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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• @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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [1]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• In November 2016, following the death of Fidel Castro, Corbyn said that Castro, despite his "flaws", was a "huge figure of modern history, national independence and 20th Century socialism. From building a world-class health and education system, to Cuba's record of international solidarity abroad, Castro's achievements were many."^[1]
• He has advocated for the rights of the forcibly-removed Chagossians to return to the British Indian Ocean Territory and is noted for his Venezuelan solidarity activism.^[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

Firstly it is hard to provide diffs of everything as there are about three or four places where the same issue is being hashed over by him. Also many of the threads are very long and convoluted, with random changes of emphasis (not to be fair by him, all the time). (in fact it may be even more [2], 2 months this has been going on for). I have no idea when they first raised this issue. [3], second (somewhat modified) but still the same matter raised. [4] 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 [5], not "Here is what I disagree with", not a PA but hardly constructive [6] followed by this edit summery [7]. [8]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[9] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jytdog: Many thanks for your detailed research in FC's habits. Most of what you unearthed looks to me like exculpatory evidence. As you noticed, this editor is interested in hot political issues, and the diffs show him questioning edits in light of policy, especially trying to uphold NPOV, balance and good sourcing, even when that goes against the grain. See for example the thread you quoted, that he started at Trump–Russia dossier.[10] The only issue I see is him being a bit verbose, however I've seen much worse blathering from others. In recent threads, he also tends to turn combative when his fellow editors do not listen to what he says or misrepresent his arguments. This case should be dismissed with a warning to keep AGF and CIVIL even in the face of hostility, and to try and make his points more succinctly. — JFG ^talk 06:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: Your diffs sure look compelling, but have you looked at the statements FC was responding to? That would be another set of compelling diffs… Are we going to hand out blocks like cookies to any editor deemed "abrasive with anyone he disagrees with"? Such an option was suggested in earlier threads here,[11] and that would quickly decimate the field of editors who dare work on controversial topics. Way to turn the community into a ghost town! — JFG ^talk 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was pinged here to this diff [12]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Following up on PackMecEng's comment above, I think that Factfinder's response is indicative of his general approach to editing and site norms, so I am linking to the entire thread here:[13]. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • RegentsPark - it saddens me that you would summarize my years on WP and stuff it into a thumbnail capture of a brief moment in time that I tried to help another editor see things from a different perspective or at least try a different approach. The following diffs will example my attempts. I also realize there are many influences and issues to overcome, but that never stopped me from at least trying. You're going to have your own POV, and there's nothing I can do about it except express my feelings. Change doesn't happen overnight...but I've worked with a lot of people over the years, and I have no regrets over helping anyone.

May 20, 2018, advised him it’s time to stop digging;

cont. discussion, and attempted to divert his attn to a different article;

May 21, 2018, provided examples, and even referenced Masem

RP, you really don't know anything about me or what I was trying to accomplish as an editor who believes in editor retention. Perhaps one of my biggest faults is that I care too much about the people I collaborate with - the ones who give freely of their time to help build this encyclopedia - many of whom have exceptional talents. I see them all as fellow human beings despite the fact I'm unable to see them, and will probably never know who they are much less meet them in RL. That's just who I am, and that isn't going to change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I also know when it’s time to walk-away...which I did. ^{13:04, 26 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Done. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 [14], especially the sub-section proposing sanctions, which I started. [15]. 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 [16]
• 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" [17]
• Factchecker claims that another editor has "Very poor reading ability" [18]
• Factchecker demands that another editor "Justify your vote or strike it please." [19]
• Factchecker calls the proposal for sanctions an "attempt for revenge" on my part.[20] and then says that I am "A sniper with a grudge" [21]
• Factchecker says to another editor "You're flat-out lying in order to manufacture "evidence" to get me blocked." (emphasis in original) [22]. He then doubles down on the statement. [23]
• Factchecker says that another editor's description of events is "not...honest". [24]
• Factchecker says of me that I have "repeatedly surfaced in discussions to recommend I be blocked". [25]. When challenged to provide diffs backing up this aspersion, he refuses to do so unless I specifically deny that his claim is true, [26] 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. [27] I had already acknowledged that we had had a dispute in the past. [28] 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?" [29]
• Factchecker responds to BullRangifer -- with whom they have an IBan -- that BR's comment is "transparently false". [30] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[31]

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)[reply]

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

This was my immediate reaction:

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

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

Reply to FCAYS's comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

A correction about timing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by My very best wishes

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

Statement by Jbhunley

Statement by PackMecEng

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

Statement by Awilley

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

Statement by Jytdog

I generally steer clear of politics and especially matters Trumpian.

This AE filing prompted me to review FCAYS work here.

• edit count
• Opened account August 2007.
• The account was originally called "Factcheck 4uwingnuts"" and was changed in this diff in September 2007 to the present name.
• Their first edit was, unsurprisingly given their username, this, where they added {{Fact|date=August 2007}}[[User:Factcheck 4uwingnuts|Factcheck 4uwingnuts]] 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC) to some content that said that the government fabricated evidence against someone. The source for that statement was bad and the tag was apt, but I think the pointyness of that is very clear.
• They went on to amass 8,423 edits. Looking at the bar charts, they have an odd cycle of editing for a couple of years, taking a year off, then coming back, which they have done 4 times.

1st cycle was 2007-2009

2nd cycle was 2011-2013

3rd cycle was 2014-2015

4th cycle is 2017-2018.

• Their most edited pages are

703 to Talk:Sarah Palin

663 to Talk:Occupy Wall Street

581 to Talk:Trump–Russia dossier

331 to Occupy Wall Street

291 to Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

157 to Talk:Fascism

149 to Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

104 to Copwatch

102 to Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

85 to Sarah Palin

85 to Talk:The Federalist (website)

85 to Talk:Cecily McMillan

78 to 99 Percent Declaration

75 to Sherman Austin 1st cycle.

74 to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

60 to Illegal immigration to the United States

59 to Cecily McMillan

59 to Timeline of Occupy Wall Street

breaking that down by their "cycles"

1st cycle

Copwatch. They are the #1 editor there. contribs. 1st edit, changing The video, which shows the apparently restrained Cardenas repeatedly punched in the face by officers, to The video, in which Cardenas struggles to prevent the police from handcuffing him, shows the officers repeatedly punching him in the face while trying to force his hands together.

Sarah Palin. not in top 20 editors. contribs there. First major edit was this, changing She talked about her foreign policy experience in sharing borders with Russia and Canada as governor of Alaska to When asked during that interview to explain how sharing a border with Russia and Canada enhanced her foreign policy experience, she reminded Couric that Russia shares a border with Alaska and that she is the chief executive of the state of Alaska, as well as the fact that Vladimir Putin passes through Alaskan airspace when entering the United States. When specifically asked if she had ever been involved in any negotiations with Russian officials, Palin responded that "We have trade missions back and forth" but did not specify whether she had personally been involved in any of these trade missions

Talk:Sarah Palin. #5 editor. contribs there. First major edit was this, asking (good question IMO) about using her authorized biography as a source

Talk:Fascism. #9 editor. Contribs. 1st edit, discourse on WP:SYN in trying to define fascism.

2nd cycle

Occupy Wall Street. #5 editor there. Contribs. 1st edit, edit note WTF OR ??), removing link to crytptome.org

Talk:Occupy Wall Street #3 editor there. Contribs. First edit. is supporting removal by someone else of section called "Alleged excessive use of force"

Timeline of Occupy Wall Street. #2 editor. contribs there. 1st edit added a bunch of {{fact}} tags, removed some sourced content.

99 Percent Declaration. #3 editor there. contribs. 1st diff appears to be a carryover from arguments at Occupy Wall Street

Sherman Austin 1st cycle. #1 editor. contribs there. 1st edit there was his 1st edit to !P mentioned above. This is sourced to cryptome.org also, btw.

Illegal immigration to the United States. not in top 20 editors. contribs there. 1st edit removed content that failed verification and was OR.

3rd cycle

Cecily McMillan. #2 editor. contribs. 1st edit series created the page; content is worth looking at. Please do.

Talk:Cecily McMillan #2 editor. Contribs. first edit, just making a note. Interestingly the signature there has been customized to be "Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)]"

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). #6 editor. contribs there. 1st edit, adding POV tag with edit not This article is a shameful advocacy tract rife with innuendo and unsubstantiated criminal accusations)

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) #7 editor. Contribs. 1st diff was responding to a question about a POV tag on the page: "The article was incredibly one-sided and POV pushy when I placed the tag (see here) and then I just never removed it. I've gone ahead and removed it now, though."

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. #10 editor. Contribs. 1st edit, removes a sentence from another editor's comment with edit note Rm NOTFORUM comment; user should know better.

Talk:The Federalist (website) #2 editor. contribs. 1st edit, objecting to "pushy language"

4th cycle

Talk:Trump–Russia dossier #2 editor. Contribs 1st edit, a long post starting with a ping to MelanieN, Volunteer Marek, and BullRangifer about policies and guidelines.

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn #5 editor. Contribs. 1st edit: Without even commenting past your ludicrous first sentence, do you really expect me to take seriously the claim that Champion's comments were not "about" Corbyn?

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

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

User:JFG in my view, they came here in a very POINTY way and they have not stopped being pointy since they got here. If you have significant diffs of this person serving as a "Factcheck 4uwingnuts" with respect to anything ring-wingish, they would be somewhat exculpatory. It is hard for me to see past the glare coming from the very shiny ax that this person has carried into WP and the sparks that are flying from grinding it.

One reason I teed up all that background and links to contribs was to enable review with a solid foundation of context.

I pulled out some larger diffs from Corbyn-talk (hoping that this would reflect experience here (unlike taking diffs from the 1st cycle where we might expect newbie issues)

• here they are arguing that Corbyn's comments upon Castro's death should be given a lot of WEIGHT in the article. (reviewing the discussion, which is for the most part hyper-partisan, it is hard to find anybody making the common-sense argument sources should be found that discuss Corbyn's stance over time on Castro and Cuba; instead there is complete locked-in engagement with "the news" of Corbyn's comments on Castro's death. This is not bringing neutrality as we define that here in WP.
• diff ends with a bang: And that's so even if the controversial figure is only an illiberal think tank and not a population-starving, opposition-murdering autocrat. (Where do you come up with these comparisons, by the way? Did you study the concept of proportion under Picasso?
• diff they present a list of what they call "RS" for criticism of Corbyn that includes a bunch of opinion columns and a very obvious blog. This is not an edit that is striving to bring NPOV and strong sources to a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• here they appeal to the list presented above, and cite Jimbo's authority....

What i am seeing, is part of the problem of politics in WP. Not part of the solution. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

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

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

[33] Oh quit your iterated nonsense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[45] You clearly have some problems with reading comprehension.

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

[47] Without even commenting past your ludicrous first sentence...

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

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

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

Statement by Mr. Daniel Plainview

I have personally told FCAYS of the virtues of making friends and maintaining a collegial atmosphere, but unfortunately it looks like my advice has not been heeded. Is their manner of speaking a bit bellicose? Probably. But proposing a ban for this behavior, such as the examples provided above by Aquillion, is a prime example of what many point to as a double standard in the handing down of disciplinary action based on perceived partisan leanings [49]. I have been witnessing much worse behavior than the examples provided thus far, but from people on the other side of the political spectrum, and I see no punishments being given for that same (or worse) behavior. FCAYS should be let off a stern final warning, or the penal standards should be adjusted to be dealt equally to editors, regardless of what we think their political views are. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC) User blocked as a sock of Hidden Tempo. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

Please consider the following series of edits: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]

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

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

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

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

Statement by MelanieN

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

Statement by Factchecker atyourservice

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Factchecker atyourservice

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

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
• I've also dropped short notifications of this discussion to the editors I've named above. GoldenRing (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Casprings: I think you pinged the wrong person. GoldenRing (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  @Atsme: Unfortunately, your defense for FCAYS in the ANI thread added by BMK ([61]) 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)[reply]

  @NeilN: A three month topic ban is, imo, the absolute minimum but ok. @Jbhunley: There is nothing wrong with coming to the defense of another user. My comment was more at the nature of the nature of the defense on the two threads. To be clear, I have some concern with the way Atsme is going about their support for FCAYS but am uncertain whether it is problematic or merely over enthusiasm. I'll let others figure that out. --regentspark (comment) 21:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @NeilN: Looking at the comments made by FCAYS here and on their talk page, I think the proposed 3 month topic ban is too little. I suggest an indefinite topic ban from post 1932 AP, reviewable after a minimum of six months with evidence of interests outside American politics and evidence that they are capable of working positively in disagreements. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @RegentsPark: I know I tend towards leniency (sometimes too much) if I think an editor can contribute constructively but has trouble controlling themselves when things get heated or ramps up the drama for little reason. This may be one of those cases. The three month topic ban would serve as a final wake up call but I certainly would understand if you want to impose an indefinite topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @NeilN: I'm the one who usually gets accused of leniency :) Looking at the editing history of FCAYS, I'm not sure a wakeup call will help - my guess, they will stay away for three months and then return as combative as ever. But, ok, no harm in giving it a shot, so sure. --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am leaning towards a three month topic ban from post-1932 AP and invite admin comments. GoldenRing, do you still want to implement a two-way IBAN between BullRangifer and Factchecker_atyourservice? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @NeilN: This was more thinking-out-loud about the ban that's in place - if you're happy that it's working, I'll keep out of this for now. GoldenRing (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#Amendments :

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

1. 30 May Clear-cut reflection on my general competence as an admin

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Several earlier enforcement measures

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

N/A

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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

Statement by The Rambling Man

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

Masem I'm not "attacking" anyone, if so that would be subject to WP:NPA. I'm arguing strongly, but actually I'm usually the one on the receiving end of NPAs, which I rarely do anything about because I rise above them. We disagree on the approach to some items at ITNC, but then I'm not alone in disagreeing with you either, yet that goes unnoticed... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, Black Kite makes a good point. I made no general comments on anyone’s competence, I made some very specific comments relating to a Kimberly of bad judgements made by one specific admin in one very specific part of the project. One of these mistakes has been rectified but the other remains. And this comes on the back of other such errors that nearly led to the admin in question being stopped from making such edits in the past (especially after turning the text purple when Prince died). The issues are very specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Masem, trying to control what people can and cannot say is censorship. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

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

@Black Kite: That brings up the question of where do we draw the line. I agree the restrictions on TRM do not prevent them from stating that an admin misposted ITNs before and so may want to recheck their work in this specific posting. But where does one draw the line between "specific" and "general" competence that TRM should not discuss? The last think we want is any user under an AE restriction to toe that line, hence why we consider AEs to be broadly interpreted. I don't think we can draw that line in any clear way. --Masem (t) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have gained a thicker skin so I wouldn't have brought these up in isolation (and as I noted, in the midst of conflict with LaserLegs), but I will point out, in the WT:ITN discussion above, that TRM accuses me of trying to censor discussion [64] and [65] which itself is a violation of "posting speculation about the motivations of editors". (My whole point of the discussion was to diffuse the problem). I've trying to support TRM before, but this is the behavior they were cautioned about at the ArbCom case. --Masem (t) 17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I see no conflict between myself and TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

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

Statement by Dweller

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Eggishorn

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

Statement by Laser brain

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

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

Statement by Guy Macon

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

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

Statement by Gerda

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

Statement by BU Rob13

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

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

Statement by LaserLegs

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

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

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

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

Statement by Gamaliel

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

Statement by Vanamonde93

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

Statement by Lepricavark

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

Statement by 331dot

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

Statement by Davey2010

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

Statement by JFG

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

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

• I agree that this is a violation of the restriction that "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." Based on the principle of escalating sanctions, I think that a block of one month, following up on the previous blocks of one and two weeks, is appropriate. Sandstein 14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, even if WP:ADMINACCT applies here, the specific restriction against The Rambling Man overrides the more general provision of WP:ADMINACCT. This means that The Rambling Man may still question or criticize admins, e.g. in the form of "hey, I think you made an error at X", just not in the form prohibited to him, i.e. by way of "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence". It's quite possible to hold admins (or other users) accountable without imputing nefarious motivations or questioning their competence. Sandstein 14:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Dweller above, to my recollection my previous interactions with The Rambling Man were in an administrative capacity, including the first block for a violation of this restriction. Per WP:INVOLVED, this does not require me to recuse myself. Sandstein 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One could argue that this isn't a reflection about general competence, but merely one of previous admin actions at WP:ITN/C. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite see the difference. Sandstein 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's an obvious difference between "you've made a mistake with this action at this page, and it's not the first time either" and "Your admin actions are wrong everywhere", to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As per the text of the sanction, I don't see this as a violation. The text prohibits TRM from two things "speculation about motivations" and "reflections on the general competence [of editors]". There is clearly no speculation about motives here and the competence part seems to be qualified by applying only to admin actions in ITN (and not to, say, editing competence or admin competence in other areas). --regentspark (comment) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• TRM walks a fine line sometimes but I don't see a clear crossing over into sanctionable territory in this particular instance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no speculation, and the reflective commentary is regarding specific admin actions around ITN, not general competence. Stephen 02:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No violation here, lean instead toward WP:ADMINACCT. The statement in question was about a "rogue admin manoeuvre" and suggestion on what "they should perhaps" do. No need to wield baton here.—Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• While there's nothing to do here as the restriction was in no way breached, TRM usually makes his points without being tetchy, and gets a better outcome when he does so; I'd ask him to remember that. Fish+Karate 09:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Talatastan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

1. 03:09, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics
2. 13:00, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics
3. 15:40, 1 June 2018 ARBPIA topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[92]

Discussion concerning Talatastan

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

Statement by Talatastan

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Talatastan

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