of editors I believe are disruptive in this case^{clarify 04:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)} because I've reached the point where it's best to just stop arguing and let them be wrong, especially when things are going nowhere fast. We are all forced to work under DS with very tight restrictions - we all know consensus is needed when material is challenged and we have also learned that any material attempting to bring proper WEIGHT & BALANCE to any of the anti-Trump coatracks will be challenged. Ironically, any editor who does their best to work within the DS restrictions in order to present a common sense proposal citing diffs to high quality sources as what Factchecker has done will be challenged, and either obliquely goaded or outright bludgeoned and denigrated by the opposition. It has become the norm and if admins would reflect back on all the editors who have been brought here because of DS vios, it's pretty obvious who is and isn't gaming the system. The opposition simply doesn't want opposition, and that is what this case is truly about - it has little to nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with content, and that's why admins are not seeing any diffs to support the complaints. Just read the comments in the following 2 sections and you'll see what Factchecker and other editors who are trying to get the article right are having to deal with on a regular basis:

• Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier#Latest_New_York_Times_report_confirming_"no_public_evidence" <--- the proposal that spawned the AN filing and now this AE;
• Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier#Lead_sentence:_There_is_"a_great_deal_of_public_evidence_of_ties_between_the_Trump_campaign_and_Russian_actors."_based_on_Jan._2017_article, which is a continuation because of all the stonewalling and fallacious arguments to refuse inclusion.

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

• GoldenRing - before you propose a TBan for me, you need to provide some diffs that warrant such an action. I am truly disheartened that you would even suggest it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Masem - I tried to avoid doing this, but the way the discussions are progressing below, I feel obligated to do so. I'll start by saying I made a total of 10 edits to Trump-Russia dossier, and 251 edits (some being tweaks & fixes to my initial comments) in Nov 2017, Jan & Feb 2018, and April 2018 to the TP mostly because of the constant challenges and DS restrictions, and having to spend more time on the article TP avoiding/defending bludgeoning, PAs and misinformation, not to mention participation in numerous local consensus discussions and RfCs. To say editors are bludgeoning when trying to reach a consensus for inclusion against WP:OWN behavior and STONEWALLING is just plain ludicrous. I'll provide diffs to demonstrate what typically occurs in a call for consensus over a simple sentence or two:

My iVote to the proposed material by Factchecker

BR's response to the reasons I gave

My response to the wrongful claim that was made against me.

Muboshgu's response to my suggestion to delete/merge

BR's PA against me using a TP discussion he took completely out of context, editing out my comments to fit his agenda to denigrate me;

Speaking to no publicly known evidence

O3000's umpteenth misrepresentation

Muboshgu's Wikilawyering comment

My response that I would not take the bait.

Keep in mind that the above goading came about because I supported inclusion of well-sourced material. It pretty much represents my routine involvement with Trump-related articles since very few edits I've suggested ever make it into the articles - I just give up and go edit other things - and if you think that's fair and a reason to TB me, then WP has a serious problem. I typically don't even respond to PAs and false accusations, and there are many. If admins truly believe that my behavior is deserving of a TB, then all I can say is that I have much better things to do with my time, and don't need to be editing any WP articles anymore. You can just strip me of all my user rights and I'll wish you all "happy editing" because this is the most ludicrous charge against me, yet. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• RegentsPark - you are suggesting a TB based on some enabling of that on the part of Atsme Why do you think I have any influence at all to "enable" anyone and why is that worthy of a TB? When did attempts to defuse disruption and make suggestions become an offense worthy of a topic ban? If you believe that my few comments in that lengthy discussion justify a TB, then you might as well include my "enabling" of SPECIFICO, and BullRangifer, not just Factchecker. As for your confusion over my statement, you should have asked me to explain if you didn't understand it, and I would have been happy to oblige. Perhaps it was one of those you had to be there situations, I don't know - but in short, it simply pointed out the irony in their reasons for denying Factchecker's proposed NYTimes material. IOW, they denied inclusion of "there's no evidence" while at the same time they created an entire article based on unsubstantiated, no evidence claims that comprise the bulk of the dossier. In summary, your suggestion to TB me is based on my attempts to defuse a situation by following the rules of DS consensus only, participating with civility in some of the discussion by responding to questions, avoiding any response to the goading and PAs that were made against me, and for making a simple suggestion for editors to allow Factchecker to present a proposal after that root canal of a discussion we all had to endure. I do hope you will reconsider your position because it certainly comes across as a punitive suggestion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

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

Statement by Objective3000

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

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

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I am almost completely uninvolved with Talk:Trump-Russia dossier and other articles about Trump, so I'd like to focus on Factchecker's behavior in the WP:AN discussion which it generated [156], especially the sub-section proposing sanctions, which I started. [157]. The proposal section was closed by Guy with the recommendation for the issue to move here. Since diffs are preferred, I will do my best to provide them, in chronological order.

• Factchecker claims that my participation in the thread was based on my still being "mad" about a past dispute we had [158]
• They repeat this aspersion, saying "you are just mad at me over some stupid content disputes from years ago and are taking this opportunity to seek sanctions against me" [159]
• Factchecker claims that another editor has "Very poor reading ability" [160]
• Factchecker demands that another editor "Justify your vote or strike it please." [161]
• Factchecker calls the proposal for sanctions an "attempt for revenge" on my part.[162] and then says that I am "A sniper with a grudge" [163]
• Factchecker says to another editor "You're flat-out lying in order to manufacture "evidence" to get me blocked." (emphasis in original) [164]. He then doubles down on the statement. [165]
• Factchecker says that another editor's description of events is "not...honest". [166]
• Factchecker says of me that I have "repeatedly surfaced in discussions to recommend I be blocked". [167]. When challenged to provide diffs backing up this aspersion, he refuses to do so unless I specifically deny that his claim is true, [168] the exact opposite of requirements, which is that an editor casting aspersion needs to provide evidence. (See WP:Casting aspersions)
• When Factchecker does provide "evidence", it is of a single incident 3 years ago. [169] I had already acknowledged that we had had a dispute in the past. [170] Factchecker never provides evidence of my "repeatedly" appearing to call for sanctions against him.
• Factchecker responds to another editor's comment with "Have you stumbled into the wrong discussion? Looking for another user, perhaps? Not paying attention to what is going on?" [171]
• Factchecker responds to BullRangifer -- with whom they have an IBan -- that BR's comment is "transparently false". [172] This long comment from Factchecker is a clear violation of their IBan. (see WP:Banning policy, especially "Exceptions to limited bans")

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

• personal attacks
• near-personal attacks, and
• casting aspersions without providing evidence.

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

I'd like to make it clear that my proposed sanction on Factchecker in the AN thread was a topic ban on Donald Trump, broadly construed,nothing more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have struck out the parts about violating the IBan with BullRangifer. I had mistakenly thought it was a standard IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the IBan imposed on Factchecker by NeilN, as BullRangifer comments on my talk page, the way it is structured seems to give Factchecker too much leeway to game the intent of it. I think that a normal one-way IBan would be preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Factchecker really going to be given the freedom to continue to lash out at other editors and re-litigate the IBan that NeiLN imposed on him? His latest comments are an example of howhe uses BATTLEGROUND tactics to try and get his way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lionelt

Two issues have been submitted for consideration:

1. IBAN violation with BullRangifer

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

2. BATTLEGROUND at Trump-Russia Dossier

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

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

Statement by BullRangifer

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

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

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

The history of the essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of the essay, with diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My essay started on March 13, 2018 as a comment in response to AmYisroelChai: 20:22, March 13, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+659)‎ . . User talk:AmYisroelChai If my essay was inspired and directed at anyone, it was AmYisroelChai. It grew from there. I used it as the start of the essay on my talk page on March 13, 21:47 21:47, March 13, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+719)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎Message for fringe political editors: new section) It was one short paragraph for some time. Then I mentioned it in replying to such an editor, and even more which became part of the essay was written there: 20:50, March 17, 2018diffhist. .(+2,721). .User talk:PZP-003 PZP-003 inspired me to develop what later become my essay: 22:06, March 17, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+387)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (develop) I then added a lot more to the essay: 02:30, March 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,467)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (develop) PZP-003 created more problems, so I left another comment and referred them to the essay because it contained advice for them: 23:39, March 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+898)‎ . . User talk:PZP-003 ‎ (→‎Discretionary Sanctions block: reply) I once again referred them to the essay. After editing the Fake news article, I used some of that content on my talk page: 06:29, April 1, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+4,769)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎Trump, his supporters, and fake news: new section) A few minutes later that content became part of the essay. 06:36, April 1, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+4,830)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎A message for fringe political editors: A message for fringe political editors about Trump, his supporters, and fake news) FCAYS first arrived on the scene at the Trump-Russia dossier article on April 4, my first, and very unpleasant, encounter with him began at this time period. 16:33, April 4, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+3,214)‎ . . Talk:Trump–Russia dossier ‎ (→‎Sourcing and POV problems: new section) The essay had been in existence for about three weeks by this time. I had never had any interactions with Factchecker before this time, AFAICT. On April 8 I copied/moved my essay to its own subpage. It had been created some time before. 15:59, April 8, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+9,275)‎ . . N User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources ‎ (start essay) FCAYS has repeatedly claimed I "created" the essay on this date.' NOT TRUE. On May 21, at AN/I, he made several more comments and repeated that false claim: "... just 4 days later you wrote up this essay blistering essay declaring "If your personal ..." A glass house built on a bad faith foundation... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Parsing the one-way iBan.

The iBan reads:

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

Atsme has commented on it:

Please keep in mind that Factchecker's iBan (my bold underline for emphasis) does not include article talk pages or threads on admin boards or admin talk pages where BullRangifer's edits or behavior are specifically being discussed. I'm not seeing anything that indicates he violated the iBan despite the accusations. Atsme📞📧 13:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[173]

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

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

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

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

This was my immediate reaction:

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

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

Result concerning Factchecker atyourservice

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

• Maybe I'm just lazy, but I do need diffs to evaluate. I'm not reading pages and pages of discussions. Other admins may see this differently. Sandstein 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I agree with NeilN below that no AE actions should be made based on an admin's opinion about whether the article is too long or not; that is definitively a content issue outside the scope of AE. Sandstein 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Based on Slatersteven's diffs ("Are you nuts?" etc.), there does seem to be at least a prima facie case for sanctions against Factchecker atyourservice for battleground-like conduct, but I'd prefer more diffs to be able to determine whether this is a longterm pattern of conduct. As to the other editors mentioned by GoldenRing below, I have no opinion because of a lack of diffs. Sandstein 14:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree, though, with Masem and RegentsPark below that we have a violation of the (unusually worded) interaction ban, which merits a block. Sandstein 15:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've read most of Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. I agree that Factchecker atyourservice has been a bludgeoning influence on this page and also a couple of other threads I've seen around. I'd suggest that they take at least six months off AP2 (ie a tban).
  The IBAN between Factchecker atyourservice and BullRangifer seems to me overly complicated and I'd like to hear NeilN's reasons for not just imposing a normal IBAN, either one-way or two-way. At this point, I'd like to consider converting it to a normal two-way IBAN.
  I agree with power~enwiki that some others could use a break from the Trump-Russia dossier, though I'm less convinced a wider ban is warranted in these cases; I'm thinking of BullRangifer, Slatersteven, Atsme, and SPECIFICO, who I think have all been unnecessarily combative on that talk page (though I realise that most of SPECIFICO's involvement has been reviewed here already) and also Phmoreno, who seems to consider the talk page a forum for spreading rumours. Topic bans for at least this article, and possibly anything related to Donald Trump, seem to be in order.
  I think that indefinite full protection of the article, as half-suggested by power~enwiki, is also a tempting possibility worth considering, but the problem is, protected in what state? As it stands, it's 19,000 words which probably ought to be cut down to a few paragraphs (seriously, the article has considerably more detail on some of the people involved than their own biography articles do), but I can't quite see how the process of doing that would work without admins basically dictating the content (not somewhere I want to go). WP:TNT is another possibility, though it would have to be done in concert with the topic bans discussed above to prevent the same train wreck happening again. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: As the main accusation in the complaint one of the main problems is bludgeoning, I can see the difficulty in presenting it in a few diffs. GoldenRing (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've also dropped short notifications of this discussion to the editors I've named above. GoldenRing (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Casprings: I think you pinged the wrong person. GoldenRing (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: It's not particularly complicated. The two editors can still interact on talk pages but Factchecker atyourservice was constantly complaining about, pinging, and posting on BullRangifer's talk page despite being told not to. If they want BullRangifer's sanctioned then they need to bring it to an appropriate venue. Also, given you have expressed an opinion on content strongly favoring one side ("it's 19,000 words which probably ought to be cut down to a few paragraphs", "WP:TNT is another possibility") I would ask that you not take any AE actions with respect to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: My point re the IBAN is that their interactions, at least on that page, are still not great, and I'm not convinced it's one-sided. But you're obviously much more familiar with the situation; do you think a two-way IBAN would be a bad thing?
  My point re the article itself is that the coverage therein seems to me to be such an obvious violation of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and so thoroughly unencyclopaedic that any action that preserves the status quo would be counter-productive; I don't see that as a content opinion but as a policy opinion. That said, I'm not about to wade in here and act without trying to build some sort of consensus for the action. GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: I have no objection if you make it a two-way IBAN outside of article/article talk space. I would strongly object if admins try to dictate content. If admin AE action is necessary, ask the sides to prepare two versions, hold a community RFC as to which version best meets policies and guidelines, and be done with it. The consensus required provision should be able to control the future direction of the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have several other thoughts on the larger problem, which, as suggested above, are better suited for a very likely AP3 case as it involves many more editors and larger selection of articles (or as NeilN and GoldenRing speak above, an admin-enforced solution). If we limit it just to FCAYS, while many of the talk page diffs are questionable, and I've seen a lot worse language used by others that have failed to merit any type of enforcement remedy, so it's hard to work on that. There's clearly WP:TE from FCAYS happening, and barring any AE action taken here, I would strongly recommend a voluntary break from the topic area, and work on other non-AP2-related topics (I speak to experience on this in relationship to GG). But we do have a clear IBAN violation that was placed in the AP2 topic area, and this warrants a short term (3-6 month) TBAN from the AP2 area simply to get them away from any likely interaction with BullRangifer, which would equivalently help with the TE aspects. --Masem (t) 14:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: There is absolutely a larger issue here, with many more editors than just FCAYS involved. But AE is absolutely the wrong scope for trying to address this unless we are going to take a very harsh approach and block every editor with more than X edits on Trump-related pages, or do a WP:TNT on these pages. (Neither solution I recommend). I feel we should focus this AE only on FCAYS here, and the only behavior that sticks out as a problem that we can fairly address is the IBAN, which was clearly violated. --Masem (t) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• This is about as confusing as it gets and, like Sandstein says, it would be nice to see more diffs and fewer links to long discussions. But, cutting to the chaff, there does appear to a clear violation of NeilN's iban on FactChecker and that needs to be addressed. On the broader issue I'm not in favor of handing tbans all around unless it is clear that there are behavioral issues on all sides and, to me, that is not evident. Rather, it looks like we have aggressive editing on the part of FactChecker and some enabling of that on the part of Atsme (the discussion here is a good example of that. It starts with a specific question (collusion), meanders all over the place as more issues are added (democratic spies, etc.), before, when slatersteven asks "what is the content I should be sticking to" we move back to the original question, with Atsme, rather bafflingly given the context, calling for factchecker to be allowed to write a due & balanced (in unfortunate uppercase) npov version. I don't know the background enough to know whether this is pervasive across other discussions but it doesn't seem to me that across the board tbans is the appropriate response. I'll defer to NeilN as to whether topic bans for Factchecker and perhaps Atsme are needed. --regentspark (comment) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Atsme: Unfortunately, your defense for FCAYS in the ANI thread added by BMK ([174]) does mean that you've taken ownership of some of FCAYS's behavior so some of what, if anything, comes down the pike for FCAYS will affect you as well. I have a limited perspective on this and my take is that some action is necessary for the iban violation, some sort of tban may be necessary, and an across the board tban is not a good idea unless evidence of broad misconduct in the Trump area is forthcoming. Perhaps the simplest way forward is to topic ban FCAYS and leave it at that but I'm hoping someone else can figure out what is appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 19:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS, specifically Discretionary sanctions guidelines involving decorum and expectation to follow guidelines such as WP:HOUNDING, WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:ASPERSIONS :

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

• 16:14 21 May - tag-team, snap-revert within 5 minutes, reverting my revert of a WP:BOLD removal of a well-cited section, with no intervening discussion on his part.
  • 16:17 post-revert reply to my talk page post.
• 20:49 22 May - "copy edit" which substantially alters/revert the lead, an edit made shortly after I made a reply to someone else on the talk page about a compromise change to the lead at 20:26.

• 19:02, 19:04, 19:37, 21:45, 21:46, 22:45 21 May, 03:10, 03:13, 18:35, 19:50, 20:08, 20:21 - Various replies directed at me to demonstrate (WP:HOUNDING/WP:BLUDGEONING)

• 00:37 20 May, 20:10 22 May, 20:59 22 May WP:ASPERSIONS that I reverted his page move

• 03:49 20 May, 21:07 22 May - Diffs from me informing SPECIFICO that I did not move the page
• 07:59 12 May - Diff of the actual page move by User:Lionelt
• 21:12, 21:13 22 May - Responses to my request to stop HOUNDING (no acknowledgement of his false accusation)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20 May 2018 warned by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) " reminding you of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warning that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions."

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on

• 20 May 2018 by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• 22 April 2017 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on numerous occasions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In just over two days since the close of an AE request I made regarding SPECIFICO (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#SPECIFICO) up to my notice on his talk page about this HOUNDING, he had made 36 edits total, at least 17 of those (47%) were spent reverting me, replying to my comments on talk pages, and mentioning me by name - often within moments - and never making overtures toward congeniality, but filled with insistent, WP:BATTLEGROUND "This is how it is" attitude. I'm sure he'll have some reasonable explanation for individual actions, and some were naturally part of mutual exchanges, but his overall focus on me and lack of effort to try other areas of work to avoid it is undeniable. This sort of activity was the case even before the other AE, also, but I've limited my diffs to after he received his logged warning to show a pattern of reprisal. When I brought this to his attention, he was dismissive, and instead continued to repeat a claim that I reverted a page move he did. After several times telling him he was mistaken, and even showing diff proof that it was someone else who moved it, SPECIFICO has not acknowledged his mistake. My feeling is that he is not adhering to the warning given, and is pursuing an effort designed to confound my interactions with other editors based on a mistaken belief in a perceived wrong that is provably incorrect. The prior logged warning seems to have fallen on deaf ears. -- Netoholic @ 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this relates much with the User:Factchecker atyourservice AE going on, except perhaps as a concrete, time-limited example of SPECIFICO's style of BATTLEGROUND tactics. This is strictly covering SPECIFICO's behavior within 2 days of receiving a warning about expectations of behavior, which one would assume he would do everything to at least initially avoid such scrutiny. Yet, I detect no change in his approach, no remorse, and no acknowledgement of the problem. -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If I had to point to one action which I feel especially clear about his behavior, its the 20:49 22 May - "copy edit" above. I had reached an amicable solution with another editor, then SPECIFICO almost immediately crushed that section to dust under the misleading edit comment "copy edit". He didn't inform the talk page of his intentions. To my mind, it felt like he couldn't stand seeing any minor agreement or cooperation taking place, so he salted the earth. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

given

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

I think I responded adequately to Netoholic's concern before he filed this complaint. The thread is here [175] I was surprised then to see him file shortly thereafter. Please note that Netoholic's assertion that I failed to correct my error concerning his opposition to my page move is incorrect. As can be seen in the history log, I struck and corrected it 90 minutes before he filed this complaint (immediately after I checked the relevant diffs). That thread was his second visit to my talk page in the two days since his earlier AE complaint was closed. The first one is here [176] SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

I suggest the filer read WP:PETARD and withdraw the complaint before it's too late. O3000 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I've been editing in some of these topic areas recently (example), and I think that this filing should be understood as being in the same "series" as the one just above, about Factchecker-atyourservice. I can confirm that Specifico has been uncivil some of the time, but there's a lot of it going around. And there is some aspect of boomerang here. I don't know if AE can really handle it or whether there needs to be yet a third ArbCom case, but there probably do have to be a rather large number of topic bans. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

I have to agree with Objective3000 here. A gentle boomerang might be in order. From where I observe, it seems that Netoholic may be pursuing a grudge against SPECIFICO. For example, this comment is uncalled for. A similar comment directed at another editor: [177] Perhaps Netoholic should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground.- MrX 🖋 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lionelt

Several behavioral policy violations have been lodged against SPECIFICO relating to the Political views article. Netoholic has presented 17 diffs in support of HOUNDING and BLUDGEONING allegations. While these edits look suspicious, it is difficult to determine if these edits are evidence of violations or merely the result of normal editing. Regarding the allegation of ASPERSIONS it does appear that SPECIFICO corrected the error. At this time I cannot recommend sanctions against SPECIFICO.

Some editors have suggested BOOMERANG against Netoholic. This is outrageous. It is unconscionable to threaten an editor in good standing with sanctions for bringing a issue to the attention of the community in good faith. With a limited admin corps we depend on editors to help control disruption and maintain civility and to attack these editors is counterproductive and a violation of AGF. BOOMERANG threats without conclusive evidence in the form of diffs should be treated as a personal attack WP:NPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." – Lionel^(talk) 04:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Moxy

It's discouraging to see lagitamate complaints so easily dismissed. What people are looking for here is dispute resolution or a rationale as to why.... not a slap in the face. Wikipedia has a behavioral problem and we expect our elected officials to to act and respond in a common sense manner.--Moxy (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Geogene

I've read Netoholic's diffs. They establish that there's an ongoing content dispute, but fail to demonstrate any behavioral issue. No, if you want to see behavioral issues--Netoholic personalizing the dispute--see MrX's diffs. I wouldn't say that those are heinous, either, but they tend to raise doubts about Netoholic as a force for civility in the dispute.

I agree with Objective3000 and others that the question is whether this should close with a boomerang for Netoholic or not. That boomerang would probably be an informal warning from an admin about using AE for BATTLEGROUND ends. Geogene (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

Nothing to see here. All editors should be advised to cut the drama down a notch. — JFG ^talk 06:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

• This doesn't look actionable to me. The diffs presented here look by and large like the result of normal editing and discussing content issues. Certainly SPECIFICO expresses clear views about some of the questions at issue, but these views appear to relate to the content being discussed, rather than to other editors themselves. Sandstein 06:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• If there is any "hounding" going on, it's more likely this unsubstantiated report by Netoholic rather than any of the reported edits by SPECIFICO. I could see this being closed with a warning to Netoholic not to use the AE process in a battleground-like manner. Sandstein 06:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)