From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Netoholic (talk · contribs) is warned not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning SPECIFICO[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBAPDS, specifically Discretionary sanctions guidelines involving decorum and expectation to follow guidelines such as WP:HOUNDING, WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:ASPERSIONS :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  • 16:14 21 May - tag-team, snap-revert within 5 minutes, reverting my revert of a WP:BOLD removal of a well-cited section, with no intervening discussion on his part.
    • 16:17 post-revert reply to my talk page post.
  • 20:49 22 May - "copy edit" which substantially alters/revert the lead, an edit made shortly after I made a reply to someone else on the talk page about a compromise change to the lead at 20:26.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 20 May 2018 warned by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) " reminding you of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warning that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions."
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on numerous occasions
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

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

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

To Sandstein: - The section of my diffs labeled "Various" is included just to demonstrate my statement that 47% of his recent edits have been directed at me. Take for example this AfD, 4 editors have voted "Keep", but SPECIFICO has only directly replied to my vote comment. I do not reciprocate. I do not direct comments at him unless its a reply to something he said to me or mentioned me in. I keep quite busy across the project. In this same timespan I've created a new article of about 11k characters. I've continued my participation in WP:RM. But I do want to provide input on the main article the diffs are from, and when I do, I want to interact with a variety of other editors there. I do not deserve to be singled out by SPECIFICO and challenged on -everything-. When deciding on HOUNDING, ask yourself this:

  • When given the opportunity, does SPECIFICO specifically seek to interact with me over others? Yes.
  • When given the opportunity to do anything but interact with SPECIFICO, do I? Yes.

-- Netoholic @ 07:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To any of the admins. You may close this at anytime. Though my intent was in good faith, based on the responses, I now know better when and how its appropriate to use the available conflict resolution venues. You can be assured I have no intent on using this one again regarding this editor. -- Netoholic @ 03:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO[edit]

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

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

I think I responded adequately to Netoholic's concern before he filed this complaint. The thread is here [1] I was surprised then to see him file shortly thereafter. Please note that Netoholic's assertion that I failed to correct my error concerning his opposition to my page move is incorrect. As can be seen in the history log, I struck and corrected it 90 minutes before he filed this complaint (immediately after I checked the relevant diffs). That thread was his second visit to my talk page in the two days since his earlier AE complaint was closed. The first one is here [2] SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, in case editors review this file in the future and especially if they've not seen last week's similar complaint, I am providing this link to show the "user interactions" between me and Netoholic over the past 2 years. [3] As can be seen, in 10 of the 13 overlaps, Netoholic's edits followed mine. And one of those pages was Stefan Molyneux where he was violating the TBAN imposed by the community in 2014. Previously, he had appeared to be recruiting me to Molyneux' teachings. [4], for which he was blocked [5].

I don't think any IBAN is needed so long as the record is clear so that this matter need not be relitigated in the future. For my part, I think we can move on now. SPECIFICO talk

Statement by Objective3000[edit]

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

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

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

Statement by MrX[edit]

I have to agree with Objective3000 here. A gentle boomerang might be in order. From where I observe, it seems that Netoholic may be pursuing a grudge against SPECIFICO. For example, this comment is uncalled for. A similar comment directed at another editor: [6] Perhaps Netoholic should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground.- MrX 🖋 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lionelt[edit]

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

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

Statement by Moxy[edit]

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

Statement by Geogene[edit]

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

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

Statement by JFG[edit]

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

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

This is the second time in three days that Netoholic has attempted to have someone who has opposed their edits sanctioned through an administrative process; just the other day Netoholic filed an unfounded AN3RR case against me for reverting a block-evading sockpuppet on an article that Netoholic had neither edited nor engaged in any talk page discussion at any time, meaning the only reason for them to file the sanction request was to "punish" me for disagreeing with them on other articles. I suggest that Netoholic should engage those he perceives to be his "opponents" in good-faith discussion rather than poorly-supported and time-wasting sanctions requests. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning SPECIFICO[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This doesn't look actionable to me. The diffs presented here look by and large like the result of normal editing and discussing content issues. Certainly SPECIFICO expresses clear views about some of the questions at issue, but these views appear to relate to the content being discussed, rather than to other editors themselves. Sandstein 06:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If there is any "hounding" going on, it's more likely this unsubstantiated report by Netoholic rather than any of the reported edits by SPECIFICO. I could see this being closed with a warning to Netoholic not to use the AE process in a battleground-like manner. Sandstein 06:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I see nothing really actionable here. I see a content dispute, and the types of comments that typically accompany that on a politically-charged article, but nothing actionable. There's the start of BATTLEGROUND behavior all around, but not at a point where AE would need to be placed down, only cautioning all sides to watch themselves. --Masem (t) 14:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with Sandstein, and would support a logged warning not to abuse the AE process. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Editors involved in this area need to consider if they really want an AP3 Arbcom case where the remedies could boil down to "a pox on both your houses". If not, all sides may want to keep that possibility in mind while reading over their talk page posts and requests for AE three times before clicking "Publish changes". --NeilN talk to me 14:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This complaint is not in itself frivolous, but following so close on the last it might be thought to be so. The edits are not actionable. The complaint might be, at least in as much as an interaction ban may be worth considering. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Having clicked on every single diff presented by Netoholic, I agree with the consensus here that this request is unfounded and is not actionable. In the context described above by Sandstein, and in light of the fact that Netoholic has been blocked at least once previously for harassing SPECIFICO (scroll up near the top of this mammoth block log), I would support a logged warning to Netoholic about abusing administrative processes. MastCell Talk 00:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


No action but Waleswatcher advised to review the expectations for editing in this area. --NeilN talk to me 14:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Waleswatcher[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Waleswatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Discretionary sanctions related to firearms articles. Link to DS warning on user page [[7]]

Talk pages showing DS notice Talk:AR-15_style_rifle

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

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

With respect to disruptive editing,

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


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


5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Disruptive editing via failure to follow WP:BRD

  1. Apr 5: The editor’s edits in the firearms space was a BRD failure involving a very significant reordering of the text of the AR-15 style rifle page [[8]] (Apr 5th). I restored the original order which was quickly reverted with a comment that I was the one who needed to get consensus to undo the bold change [[9]]
  2. Apr 28: Next edit war use of “assault weapon” [[10]] (28 Apr) during active talk page discussion [[11]]. Re-reverting text to a non-consensus version while the talk page is active isn’t Bold, it’s WP:RECKLESS.
  3. May 12: Active discussion regarding the article lead ["many"_in_lead] Editor makes wp:reckless change to lead (12 May)[[12]]. (18 May)I revert the change. Editor restores [[13]] Back and fourth (myself included) results in 3 day article lock. Talk page discussion still active. 34 hours after lock expires I restored the old stable text per WP:NOCON. Editor reverts claiming the article was stable for a week thus new consensus version.[[14]] Actually less than 6 days and the article was locked most of that time. WW's revert was reverted by another editor. ~2 days later WW restored their version claiming consensus based on an optimistic reading of consensus (20 May).[[15]] Most recently WW reverted an editor claiming another editor claimed consensus.
there is a consensus as per K.e.coffman above. It is you and other opposed editors that are being disruptive in preventing it from being implemented.[[16]]
  1. May 12: Adds material to a subsection of the article (12 May, same morning as above BRD failure). [[17]]. I revert. Editor restores without going to talk page[[18]]. Finally goes to talk page [[19]] Finally informal survey starts [[20]]. Survey results in 10:10 non-consensus. Editor refuses to accept no consensus. Threatens to make nearly identical changes to article.[[21]]
By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC.[[22]]
Unless there are actual substantive objections (beyond "that's not the way I want it"), I will go ahead and do that as per WP:SYNC. [[23]]
There's nothing disruptive about that. It would be standard WP:BRD - except that I'm announcing what I'm intending to do (and why) in advance so it can be discussed, which makes it more careful (and less bold) than wiki standard. Now, do you care to comment on substance, or are you going to continue to be tendentious? [[24]]
The editor was cautioned by another editor who generally agreed with Waleswatcher’s editorial POV [[25]]. Acting anyway is WP:TEND
After 20 editors just weighed in on the discussion, editor suggests a new RfC to get their way.
OK, thanks. In that case I'll start an RfC or village pump discussion on this specific question: [[26]]
Anyway, when I get around to it I will take this to a larger audience at the village pump, so there's not much point in continuing to discuss it here now.[[27]]
  1. May 16: Forumshoping. Against the advice of others an RfC at the Village Pump (not the article page) was created. It immediately closed down as wp:FORUMSHOP and being non-neutral (16 May).["AR-15_style_rifle"_of_the_article_"Colt_AR-15"_to_the_lead_of_its_parent_article], ["Should_the_section_Colt_AR-15#AR-15_style_rifle_be_a_copy_of_the_lead_of_AR-15_style_rifle"?]
  1. May 14: WP:CIVIL Quoting, thus highlighting a swype error and then refusing to allow a simple correction.[[28]] This got admin attention [[29]]. I believe this would be a violation of both Direct Rudeness (d)belittling and by highlighting an erroneous Swype correction and other uncivil behaviors (e)quoting another editor out of context ... to malign them
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[30]])
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

User notification [[31]] Springee (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


While Waleswatcher's behavior may not have crossed any deep red lines above the disruptive editing and failure to respect WP:CONSENSUS policies continues. Here WW asked an admin if the "stable" version of an article was one that was unchanged after being unlocked for less than 36 hours [[32]]. The question went unanswered so WW decided to violate WP:NOCONSENSUS by restoring the new version of the text. The edit summary was misleading. Yes, the text was discussed on the talk page but at 4:4 their is no consensus to change the lead. This change, especially after asking an admin for advice is WP:RECKLESS and disruptive. Springee (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Waleswatcher[edit]

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

Statement by Dlthewave[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mr rnddude[edit]

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

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

I'll assume that the newbie comment will confuse some given the ostensible ten years of having an account, so to start, please keep this comment in mind: In my defense, it's not as though wiki policies and guidelines and venues and RfCs and VPPs and ANIs are so easy to navigate.... It flies directly in the face of numerous other comments "educating" the other involved editors on policies and guidelines ranging from consensus to summary style, but it's rather apparently true.
Let me expound on an example:
By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC. Their defence of this was that SYNC cannot be ignored, but they later changed their defence to There's nothing disruptive about that. It would be standard WP:BRD - except that I'm announcing what I'm intending to do (and why) in advance so it can be discussed, which makes it more careful (and less bold) than wiki standard. In the next breath they suggested that I was being tendentious: Now, do you care to comment on substance, or are you going to continue to be tendentious? I highlight all of this to make a simple statement: these are poor readings, understandings, and intended applications of any of the policies cited and also of others not brought up.
I'm also going to point out that they don't understand involved editing, and don't really care to consider the opposition in any detail: e.g. this comment which is, I suggest rather generously, an inadequate summary of the opposition comments. Of course, that is caused by their demands to satisfy, which are both annoying, and non-collaborative. It also results in the erroneous belief that what is actually disruptive editing, is either standard BRD or proper editing etiquette. Indeed, that much can be surmised from dlthewave's third diff which is moving onus onto those who disagree (or dispute).
Waleswatcher has also received a softly worded warning from NeilN for forum shopping for a discussion they started at the village pump. Refer to this thread at Talk:Colt AR-15.

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

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

Statement by (slaterstven)[edit]

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

Statement by Waleswatcher[edit]

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

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

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

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

Regarding the principles I'm accused of violating:

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

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

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

Also see this, where Springee is mentioned by name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Waleswatcher[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is an underwhelming report. WP:BRD is not a community-adopted conduct policy or guideline and therefore, in my view, not something we can enforce here. The "lake"/"lack" issue is a minor matter that doesn't require arbitration enforcement. Unless this report is rewritten to indicate clearly which, if any, actual conduct guidelines or policies are violated, i wouldn't take action here. Sandstein 07:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude: Thanks for the diffs, but they don't help much in this request concerning Waleswatcher, because most of the edits in this edit war don't seem to be by Waleswatcher. Sandstein 05:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless an admin objects, I'll close this in 24 h as not actionable. That's not to say that there's no problematic editing going on here, but only that this thread does not contain actionable evidence of clear misconduct against specific editors. Sandstein 06:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein. More posts were made to my talk page about the dispute at AR-15 style rifle and as a result I've put it under 1RR/consensus required. --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


No violation. The removals could have been done in one single edit. This is WP:3RR (and WP:1RR) 101. --NeilN talk to me 21:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Icewhiz[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Breach of the restriction on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland article.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. First revert[33] of this initial insertion [34]
  2. Second revert (1 minute later) [35] of this original entry [36]
  3. Third revert (2 minutes later) [37] of this initial insertion [38]

Link to the page editing records [39]

  • User is well informed of the discretionary sanctions [[40]])

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Above removals occurred within 3 minutes timespan braking the dictate [41] of "one revert per 24 h" required on the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

@ Sandstein Excuse me Sandstein, but entries of 3 individual editors were reverted (mine was reverted as well -> [42]) in 3 separate hits. If that is allowed on a sanctioned page, then restrictions imposed serve limited poupuse. Can anyone go soon to that page and conduct 10-20 consecutive reverts of every entry from the last 24 hours? If that is the case then the rules aren’t well sketched. Something for you admins. to think about. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

User has been notified ->[43]

Discussion concerning Icewhiz[edit]

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

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

These are consecutive edits, per WP:3RR (which is relevant to 1RR with 3 modified by 1) - A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert - and as such are a single revert.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please also note this edit warring report on 6 reverts by a different editor on this article, filed prior to this AE filing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to note that filer of this complaint, has chosen to revert - contrary to editor consensus (or at the very least no consensus for use) at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul - information clearly demonstrated as false (that "Poland was the only country in German-occupied Europe in which such a death penalty was applied" - amply refuted in several discussions with the editor's involvement) from a self-published (iUniverse) book by Ewa Kurek - Revision as of 14:47, 24 May 2018 and additional material from the same author as well as self-published documents by Mark Paul - Revision as of 04:50, 25 May 2018. Note subsequent discussions at Talk:Irena Sendler#Ewa Kurek (iUniverse) with false information - following RSN discussion and Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 3#Dubious sourcing reinstated do not support filer's position.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Icewhiz[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I would close this without action. Icewhiz is right that consecutive reverts count as one. The other matters Icewhiz raises in their reply are content issues outside the scope of AE. Sandstein 20:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice[edit]

Factchecker atyourservice is topic banned for three months from edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. They should understand this restriction is considered lenient and further disruption after the topic ban expires will probably result in an indefinite topic ban. --NeilN talk to me 14:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Factchecker atyourservice[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
  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)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [44]

Discussion concerning Factchecker atyourservice[edit]

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[edit]

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

Is he just saying I argued a lot?

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

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

1. Regarding the focus of my content arguments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have no control over other editors. That bit with the alleged plant in the Trump campaign is a separate issue and I have not been arguing about that. I mentioned a source only because Slater asked for one and there has been a troubling tendency by numerous editors to claim something comes from fringe sources without checking whether RS have talked about it.

I am talking primarily about one issue with a smaller related issue: whether to talk about fact sourcing saying there is still no evidence of collusion—and to a lesser extent the question of whether it's OK to mention any RS commentary casting doubt on the collusion claims. These arguments go back to the beginning of April, wherein I noted with irony the extraordinarily weak / biased/ SPS sourcing used to justify an incredibly lengthy series of allegations and quotations from the dossier—such great sources as ["Paste: The Best Music, Movies, TV, Books, Games, Beer & More"], a sex-and-relationships editor for Cosmopolitan whose bio read "I’m a sex & relationships editor at I’m not very serious. :)", a college intern writing for the UK edition of The Week during a 3-month stint at the magazine who is currently in her third year of college at BU. I also begged for better fact sourcing, without success. These discussion sections were "archived" by Bull in short order, frustrating the attempt to garner outside opinion.

This strung-together daisy chain of weak and biased sourcing is used to justify 1500 words of what is essentially copy-paste from a primary source, so it's ironic to see such resistance to quoting one sentence from a multiple-reporter fact article from New York Times which is consistent with both repeated prior reports from the Times and reports from WaPo, BBC, LA Times, Reuters, NBC, etc., just as it was surprising to see so much resistance to my larger attempt to summarize fact and opinion on the subject.

Anyway these are the only content issues I'm focused on.

2. Regarding the IBAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The IBAN was something that User:BullRangifer intentionally sought out to procure. Bull has some very peculiar attitudes towards editing Wikipedia: he sees himself as having a mission to maintain a blacklist of editors whom he must oppose for ideological reasons rather than discussing things with them. Specifically, he thinks Wikipedia is beset by "predominantly right-wing, paid political whitewashers" and that "the Koch brothers control many articles". He maintains Twitter and Facebook accounts, which I know about only because he has posted them on Wikipedia, which are rife with social activism hashtags that vaguely suggest marshalling of Wikipedia sources: "Reliable sources for #TheResistance; Join #TheResistance Promote #SocialJustice #SocialDemocracy Stop #PutinsPuppet @realDonaldTrump Luv @realDonaldTrump #PutinsPuppet; #TheResistance to #realDonaldTrump, #POTUS, #TrumpLeaks, #Putin, #PutinsPuppet, #StopPresidentBannon, #Treason, #Traitor, #Gaslighting, #MindControl, #TrumpLies, #ElectionFraud, #VoterSuppression"

I, apparently, am on Bull's blacklist of users.

He and User:SPECIFICO have a very specific tag-teaming strategy of using systematic dishonesty and abuse as a way of goading an editor into making angry comments that the user can then be blocked for. The strategy is outlined in this taunting comment by a sockpuppet that I believe was controlled by one of them: harass the person till they lash out, then seek a topic ban based on uncivil conduct. ("they just look the other way over and over until you're so frustrated you lash out then it's NPA! NPRA! Topic Ban! This user has a history yadda yadda. . . BTW congrats in advance on your topic ban. We're taking bets on who'll complain and who'll close.")

Four days after I first posted at the Trump dossier article, Bull created an essay with the title (since changed) "A message for fringe political editors".

The essay opened with the following:

Wikipedia's Trump-related articles are often the subject of editing conflicts between editors who base their views and editing on reliable sources, and Trump followers and fringe editors whose ideas and editing are based on unreliable sources. This is largely due to the large amount of fake and distorted news these fringe editors imbibe. Hence such editors are on the fringe, and their views are generally rejected by the community. They are not allowed to create content based on fringe and unreliable sources. They also create a lot of disruption on talk pages because they engage in forbidden advocacy of these views and constantly criticize and oppose content which is based on reliable sources. They refuse to accept the consensus view. Some get away with a lot because they are civil POV pushers.

It goes on, essentially, about delusional Infowars reading editors and the need to combat them, stuck in a "filtter bubble", consuming "fake news", fighting "a battle without good sources". This all perfectly encapsulates Bull's strategy for making discussion impossible: simply claim the person is referring to fringe sources:

If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for fringe editors who push pro-Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories.

Catch that little sleight of hand? What Bull is really saying is that if you disagree with something in the dossier article, as I had done just 4 days before the writing of this essay, then it's because you are a "fringe editor" pushing "conspiracy theories" based on "unreliable sources", thus earning the "disdain" of your betters.

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

This was essentially a summary of his WP-space-linked essay, clearly and obviously claiming that I read those sources and I'm being influenced them. He then launched into an even lengthier diatribe against me, again on Jimbo's talk page, burying my completely legitimate question that did not have anything to do with fringe sources:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's be clear about what's happening here. Those who object the most are editors who refuse to accept the RS-based conclusions that the Russians did interfere in the election, and that the Mueller investigation is a corrupt deep state plot to unseat Trump. To them it's all a nothingburger without evidence. To them, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Trump, and Putin are the only arbiters of "truth", and they use Wikipedia as their battlefield to fight for their "truth". Their efforts are literally an extension of Trump's real world battle against all forms of information and journalism which dares report anything negative against him. Wikipedia is not free from such efforts.

They also believe that accusations against Russia and Trump are all a conspiracy theory concocted and sold by the mainstream media, which they consider fake news. They believe it's all a witch hunt against Trump and his campaign, not serious journalists doing their job, which includes documenting Trump's myriad self-inflicted wounds. They believe that the FBI, CIA, James Comey, and Robert Mueller are totally evil, corrupt, and engaged in a coup against Trump. This is the extreme right-wing view.

These are the types of editors who object and obstruct the most on all our Trump-related articles. They are fringe political editors, many of whom should be topic banned. They operate with an ad hoc, policy-violating, "Trump Exemption" mentality, which means that anything negative about Trump, no matter how reliably sourced and notable, is fake news and must pass a much higher bar for inclusion than for any other public figure, politician, or president. This is the reality on these articles, and much of their argumentation is actually IDONTLIKEIT wikilawyering.

It's rare that they actually make substantive attempts to present actual edit suggestions. They just complain....endlessly, and now it's spilled over to here. Mind you, there are a few Trump supporters who make serious attempts to edit collaboratively, but they are few, and they actually succeed in getting change because, rather than just complain, they use RS and follow policy.

The intent of writing that essay and referring to it in order to shut down my question to Jimbo was unmistakeably to make a personal attack against me and discredit my question. In fact, Bull has even updated it to speak of the need to topic ban these people who "cite fringe sources" ("But between you and me we all know they're not really citing fringe sources, haha!") Yes, the latest revision of this little missive speaks of editors who "can't vet sources and know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources in real life" and says such miscreants are "unfit to edit American political subjects"

Moving along, after I subsequently brought a bunch of fact sourcing and POV commentary for discussion, Bull and SPECIFICO took their displeasure to usertalk, where they continued with oblique snipes. That fact they kept up this canard of being beset by fringe sources—even in the face of a wall of top fact sourcing—yet still kept up with the insults, was what drove me to respond, and that's how I wound up with the IBAN. Then my block "related" to this TBAN actually arose out of my defending another user against PAs of a similar nature.

SPECIFICO, later, engaged in a bizarre and maddening form of harassment which I detailed at his previous AE case here (have to expand the case section before the #deep link will work).

Bull to this day protests his innocence and lack of any intent to provoke me ("I have been very careful to not engage with him or mention him"), notwithstanding the fact that he argues with me at the dossier page and then threatens me based on the TBAN when I reply. Sure, I guess maybe he has no intent to provoke. But the other day when we engaged in back-and-forth about the tban in the context of the AN discussion, and the discussion was then closed without action, his very next edit was to an article about one of the human sh**-sphincters, which just happened to have been "vandalized" by an IP. Bull showed up less than an hour later to fix this for totally innocent reasons, , then ... nothing more for 12 hours.

So, was Bull diligently guarding against a recurrence of the previous incident of vandalism 7 years ago at that article ("i hate biology"), swooping in with lightning alacrity to fix "vandalism" just minutes before, or was he obliquely calling me an asshole hoping to provoke the Nth "iban violation" so he could demand sanctions again, since the AN filing had just been closed?

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

@BullRangifer: I certainly 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)

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]


  1. ^ "Fidel Castro: Jeremy Corbyn praises 'huge figure'". 26 November 2016.
  2. ^ "British MP Jeremy Corbyn Speaks out for Venezuela". teleSUR English. 5 June 2015. Retrieved 20 June 2015.

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:

RS commentary on Corbyn's Cuba/Venezuela stances
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

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

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)

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

Statement by power~enwiki[edit]

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

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

Statement by (slatersteven)[edit]

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 [45], 2 months this has been going on for). I have no idea when they first raised this issue. [46], second (somewhat modified) but still the same matter raised. [47] 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 [48], not "Here is what I disagree with", not a PA but hardly constructive [49] followed by this edit summery [50]. [51]. I Will leave it to others (for now) to provide diffs for any other offenses, this has taken enough time to dig this lot out. As I said, two moths and hundreds of posts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Netoholic[edit]

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

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

Statement by JFG[edit]

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.[52] When Factchecker came onto the scene, he tried to insert some mitigating information showing the other side of the coin (namely, that no collusion was found yet), and was repeatedly antagonized by BullRangifer and other editors. The "cage match" between BR and FC eventually led to the IBAN by NeilN. Given that BR is the main contributor and "defender" of the dossier article, this IBAN actually prevented FC from discussing content there (as he could not reply to BR without violating the IBAN), so that the IBAN in effect amounted to a TBAN on this subject. (IBAN did not apply to article talk pages, so my inference here was invalid.)

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

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

@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.[53] 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)

@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,[54] 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)

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

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

I was pinged here to this diff [55]] in which, under the heading "IBAN...", Factchecker makes a disparaging and false accusation to me that's either WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence or some other category of WP:NPA relating to me and an apparent sockpuppet or SPA. I hadn't planned to comment further in this complaint, but I'd be very disappointed if Admins did not sanction for that kind of behavior under their noses. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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:[56]. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter[edit]

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

Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]

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

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

Statement by Atsme[edit]

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 caseclarify 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:

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

  • GoldenRing - before you propose a TBan for me, you need to provide some diffs that warrant such an action. I am truly disheartened that you would even suggest it. Atsme📞📧 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Masem - I tried to avoid doing this, but the way the discussions are progressing below, I feel obligated to do so. I'll start by saying I made a total of 10 edits to Trump-Russia dossier, and 251 edits (some being tweaks & fixes to my initial comments) in Nov 2017, Jan & Feb 2018, and April 2018 to the TP mostly because of the constant challenges and DS restrictions, and having to spend more time on the article TP avoiding/defending bludgeoning, PAs and misinformation, not to mention participation in numerous local consensus discussions and RfCs. To say editors are bludgeoning when trying to reach a consensus for inclusion against WP:OWN behavior and STONEWALLING is just plain ludicrous. I'll provide diffs to demonstrate what typically occurs in a call for consensus over a simple sentence or two:
My iVote to the proposed material by Factchecker
BR's response to the reasons I gave
My response to the wrongful claim that was made against me.
Muboshgu's response to my suggestion to delete/merge
BR's PA against me using a TP discussion he took completely out of context, editing out my comments to fit his agenda to denigrate me;
Speaking to no publicly known evidence
O3000's umpteenth misrepresentation
Muboshgu's Wikilawyering comment
My response that I would not take the bait.
Keep in mind that the above goading came about because I supported inclusion of well-sourced material. It pretty much represents my routine involvement with Trump-related articles since very few edits I've suggested ever make it into the articles - I just give up and go edit other things - and if you think that's fair and a reason to TB me, then WP has a serious problem. I typically don't even respond to PAs and false accusations, and there are many. If admins truly believe that my behavior is deserving of a TB, then all I can say is that I have much better things to do with my time, and don't need to be editing any WP articles anymore. You can just strip me of all my user rights and I'll wish you all "happy editing" because this is the most ludicrous charge against me, yet. Atsme📞📧 15:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • RegentsPark - you are suggesting a TB based on some enabling of that on the part of Atsme Why do you think I have any influence at all to "enable" anyone and why is that worthy of a TB? When did attempts to defuse disruption and make suggestions become an offense worthy of a topic ban? If you believe that my few comments in that lengthy discussion justify a TB, then you might as well include my "enabling" of SPECIFICO, and BullRangifer, not just Factchecker. As for your confusion over my statement, you should have asked me to explain if you didn't understand it, and I would have been happy to oblige. Perhaps it was one of those you had to be there situations, I don't know - but in short, it simply pointed out the irony in their reasons for denying Factchecker's proposed NYTimes material. IOW, they denied inclusion of "there's no evidence" while at the same time they created an entire article based on unsubstantiated, no evidence claims that comprise the bulk of the dossier. In summary, your suggestion to TB me is based on my attempts to defuse a situation by following the rules of DS consensus only, participating with civility in some of the discussion by responding to questions, avoiding any response to the goading and PAs that were made against me, and for making a simple suggestion for editors to allow Factchecker to present a proposal after that root canal of a discussion we all had to endure. I do hope you will reconsider your position because it certainly comes across as a punitive suggestion. Atsme📞📧 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • 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)
PS - I also know when it’s time to walk-away...which I did. 13:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO[edit]

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)

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)

Statement by Objective3000[edit]

@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)

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

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 [57], especially the sub-section proposing sanctions, which I started. [58]. 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 [59]
  • 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" [60]
  • Factchecker claims that another editor has "Very poor reading ability" [61]
  • Factchecker demands that another editor "Justify your vote or strike it please." [62]
  • Factchecker calls the proposal for sanctions an "attempt for revenge" on my part.[63] and then says that I am "A sniper with a grudge" [64]
  • Factchecker says to another editor "You're flat-out lying in order to manufacture "evidence" to get me blocked." (emphasis in original) [65]. He then doubles down on the statement. [66]
  • Factchecker says that another editor's description of events is "not...honest". [67]
  • Factchecker says of me that I have "repeatedly surfaced in discussions to recommend I be blocked". [68]. When challenged to provide diffs backing up this aspersion, he refuses to do so unless I specifically deny that his claim is true, [69] 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. [70] I had already acknowledged that we had had a dispute in the past. [71] 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?" [72]
  • Factchecker responds to BullRangifer -- with whom they have an IBan -- that BR's comment is "transparently false". [73] 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:

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

I'd like to make it clear that my proposed sanction on Factchecker in the AN thread was a topic ban on Donald Trump, broadly construed,nothing more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I have struck out the parts about violating the IBan with BullRangifer. I had mistakenly thought it was a standard IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the IBan imposed on Factchecker by NeilN, as BullRangifer comments on my talk page, the way it is structured seems to give Factchecker too much leeway to game the intent of it. I think that a normal one-way IBan would be preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Is Factchecker really going to be given the freedom to continue to lash out at other editors and re-litigate the IBan that NeiLN imposed on him? His latest comments are an example of howhe uses BATTLEGROUND tactics to try and get his way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lionelt[edit]

Two issues have been submitted for consideration:

1. IBAN violation with BullRangifer

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

2. BATTLEGROUND at Trump-Russia Dossier

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

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

Statement by BullRangifer[edit]

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

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

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

The history of the essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of the essay, with diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My essay started on March 13, 2018 as a comment in response to AmYisroelChai:

20:22, March 13, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+659)‎ . . User talk:AmYisroelChai

If my essay was inspired and directed at anyone, it was AmYisroelChai. It grew from there.

I used it as the start of the essay on my talk page on March 13, 21:47

21:47, March 13, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+719)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎Message for fringe political editors: new section)

It was one short paragraph for some time. Then I mentioned it in replying to such an editor, and even more which became part of the essay was written there:

20:50, March 17, 2018diffhist. .(+2,721). .User talk:PZP-003

PZP-003 inspired me to develop what later become my essay:

22:06, March 17, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+387)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (develop)

I then added a lot more to the essay:

02:30, March 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,467)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (develop)

PZP-003 created more problems, so I left another comment and referred them to the essay because it contained advice for them:

23:39, March 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+898)‎ . . User talk:PZP-003 ‎ (→‎Discretionary Sanctions block: reply)

I once again referred them to the essay.

After editing the Fake news article, I used some of that content on my talk page:

06:29, April 1, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+4,769)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎Trump, his supporters, and fake news: new section)

A few minutes later that content became part of the essay.

06:36, April 1, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+4,830)‎ . . User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (→‎A message for fringe political editors: A message for fringe political editors about Trump, his supporters, and fake news)

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

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

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

On April 8 I copied/moved my essay to its own subpage. It had been created some time before.

15:59, April 8, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+9,275)‎ . . N User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources ‎ (start essay)

FCAYS has repeatedly claimed I "created" the essay on this date.' NOT TRUE.

On May 21, at AN/I, he made several more comments and repeated that false claim:

"... just 4 days later you wrote up this essay blistering essay declaring "If your personal ..."

A glass house built on a bad faith foundation... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Parsing the one-way iBan.

The iBan reads:

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

Atsme has commented on it:

Please keep in mind that Factchecker's iBan (my bold underline for emphasis) does not include article talk pages or threads on admin boards or admin talk pages where BullRangifer's edits or behavior are specifically being discussed. I'm not seeing anything that indicates he violated the iBan despite the accusations. Atsme📞📧 13:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[74]

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

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

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

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

This was my immediate reaction:

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

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

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. Face-wink.svg 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)

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)

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

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)

Statement by Jbhunley[edit]

@RegentsPark: While someone could present a case for topic banning Atsme the justification you put forward - that her "defense for FCAYS in the ANI thread added by BMK ([175]) does mean that [she has] taken ownership of some of FCAYS's behavior" has no basis in policy, common sense or, dare I say, justice. Politically I disagree with just about everything she has to say on Trump. Nor do I agree with her analysis of the FCAS situation but to say that standing up for an editor or, similarly, contesting a complaint/evidence/assertion brought by one editor against the other somehow means one now owns that editor's behavior is far outside the norms of Wikipedia.
Defending an editor is not reinstating a reverted edit and the suggestion it is would be chilling to dispute resolution. For example, I would never have spoken for Atsme here if it would somehow imply I thereby own her behavior or views. Yet by not speaking up she might face a TBAN based more on another editor's behavior than her own, which would just be wrong. (no implication her behavior justifies a TBAN) Jbh Talk 15:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEng[edit]

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)

Statement by Awilley[edit]

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)

Statement by Jytdog[edit]

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
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 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)

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)
  • 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)

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

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):

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

[76] Oh quit your iterated nonsense

[77] 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.

[78] 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.


[80] 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?

[81] 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.

[82] 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.

[83] 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".

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

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

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

[87] 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.

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

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

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

[91] 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)

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)

Statement by Mr. Daniel Plainview[edit]

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 [92]. 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)

Statement by Guy Macon[edit]

Please consider the following series of edits: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]

(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)

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

Statement by MelanieN[edit]

(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)

Statement by Factchecker atyourservice[edit]

@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)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Factchecker atyourservice[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Maybe I'm just lazy, but I do need diffs to evaluate. I'm not reading pages and pages of discussions. Other admins may see this differently. Sandstein 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, I agree with NeilN below that no AE actions should be made based on an admin's opinion about whether the article is too long or not; that is definitively a content issue outside the scope of AE. Sandstein 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on Slatersteven's diffs ("Are you nuts?" etc.), there does seem to be at least a prima facie case for sanctions against Factchecker atyourservice for battleground-like conduct, but I'd prefer more diffs to be able to determine whether this is a longterm pattern of conduct. As to the other editors mentioned by GoldenRing below, I have no opinion because of a lack of diffs. Sandstein 14:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, though, with Masem and RegentsPark below that we have a violation of the (unusually worded) interaction ban, which merits a block. Sandstein 15:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I've read most of Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. I agree that Factchecker atyourservice has been a bludgeoning influence on this page and also a couple of other threads I've seen around. I'd suggest that they take at least six months off AP2 (ie a tban).
    The IBAN between Factchecker atyourservice and BullRangifer seems to me overly complicated and I'd like to hear NeilN's reasons for not just imposing a normal IBAN, either one-way or two-way. At this point, I'd like to consider converting it to a normal two-way IBAN.
    I agree with power~enwiki that some others could use a break from the Trump-Russia dossier, though I'm less convinced a wider ban is warranted in these cases; I'm thinking of BullRangifer, Slatersteven, Atsme, and SPECIFICO, who I think have all been unnecessarily combative on that talk page (though I realise that most of SPECIFICO's involvement has been reviewed here already) and also Phmoreno, who seems to consider the talk page a forum for spreading rumours. Topic bans for at least this article, and possibly anything related to Donald Trump, seem to be in order.
    I think that indefinite full protection of the article, as half-suggested by power~enwiki, is also a tempting possibility worth considering, but the problem is, protected in what state? As it stands, it's 19,000 words which probably ought to be cut down to a few paragraphs (seriously, the article has considerably more detail on some of the people involved than their own biography articles do), but I can't quite see how the process of doing that would work without admins basically dictating the content (not somewhere I want to go). WP:TNT is another possibility, though it would have to be done in concert with the topic bans discussed above to prevent the same train wreck happening again. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: As the main accusation in the complaint one of the main problems is bludgeoning, I can see the difficulty in presenting it in a few diffs. GoldenRing (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've also dropped short notifications of this discussion to the editors I've named above. GoldenRing (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Casprings: I think you pinged the wrong person. GoldenRing (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing: It's not particularly complicated. The two editors can still interact on talk pages but Factchecker atyourservice was constantly complaining about, pinging, and posting on BullRangifer's talk page despite being told not to. If they want BullRangifer's sanctioned then they need to bring it to an appropriate venue. Also, given you have expressed an opinion on content strongly favoring one side ("it's 19,000 words which probably ought to be cut down to a few paragraphs", "WP:TNT is another possibility") I would ask that you not take any AE actions with respect to the article. --NeilN talk to me 13:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: My point re the IBAN is that their interactions, at least on that page, are still not great, and I'm not convinced it's one-sided. But you're obviously much more familiar with the situation; do you think a two-way IBAN would be a bad thing?
    My point re the article itself is that the coverage therein seems to me to be such an obvious violation of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and so thoroughly unencyclopaedic that any action that preserves the status quo would be counter-productive; I don't see that as a content opinion but as a policy opinion. That said, I'm not about to wade in here and act without trying to build some sort of consensus for the action. GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing: I have no objection if you make it a two-way IBAN outside of article/article talk space. I would strongly object if admins try to dictate content. If admin AE action is necessary, ask the sides to prepare two versions, hold a community RFC as to which version best meets policies and guidelines, and be done with it. The consensus required provision should be able to control the future direction of the article. --NeilN talk to me 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have several other thoughts on the larger problem, which, as suggested above, are better suited for a very likely AP3 case as it involves many more editors and larger selection of articles (or as NeilN and GoldenRing speak above, an admin-enforced solution). If we limit it just to FCAYS, while many of the talk page diffs are questionable, and I've seen a lot worse language used by others that have failed to merit any type of enforcement remedy, so it's hard to work on that. There's clearly WP:TE from FCAYS happening, and barring any AE action taken here, I would strongly recommend a voluntary break from the topic area, and work on other non-AP2-related topics (I speak to experience on this in relationship to GG). But we do have a clear IBAN violation that was placed in the AP2 topic area, and this warrants a short term (3-6 month) TBAN from the AP2 area simply to get them away from any likely interaction with BullRangifer, which would equivalently help with the TE aspects. --Masem (t) 14:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Atsme: There is absolutely a larger issue here, with many more editors than just FCAYS involved. But AE is absolutely the wrong scope for trying to address this unless we are going to take a very harsh approach and block every editor with more than X edits on Trump-related pages, or do a WP:TNT on these pages. (Neither solution I recommend). I feel we should focus this AE only on FCAYS here, and the only behavior that sticks out as a problem that we can fairly address is the IBAN, which was clearly violated. --Masem (t) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is about as confusing as it gets and, like Sandstein says, it would be nice to see more diffs and fewer links to long discussions. But, cutting to the chaff, there does appear to a clear violation of NeilN's iban on FactChecker and that needs to be addressed. On the broader issue I'm not in favor of handing tbans all around unless it is clear that there are behavioral issues on all sides and, to me, that is not evident. Rather, it looks like we have aggressive editing on the part of FactChecker and some enabling of that on the part of Atsme (the discussion here is a good example of that. It starts with a specific question (collusion), meanders all over the place as more issues are added (democratic spies, etc.), before, when slatersteven asks "what is the content I should be sticking to" we move back to the original question, with Atsme, rather bafflingly given the context, calling for factchecker to be allowed to write a due & balanced (in unfortunate uppercase) npov version. I don't know the background enough to know whether this is pervasive across other discussions but it doesn't seem to me that across the board tbans is the appropriate response. I'll defer to NeilN as to whether topic bans for Factchecker and perhaps Atsme are needed. --regentspark (comment) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Atsme: Unfortunately, your defense for FCAYS in the ANI thread added by BMK ([104]) 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)
    @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)
    @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)
    @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)
    @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)
  • 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)
  • @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)