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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

1. User:EEng contained massive BLP violations (see below).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months [3].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Userpage contained massive, massive BLP violations, including calling public figures "pussies", extensive allegations of Donald Trump being a Nazi, snippets of speeches with things Trump rails against wikilinked to Jews, accusations of racism, antisemitism, and a whole lot that I could devote many paragraphs to. Frankly, it is the worst BLP violation in userspace I've seen in a long time. I'm baffled that it was allowed to stand for this long, with a number of veteran editors even applauding the effort on his talkpage and contributing to it. Aside from the obvious BLP, we also have WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#POLEMIC that this crosses the line on. I've summarily deleted the page as per policy and in keeping with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, but as I'm recused from AP2 enforcement I'm not going to take further unilateral action, and instead will bring it here for uninvolved admin input. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iridescent: That "one section" spans roughly half of a very, very large page. It also goes back quite far into the history. The libel was bad enough, in my estimation, that a simple section blanking or RevDel was not sufficient to excise it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

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.

• To show that Wordsmith has misinterpreted this material is impossible at the moment, since he's jumped the gun and deleted the page. But in brief (as explained on the page itself) my user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing, and many comments on my talk page attest to its success along those lines. Obviously I would never seriously compare anyone to Hitler (except maybe Hitler, I guess) because that would be a BLP violation.
• That the situation isn't nearly as clearcut at Wordsmith seem to think is well-illustrated by the fact that at least one editor was able to characterize me as "a Donald Trump supporter" [5].
• Wordsmith's unilateral deletion of the page in advance of discussion is obviously inappropriate, give that (a) as he explicitly points out, a large number of admins are aware of its content and do not share his concerns, and (b) most of the material on the page has nothing to do with his complaint anyway, yet has been thrown out with the bathwater.

Those three points aside, since the election's now over and the amusement potential has drained from the situation, I'm happy to let the chips fall where they may, according to the community's judgment. EEng 22:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender:: Thanks for the careful analysis. As mentioned before, I'll be happy to conform the page to the community's wishes. Unfortunately Iridescent's kind gesture in restoring a/o June 14 doesn't quite work, since other material was added/changed in the interim unrelated to the discussion here. For example (no kidding) because of a renaming of files over at Commons, the June 14 version's reference to File:Hooker, which used to invoke the moving devotional image File:Hooker's_Company_reach_the_Connecticut.jpg (and actually did so, on June 14), now points to the image seen at File:Hooker.jpg, causing the latter to be the one now displayed by the June 14 version, and thereby lending unintentional if not entirely unwelcome amusement. EEng 23:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breaching AE protocol by commenting outside my section, but for ease of reading... Unfortunately, if one accepts that the Trump section is libelous, than the intervening revisions can't be restored because they'll include the offending content. Provided you're happy to have me post it even though it breaks attribution, I can just manually paste the content of the page as of this morning, minus that section, over the existing page. ‑ Iridescent 23:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to nudge in here on a hop and a dash, and excuse my throwing-in of the towel, but the image of the young lady with the title "Hooker" may, in retrospect, be as much of a BLP violation as anything dreamed up in heaven or earth or on EEng's page, and probably should be renamed, like, right now, before she's solicited on the street by well meaning Wikipedians. Randy Kryn 00:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange concern coming from someone named Randy. EEng 01:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad:, One comment re your sensible criterion, but when an attempt at humor causes widespread dissension and unhappiness among one's colleagues and becomes a distraction...: I completely agree, but in this case, of the literally thousands of editors who have apparently visited my user page in the last six months there has been, to my recollection, exactly one objection registered [6] -- which I resolved by making a change addressing the concern expressed. (Can't diff that edit since it's in the deleted part of the history.) Had there been more than that, I would certainly have rethought my approach.

I too am pleased this is being discussed so constructively (by most, at any rate). EEng 01:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakatoakatie: That you you are able interpret a certain photo + caption (or anything else, for that matter) as an actual "suggestion that Hillary Clinton was a dancer at Jack Ruby's burlesque club" (in 1963, when she was 15 years old) – much less that such a photo can possibly make "political statements about post-1932 American politics" – is emblematic of the serious clue-lack being displayed by a very (thankfully) few here. And there's no disputing that Trump really does look like Mussolini, and quotes him too. EEng 04:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Re perhaps, we aren't just spouting off about nothing, given that you haven't seen the page in its entirety... well, perhaps, but then there's no way to know for those not members of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, is there? EEng 11:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) And, sorry I upset you by unknowingly breaking protocol [7] – I'm new to AE. And I realize it must be frustrating that you're reduced to procedural quibbles rather than substantive responses.

@BU Rob13: Re your request [8], here are the three sources you asked for: Trump's wife vs. sex doll; Eric Trump vs. "pussy"; Trump's fat fetish (For the record I did not, as you claim, imply that Christie has a fetish for "overweight" women, rather that those attracted to heavy persons might have ample reason to find him alluring, which seems beyond cavil.) What you refuse to acknowledge is that this material qualifies under Newyorkbrad's very sensible test i.e. (1) statements are made about a prominent living person that would be defamatory if taken literally, but (2) the intent is satirical and no reasonable reader would take them literally (and that goes for the sources I just linked too).

As for your assertion that I "was spoken to and refused to remove the content", that's untrue. Some weeks ago concern was raised about one particular section and (though this isn't apparent in the discussion you link, and as noted in the very discussion you link [9], though for obvious reasons I can't now supply a diff) I made an edit addressing that concern, which the OP apparently found satisfactory. Face it: thousands saw the page and found no problem, and even if, on consideration, it's best that the material be banished the idea that fanciful material only in userspace could lead to a topic ban is absurd.

EEng 09:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Re [10], as already explained (above) the sources I linked underscore the satirical nature of the content, in keeping with Newyorkbrad's criterion. Now at this point I'll allow you to vent away without feeling the need to respond, since the outcome of this misbegotten thread seems clear enough, despite your hopes and dreams. EEng 09:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: Re [11], you don't seem to have read very carefully the discussion you linked. Contrary to what you imply, what that discussion shows is that the one and only time someone raised an objection, after a brief discussion I made a change [12] addressing that objection, and that was the end of it. So your reference to "the sisyphean effort of raising objection would be a futile waste of time" is nonsense.

The question here is less whether the material should stand -- perhaps it shouldn't, given that a significant minority find it problematic -- but the heavyhanded and time-wasting way this matter was handled. EEng 11:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: Re [13] (I doubt frustrations could be avoided no matter the path), I don't know what makes you think that. Had someone merely asked, I probably would have deleted most or all of the section. I was planning to anyway – just hadn't got around to it. This has been an enormous waste of time and drama because some nervous nellie thinks the sky is falling. EEng 23:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Won't argue with the deletion, but no sanction needed, I don't imagine EEng is going to reinstate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: Per Iri below, I won't argue with deletion of the portion that Wordsmith finds objectionable, and I don't imagine EEng is going to reinstate the portion that Wordsmith finds objectionable. The rest of it can surely be left alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the page, you only appear to have a problem with one section, since everything from "Some Entertaining Diversions" onwards is just the straightforward stuff one finds on many userpages—not my cup of tea (IMO the principle of "the more images a user has on their userpage, the less likely their opinions will be worth reading" is generally a fairly firm rule), but entirely non-controversial. Why the need for a scorched-earth deletion rather than just removing the section you found objectionable? ‑ Iridescent 22:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored the history up to 14 June, which took all of three mouse clicks, and doesn't appear to include anything contentious. While I appreciate WP:ARBAPDS technically covers "all pages relating to American politics", in practice we've always allowed very broad leeway for people to make political comments pro-or-anti current politicians on their user and talk pages provided they're not grossly offensive to the extent they have a chilling effect on other editors; while I agree this crossed the WP:POLEMIC line I'd certainly not want to see any sanction here. ‑ Iridescent 23:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've also frequently compared Trump to Hitler. I've even called him "Orange Hitler" a few times. It's a common problem. But you're saying that entire page was devoted to a BLP violation of that one individual? Does policy demand that the entire page is disappeared, without any request at all being made to the owner to delete the offending parts? A lot of time and effort went into constructing the jokes on that page and some of them were even clever and funny. It brought amusement to many people. I think you're risking a lot of editors seeing your enforcement as taking "a sledgehammer to crack a nut". Folks may even think you're a Trump sympathiser. I guess that's a risk you think is worth taking. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can the word "plethora" include Democrat politicians? Or is such a suggestion "breaching AE protocol"? Yes, you are right, User:BU Rob13, Trump is no pussy. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the page hadn't contained any BLP violations and being totally honest this whole enforcement thing didn't need to happen either ... TW could've simply left a message and saved all our times being wasted, Userpage should be reinstated and TW should move on. –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing anyone or anything to Hitler is beyond the pale. Good work, Herr Wordsmith --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that poor Donald couldn't serve his country in the armed forces because of heel spurs? ... but, you know, something just doesn't seem to quite click with that story. Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'd like to see any editor assert, in good faith, that calling one of Trump's sons "a chip off the old pussy" is not a BLP violation. I also eagerly await any good-faith attempts to justify comparing Trump's wife to a sex doll. Or perhaps the assertion that Chris Christie has a fetish for overweight women. Gamaliel resigned as an arbitrator and administrator in no small part because of referring to Trump's hands as being small. This goes so far beyond that. This is the worst BLP violation I have ever seen, by far, and it targets many of individuals. It is nothing short of an attack page. As for those saying this should have been resolved through discussion, I would agree with you, if not for the extremely long and detailed discussion on EEng's talk page, which he summarily ignored, deleting no content whatsoever. At the very least, a topic ban from modern American politics is necessary. I would restrict it to the Trump family if not for the plethora of other politicians targeted on this user page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: If you truly believe this is an instance of WP:CRYBLP, would you please affirmatively state that you see no BLP issues with comparing Trump's wife to a sex doll, calling Trump's son a "chip off the old pussy", and stating that Chris Christie has a fetish for overweight women? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Please cite the reliable sources that reported the three things I listed above or explain how they do not fall afoul of BLP despite being obviously inflammatory statements about living people. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: These were not, in any way, the only statements. There were headings upon headings dedicated to this stuff, and I haven't even picked out the worst ones, as the worst ones should be left buried. This made up well over half of the page. EEng was spoken to and refused to remove the content, as I linked above. I have to wonder why you're leaping to the defense of alleged serious BLP violations that you haven't actually seen. Isn't that a recipe for disaster? I can tell you that about half a dozen experienced administrators looked this over in IRC before this was deleted, and there was universal horror at just how bad the content was. This was described by administrators who have worked in this topic area for over half a decade as the worst BLP violation they've seen, bar none, in years. Does that not give you some pause to think that, perhaps, we aren't just spouting off about nothing, given that you haven't seen the page in its entirety? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: It's a bit silly to advance a second substantive argument when the first remains unanswered. When someone can tell me seriously that they see no BLP violations in the three examples I highlighted, I'll consider advancing other substantive arguments, which probably will consist of the even worse examples that I'm making an effort not to repeat anywhere. (Or perhaps I'll advance something new when someone can explain to me why non-admins, who have never seen the content in question and are unable to now, feel qualified to confidently exclaim that no violation exists). And as a procedural matter, you're always welcome to leave good jokes in my section. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've presented three opinion pieces written in the first person as evidence that this isn't a BLP violation? Stunning. I would be fine with a topic ban from modern American politics in the userspace, if you prefer that narrower scope. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any talk-page discussion with EEng about any concerns regarding his userpage: [14]. As of this writing, I do not see any WP:CONSENSUS here that the userpage should have been deleted. I do not see any WP:MFD filed on the page. The Wordsmith deleted it as WP:G10, G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose (underscoring mine), which it clearly wasn't. Above he states "I've summarily deleted the page as per policy and in keeping with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs", but it is a userpage, not a BLP, not an article, which the Arb ruling specifically refers to. Nor was there any discussion whatsoever on the matter before this summary deletion of this 113,000-byte humor page, which was mostly gentle humor about Wikipedia. EEng's userpage has been a source of blessed humor and relief from the frequent problems of Wikipedia for many many years. His page has 164 watchers [15], among them numerous admins. I agree with EEng above that:

Wordsmith's unilateral deletion of the page in advance of discussion is obviously inappropriate, give that (a) as he explicitly points out, a large number of admins are aware of its content and do not share his concerns, and (b) most of the material on the page has nothing to do with his complaint anyway, yet has been thrown out with the bathwater.

This entire deletion action was out-of-process, and the rationales applied for summarily deleting without any discussion whatsoever did not even apply. Moreover, there is no way for the community at large to adequately discuss the matter since the material in question has vanished. Consequently, I request a restoration of the entire page. If it then needs to be collapsed or blanked while discussion proceeds, fair enough, but we can't let this unauthorized deletion stand since it was clearly not done properly at all. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: I'd like to also point out that this does not belong at AE, because the deletion was not an Arbitration Enforcement, and the Arb ruling cited after the fact does not apply, as it refers only to articles. There is no ArbCom ruling that would justify this unilateral, undiscussed, un-tagged, un-notified deletion of a longterm 113,000-byte humorous userpage, mostly about Wikipedia, that happened to also contain some perceived problematic material. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if non-admins are supposed to comment, but the deletion seems silly. It's a humor page & most of these things have been reported in the press anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "a chip off the old pussy" -- hasn't Trump himself caused such terminology to be ever present during the election season? Can't see the context for other statements as the page has been deleted. If the OP's concern was these three statements this could have been discussed with the page creator, vs unilaterally blanking the page or starting an AE case? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't know EEng very well, but his userpage sort of falls into the "All kinds of humor", his userpage is possibly unique in that it pisses you off, makes you laugh, and shocked, sometimes all at once. No crimes I can see here, but perhaps a bit of a recommendation on his terminology for the Trump family. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've perfectly summarized the vibe I'm going for. EEng 00:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stunned to see the level of willful blindness displayed here by some people I respect. I am no fan of Donald Trump. I detest everything he stands for. But this is no 'gentle humor about Wikipedia'. This is pure attack, nothing less. We have, for example:

• The 'Museum of Donald Trump's Pussies', in which his wife, son, running mate, staff, and political rivals are included along with a photo of a cat as 'pussy he's actually getting'
• The 'Museum of Separated at Birth', in which we see photos of Trump with Mussolini, Hitler, and two different species of primates
• The 'Museum of In Case You Don't Believe In Reincarnation', in which we have more photos of HItler and Trump

And there's more. The farther down the page you go, the more terrible it becomes. There's even a suggestion that Hillary Clinton was a dancer at Jack Ruby's burlesque club thrown in for good measure. That photo, to me, brings this squarely under ARBAP2 because EEng is using this page to make political statements about post-1932 American politics.

I fail to see how this is humor about Wikipedia, or gentle, or anything less than egregious and willful attacks on living persons. You can say whatever you want about anyone in the privacy of your own home and among your friends. Wikipedia is not private and WP:BLPTALK applies here.

Like Trump or don't like him, I don't care. But we cannot allow this kind of thing to stand. If we do, we're no better than we were before Badlydrawnjeff was decided in 2007. In case you weren't around then, we were really bad. Katie^talk 01:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The User:EEng page (eg at this version) violated WP:SMI in that some of the images appear over the top of the tools (navigation, search, interaction, tools) on the left side of the page, making those tools hard to use from that page. This is the case for both:

• Logged-in user, MonoBook skin, Pale Moon (web browser)
• Not logged in, so with the default skin, Firefox browser

This is probably less important the other content issues mentioned above (eg BLP), but it is annoying, and contrary to the guidelines. Even if all the rest of the material was restored, I suggest that the <div style="position: fixed; ... > elements be removed. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was fun, but you knew it couldn't last.

In light of the global rise of authoritarianism it would be nice if there could be a safe space for freedom of expression. That's not the mission of en:wp but maybe it could be a WMF spinoff project. Just a thought. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was fun, and not a Wikipedia article. If parts seemed offending they should have been commented out and discussed. Softlavender and Newyorkbrad explained well, I won't repeat. - When will my user page be deleted without discussion? It proclaims that I am a member of project Freedom of speech, and of the cabal of the outcasts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not an Administrator, I did view the material in question prior to its deletion, and am satisfied that that deletion was the correct course of action. The page clearly met WP:CSD#G10, and the suggestion that the content was a "humourous" or "satirical" diversion, invoking the and meets no other purpose clause is a nonsense which should satisfy no reasonable person.
As with the "Signpost" material which formed the basis of the Arbitration case earlier this year, Wikipedia is simply not in the business of hosting polemical political satire. If editors wish to produce and have published such material, they should make use of one of the multitude of webhosting sites available.
To the suggestion that the material was acceptable because only one complaint was registered, this is also nonsense; it does not account for the editors who, like myself, viewed the material, considered it inappropriate, but also viewed the Talk page discussion[16], and correctly concluded that the sisyphean effort of raising objection would be a futile waste of time. The Wikilawyering justifications produced in this discussion further reinforce this.
Delete, trout, move on. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: It may well be a reasonable expression of opinion, it is not even close to being within the realms of what Wikipedia should publish. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Respectfully, to draw comparison to Charlie Hebdo is disgraceful. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: It's clearly not a "freedom of speech" issue - no-one, to my knowledge, objects to the existence of the material, or wishes to constrain EEng from producing it - they object strongly to the use of Wikipedia to publish it. As for censorship, we explicitly censor ourselves to exclude multiple types of information, including, again explicitly, this type of information. Wikipedia is neither Private Eye nor Viz (not as funny as it used to be); neither are we publishers (other than for the purpose of documenting these topics) of erotica, pornography, propaganda or polemic, or anything else that might be found published in multiple places elsewhere. John Brown might be happy to publish cartoons of unfeasibly large testicles; Larry Flynt might publish many a satirical comic along with his more satyrical matter - we do not. If editors want to publish political polemic, they should do so elsewhere. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All those revisions got deleted, but have not been restored. I think the deletion was enough. The revisions of the page that were deleted were definitely violations of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP, but the revisions that contained them have been removed, and I think we can just move on. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KrakatoaKatie's analysis is spot on. I don't find the page particularly funny, and yes, it was a blatant BLP violation. Quite frankly I'm disturbed by the fact that administrators were praising the page. Patient Zero^talk 13:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the deletion and most of KrakatoaKatie's assessment. The user page and talk page are also violations of policy and should be looked into. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm having a really, really hard time seeing BLP violations here. It's userspace, not the encyclopedia, and anyone reading that page and not understanding that its content is not meant seriously...well, I wouldn't know what to do for them anyway. Yes, BLP applies to userspace, but just like libel, BLP violations are only dangerous if presented in a way that someone might actually believe them to be true. I think deletion of the entire page was excessive, and if there was some part that was particularly concerning, that could've been better addressed by talking it over with EEng and, if necessary, asking the community for input. I don't much go for farting around in userspace myself, but if others want to, it's generally harmless. Indeed, things like that might help editor retention; everyone's got to blow off a bit of steam every so often. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @EEng: You may not be on this page too often (and if so, good on you), but please keep in mind it doesn't allow for threaded discussion in other editors' sections, because that just caused way too many problems before that was put into place. Please make any replies in your own section, and move any made elsewhere there as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like WP:CRYBLP to me. Trump is a divisive figure and nothing in the deleted revisions shows anything beyond reasonable expression of opinion. If Wordsmith thinks it violates WP:NOTFORUM (a not indefensibel view) then WP:MFD is second door on the left. This is not, I think, an AE matter in respect of American Politics or anything else. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the questions prominently raised by the Gamaliel arbitration case earlier this year, but not resolved by that case (perhaps because it is a policy matter), is whether a BLP violation exists where, outside mainspace, (1) statements are made about a prominent living person that would be defamatory if taken literally, but (2) the intent is satirical and no reasonable reader would take them literally. Perhaps a further consideration might be if (3) the statements are unusually graphic, or indelicate, or some would say crass. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this question, and perhaps the (über-serious) discussion of April Fools jokes that took place earlier this year could have discussed the broader question. (My own passing comment at the time was, "non-mainspace humor has its place in Wikipedia, as part of the friendly comeraderie and shared experience of editing that sustains the community—but when an attempt at humor causes widespread dissension and unhappiness among one's colleagues and becomes a distraction, the humorist should reconsider whether it is serving its purpose, whether it is or recently was April 1 or any other day. This is not a call for self-censorship per se, but for common sense.") Regarding today's developments, I am actually pleased to see a situation in which administrators and editors are acting out of principle and with good faith on all sides. A compromise seems to be working out, under which the userpage is being restored without the most disputatious of the material, and I'd be happy to see this matter resolved, without further action against anyone, on that basis. (Cross-posting this to AN also.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @EEng: You are right that my quotation of my comment from six months ago is from a different context and was not meant to describe today's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see how simply deleting this entire massive user page without discussion could possibly have been the right move or could possibly have just ended without all this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I try to stay away, as a rule, from EEng's talk and user page--they are too big for my caches to handle. Yes, BLP violation; sure, massive; yes, in pretty good spirits; OK, violation of NOTWEBHOST, all that. I absolutely agree with the deletion, and wish EEng the best. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Je suis EEng. I like EEng's user page as it appeals to my sense of humour and contains nothing you wouldn't see in Private Eye or Viz which you can buy from most newsagents round here. If you are really concerned about harm to living persons, go and file a formal complaint to Twitter about some of the stuff Trump writes on his feed. I'll expand on this later after breakfast, but I see no breaches of the spirit of BLP whatsoever. Grow up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll expand a bit on what I'm talking about. One of the key discussions that led to the increase in importance in BLP around ten years ago was this, and a principal problem is that by 2006, people were creating articles about people who really weren't all that famous. The reason BLP is important is because Wikipedia is likely to be the most viewed website and source of information about not-particularly-famous people, so it's important to get things right.

However, like all things, it is possible to over-apply BLP in the wrong direction; if you go too far you end up with the cult of Kim Il Sung who can never do anything wrong, period. I'm prepared to believe that Donald Trump is the most famous person on this entire planet right now, so of everyone in the world that the intent that led to BLP could apply, he's the least affected. People have been out rioting and demonstrating against him and calling him names all over the internet. Wikipedia puts reliably sourced criticism of Trump in his article, and doesn't violate BLP in doing so.

Given that content, a user page that mocks facts that we already have on Wikipedia, not least in the standalone articles Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and puts them in a humorous light cannot be a realistic violation of BLP. If you really are concerned about what EEng said, you should be more concerned about the three articles I just linked to and checking those for BLP.

There's a further aspect to consider. We understand BLP and the CSD criteria, being the seasoned wiki-veterans that we are, but the outside world does not, and it only takes one person to put two and two together and get five, misinterpret a political motive to The Wordsmith deleting the content. After all, Trump is no stranger to wanting to sue and censor people that rub him up the wrong way. I can picture the Daily Mail running a headline of "Wikipedia cyber-bullies censor Trump opponent" (why let facts get in the way of a good story), maybe under the misguided assumption that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are somehow related, if it would be a good story that sells lots of papers. Or perhaps OurMine, who don't seem to be fans of Trump (and who can blame them) will decide that The Wordsmith is the next admin account that's worth having a crack at, being an obvious^{[citation needed]} Trump loyalist. Is this really a risk we want Wikipedia to take? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: I didn't make a comparison to Charlie Hebdo, I made a comparison to freedom of speech and lack of censorship. I also made a comparison to Private Eye and Viz, and if you read any issue of those two journals, you will discover that what occurs on Wikipedia is mild in comparison. Or, indeed, watch any old episode of Spitting Image - most reasonable people would not seriously believe Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was a gin-drinking gambling alcoholic with a Brummie accent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: "Grow up" was not directed at you (I don't think I've seen any comment from you that is a problem whatsoever) and I apologise if you thought it was. Rather, it was exasperation that we had to come here and to WP:AN instead of just having a quiet word on EEng's talk or email, which could have resolved the whole situation more amicably. That's all. Incidentally, the problem reported here has been (at least partially) resolved at Commons. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with the deletion, as at the very least the page was a massive violation of NOTWEBHOST. I found it slightly amusing in the way fart and dick jokes are slightly amusing, but ultimately I think what we put on our user pages ought to be of the same caliber as what you'd expect to find pinned to a colleague's office wall. I'm having trouble imagining a case for sanctions, though, so I'd rather close this and move on as long as EEng doesn't announce intentions to restore the page. --Laser brain (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Some elements of the deleted page were clear BLP violations; deletion was valid. If only as a courtesy blanking pending an MfD. Simply ascribing "humorous treatment" to what may be an actual occurrence is irrelevant. Anyone remember the Plaxico situation? That the BLPs were in user space does not mitigate the problem either. Grow up, Ritchie? Taking swipes at one's colleagues' maturity for their good faith efforts at maintaining Wikipedia policy does your position a disservice. My opinion may not hold up to the test of consensus, but I'm damned if it's immature. Tiderolls 14:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:Thanks for that consideration. I agree that other options might have served the situation better but I doubt frustrations could be avoided no matter the path. Tiderolls 18:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the page was an appropriate G10 candidate and nominating it for MfD would have been a better course of action. However having this on a userpage was not a good idea and I think it would have been deleted if sent to MfD. I don't see any need for sanctions at this time and I suggest that the current situation is a satisfactory resolution. Hut 8.5 15:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we're all done here, aren't we? There's clearly no consensus to sanction EEng, which I quite agree with, and he's already agreed not to restore the contentious sections. I think everyone's got better things to do. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

Specifically: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

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

1. 30 October 2016 Reverts CFCF, removing "pseudoscience" from opening sentence.
2. 8 November 2016, 16:28 Removes "pseudoscience" from opening sentence again.
3. 8 November 2016, 16:43 Edit wars to once again remove "pseudoscience" from opening sentence.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 October 2015 Blocked for edit-warring
2. 24 June 2010 Blocked for edit-warring

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, also see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Chiropractic article is covered by discretionary sanctions in the field of pseudoscience. The alert can be found at the top of the talk page Talk:Chiropractic, linking to WP:ARBPS.

The Chiropractic article is currently under a concerted attack to remove the appellation "pseudoscience" from the opening sentence, which reads "Chiropractic is a form of pseudoscience and alternative medicine... ". Afterwriting is now edit-warring to force the removal of the term. There is no doubt that the underlying theory that chiropractic bases itself on, "vertebral subluxations" is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientific opinion: [17], [18], [19], [20] and our Arbitration Committee has previously endorsed discretionary sanctions against editors on the chiropractic article - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience #2009.

Afterwriting has a history of attempting to force his preferred version by editwarring (see previous blocks and his present talk page), and is now doing this again in an attempt to whitewash Chiropractic contrary to mainstream scientific and medical opinion.

I request that Afterwriting be topic-banned from chiropractic and related pages to prevent further disruption and edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of this request

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.

I am very pleased that common sense has prevailed in this matter. This report had no substantial merit to it to begin with and, frankly, I had no need to defend myself against such erroneous accusations. It was an exercise in not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. As can can readily be checked, at no point in any of this "edit war" did I ever argue that mention of "pseudoscience" should not appear in the introduction or elsewhere in the article. In fact I agree that it should appear in an appropriate place and in an appropriate way. All I did was revert the addition of the term as the first description in the article, even though it already appeared elsewhere in the lead. The term was added to the opening sentence without seeking any consensus to do so and was then reverted which was entirely justifiable in terms of a number of editing policies. The editor responsible for constantly and aggressively adding this term as the first description in this and other alternative medicine articles is the one who bears principal responsible for creating any edit wars with myself and other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a troubling pattern here, edit warring with CFCF on multiple altmed articles and engaging in personal attacks: [21][22][23][24][25] (Full disclosure: I often edit altmed pages and support WP's "bias" towards basing statements on the best-quality evidence available.)LeadSongDog come howl! 19:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like CFCF WP:BOLDly added the word pseudoscience to the first/definition sentence of Chiropractic (so that it read "Chiropractic is a form of pseudoscience and alternative medicine...") about three weeks ago. That particular instance of the word pseudoscience has been removed or moved to a different paragraph in the lead by multiple editors several times in the intervening weeks (and also re-added repeatedly by CFCF and other proponents).

There is now an active discussion on the talk page about whether or not pseudoscience should be the sixth word in the article, although it may be generating more heat than light. At the moment, the terms pseudoscience and pseudomedicine appear three times in the lead and three more times in the body of the article, but (since CFCF self-reverted earlier today) it is not currently in the first sentence itself.

In terms of this AE request, I would not fault Afterwriting for removing a heavily disupted word multiple times than I would fault CFCF for re-adding it multiple times – or any of the other editors who have edited that part of the article recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It's reasonable to see a general Wikipedia consensus that Chiropractic should be classified under pseudoscience. But attempts to stuff 'pseudoscience' into the opening sentence of the lead might appear to be provocative and likely to result in future edit wars. Even without User:CFCF's addition of pseudoscience to the opening sentence, we still have pseudoscience mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. We should expect some level of ongoing editing of the lead, but people who want to fine-tune the placement of 'pseudoscience' in the opening paragraph would normally be expected to defer to talk-page consensus. So to sanction Afterwriting for his edits and say nothing about people on the other side could appear unbalanced. (They didn't wait for a talk page consensus either). Unless there is a suggestion to apply page-level sanctions (e.g. putting a general 1RR on Chiropractic) I'd favor closing this request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah I agree with EdJohnston. I do think that Afterwriting is guilty of edit warring, at least in spirit, and should not have reverted RexxS--for now, let's wait and see what the talk page discussion delivers, and let this be a stern reminder to Afterwriting that they need to tread much, much more carefully. Their second revert on 8 November was, as far as I'm concerned, blockable. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing. User:Afterwriting is warned for edit warring on the lead of Chiropractic. If this continues, an AE block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 07:03, 18 October 2016 Edit on Kashmir related to Dogra dynasty, which would fall under Pakistani-Indian conflict.
2. 09:40, 10 November 2016 Edit on Pakistan saying "Since 1989, thousands of Kashmiri Muslim refugees have sought refuge in Pakistan, complaining that many of the refugee women had been raped by Indian soldiers and that they were forced out of their homes by the soldiers." Unambiguously related to conflict between India and Pakistan.
3. 22:11, 12 November 2016 Edit on Pakistan about the First Kashmir War, the partition of India, the rape of Kashmiri women by Indian soldiers, and genocide. Unambiguously related to conflict between India and Pakistan.
4. 21:56, 12 November 2016 Edit on Pakistan which copied material from Partition of India. Similar to 22:11, 12 November 2016 edit. Unambiguously related to conflict between India and Pakistan.
5. 02:35, 14 November 2016 edit made after user replied to this AE. Edit falls under tban.
6. 02:38, 14 November 2016 Same as above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 02:49, 24 March 2016 Discretionary sanctions (1RR) placed on user by Slakr for 1 month
2. 00:20, 1 April 2016 Blocked by Drmies for 60 hours for edit warring on Bangladesh Liberation War.
3. 15:12, 15 May 2016 Topic banned from "Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." by EdJohnston. Can be appealed after 6 months.
4. 01:02, 1 October 2016 Blocked by Lankiveil for 72 hours for topic ban violation as a result of previous AE filing

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15:12, 15 May 2016 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Other edits "toe the line" but these were the most egregious. In the previous AE filing, the validity of the Bangladesh topic ban was questioned as it's not explicitly mentioned in WP:ARBIPA so I have excluded diffs related to violation of that aspect of the topic ban.

@Mar4d: you'll have to ask EdJohnston why he did the topic ban. It appears to be because the user was disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 19:37, 13 November 2016

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.

The original ban was imposed invalidly to begin with. It was hastily issued and based upon one editor's incendiary comment to an admin's talk page. I was never reported at AE and was not even given a chance to defend myself. I was banned on a comment of an editor who went on admin shopping and knew which admin would be more than willing to entertain his request because that specific admin has been mentioning distributing topic-bans on forums in the past. Towns_Hill 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Towns Hill

No comment on the ruling, but as far as this whole sanction on Towns Hill is concerned, it really appears counterproductive and pointless to me, in my opinion. I think the purpose of sanctions is not punitive, but preventative. This filing appears to give an impression of the former. Some of the diffs cited above for example appear to be actually productive edits, and appear to improve article content (particularly those on the ethnic Kashmiris page). This doesn't harm Wikipedia so long as Towns Hill makes sure his additions are reliably sourced and verifiable. Towns Hill has kept to his restriction for a few months, and I think he has the potential to be a productive editor. Instead of wasting time on these nitty-gritty enforcements, I for one think we should re-visit the sanctions in the first place, and try to re-integrate TH into editing. Why were they enforced, and what can/should be improved? I would be happy to guide TH or provide assistance if necessary. Mar4d (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, to clarify my position on EdJohnston's topic ban. I had misread the topic ban wording in the first instance and thought that it was a ban on all India and Pakistan pages. So I thought it was too severe. When I did finally notice that it was limited to India-Pakistan conflicts, I thought the ban was appropriate.

When Towns Hill came on the scene, pretty much all the India-Pakistan conflict pages went up in flames. If the ban is lifted, I am afraid we might go back to the same situation. I did try to engage with Towns Hill quite seriously prior to the ban, e.g., here, but I am afraid it fell on deaf ears. Has his behaviour improved since the ban? I think not.

Here, for instance, is an edit where Towns Hill got into a dispute (on Kashmiri diaspora). Whereas I tried to open a talk page discussion to try and find a resolution, Towns Hill put his foot down and reinstated his edit. In this instance, I agree with Towns Hill on the merits of the issue, but not with his way of dealing with it. Kashmiri diaspora is a little corner, where this behaviour didn't give rise to any great problems. If he does this kind of thing again at Bangladesh liberation war, we will again have flame wars.

So my recommendation is to cut him some slack in dealing with Kashmir, which is his special interest, but continue the wider topic ban until he learns to finds his way around WP:NPOV and resolving disputes amicably. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits 1, 5, and 6 mentioned above are not covered by the topic ban in my opinion. The Dogra dynasty is neither India nor Pakistan. And, what happened in the 19th century is unrelated to India-Pakistan conflict as well. Conflicts between Kashmiris and India, or those between Kashmiris and Pakistan are also not covered by the ban. I would like to recommend that these areas be left open for Towns Hill to edit so that he can demonstrate his good will in due course. All matters regarding Partition of India are of course part of India-Pakistan conflict. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Noticing that User:Mar4d and User:Kautilya3 see value in User:Towns Hill's edits, I asked User:EvergreenFir on their talk page about the idea of lifting the ban. It is disappointing that Towns Hill seems unable to follow the terms of the existing ban, but if the ban is lifted this problem will no longer occur. Any comments? If anyone wants to review their edits, notice that all their warnings and blocks (since account creation in January) are still visible at User talk:Towns Hill. Towns Hill does not seem to have much insight into which of their edits might be controversial, and they have gotten into edit wars, but they sometimes do good work. They seem not to understand either 3RR or 1RR, so if these problems recur, they will probably get blocked again.
• To get a quick overview of the problems with Towns Hill you might look at User talk:Towns Hill#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction 2 and the discussion that follows it. Towns Hill does have academic knowledge, but switches into battleground mode easily when they feel people are opposing them unfairly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not a fan of lifting restrictions because people refuse to abide by them, however productive some of their edits may be judged by others. The correct route to appeal a sanction is not an enforcement request by someone concerned about violation of the sanction. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, on the theory that we shouldn't reward people for ignoring their bans, this case ought to close with a regular block for some period, and if Towns Hill wants the ban lifted or modified he should file an Arbitration Enforcement Appeal. Which we would not address in the current thread. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. Per User:Kautilya3's observations, only diffs 2, 3 and 4 are definitely covered by the current wording of Towns Hill's topic ban, 'Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh.' The Kashmiri troubles in the 19th century that predated the creation of Pakistan can be assumed not to be included, but alleged rapes by Indian soldiers on the contested territory of Kashmir are definitely included, and anything related to the Partition of India is included. So I'm closing with a one-week block for ban violation. The block might be lifted if we become confident that Towns Hill understands and will follow his topic ban in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. 11/10 Insults, personal attacks. Accusing other editors of "shilling" (i.e. accusing other editors that they're editing Wikipedia for money)
2. 11/10 Insults, personal attacks
3. 11/10 Personal attacks, discussing editors not content

1. 11/9 Attacking and accusing other editors, although, I guess, in general terms, WP:SOAPBOXing.
2. 11/9 Restoring another users' actual trolling on the Hillary Clinton page [26], although to be fair he was also restoring his own comment. BTW, can someone take a look at that other user?
3. 10/24 Insults and personal attacks
4. 10/24 along with [27] and [28] - basically accuses me, and other editors, of working for money to edit Wikipedia on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Now, he does it in a "sarcastic" tone which I guess would allow them some "deniability" when called on it, but the accusation is pretty clear. When I asked him if that was indeed the accusation he was making, bloodofox's response was basically "well, you'd never admit to it anyway"

1. 9/22 Attacks on other editors rather than discussing content
2. 8/25 Refusal to discuss or work towards consensus because other editors are "extensions of the Clinton campaign"
3. 8/29 Makes the accusations that other editors are working for the Clinton campaign explicit. Attacks others. Complete and total failure to assume good faith. I'm sorry but discussing with someone who is so obsessed with attacking others is simply impossible.
4. 8/29 Insults, ridiculous accusations that other editors work "for the Clinton campaign". Language about "ground zero" clearly indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

1. 8/16 Insulting other editors and calling them trolls.
2. 8/15 Insulting other editors and calling them trolls. Threats to edit war on the article to get their way. WP:BATTLEGROUND
3. 8/15 Aspersions and personal attacks
4. 8/15 Calling other editors comments in discussion "trolling" without evidence
5. 8/15 More insults and accusations of trolling
6. 8/14 More personal attacks and baseless accusations of bias
7. 8/14 Accusations that other editors on Wikipedia are working for "the Clinton campaign"
8. 8/14 Aspersions and more personal attacks, focus on discussing (and attacking) fellow editors rather than discussing content
9. 8/13 Baseless accusations against other editors
10. 7/8 Old, but shows a long running pattern of using personal attacks and making WP:ASPERSIONS that has been going on for awhile

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

[29] (note the edit summary)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Honestly I should've filed this long time ago, back in August when this started. But I try to be tolerant of incivility and personal attacks up until the point when these make discussion impossible. Give users another chance etc. But that's the point we've reached here. I have no idea of the quality/nature of bloodofox's contributions in other topic areas, but I honestly have not seen them make a single productive contribution to a discussion in American Politics. bloodofox IMMEDIATELY assumes that anyone who disagrees with them is a "paid shill", that they are working for the Clinton campaign (or were, I guess, looks like no more fat pay checks for me. Sad.) that they are troll, that they work for "Correct a Record" (which is silly, seeing as how that is/was just a website) etc. When bloodofox arrives in a discussion it basically short circuits it and makes any consensus forming process impossible. I had hoped they'd chill out after the election was over, but it appears from their recent comments that if anything it's getting worse. Those diffs from post-election November constitute something like five different insults in less than 24 hours.

And yes, I know some of these diffs are old and in and of themselves maybe they're stale - but going from August, to September, to October to today they show a very clear pattern of verbal abuse directed at other editors, a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and a simple WP:NOTHERE presence in this topic area.

An indef topic ban from AmPol should be placed, and this would allow bloodofox to continue to contribute productively in other areas (assuming their editing in those is fine, like I said, I have no idea). Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When bloodofox says he "called out" editors for their supposed POV what he really means is that he insulted and attacked them and threw ridiculous accusations at them in order to derail talk page discussions. Yeah, that's 'calling somebody out'. Right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In particular comments like these "Still shilling?" and "Have some dignitiy" (my dignity is fine, thank you very much) are particularly obnoxious and insulting. These two comments alone should warrant a block in addition to whatever topic ban is imposed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bloodofox: I was pretty explicit that there's no way for anyone to detect that anyone was working for a campaign in any capacity on Wikipedia - I think that pretty much illustrates the problem. "I can't prove it so I'm just going to accuse and attack".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bloodofox, wikilawyer however you like, but when you say to another editor "still shilling?" you are saying "you did shill". And when you say "you did shill" you are saying you were paid to edit Wikipedia. A person who "shills" is a "shill". So you are calling them a "shill". And this is an extremely obnoxious and serious personal attack. Especially since as you yourself admit, there's absolutely no proof of it (although, quite strangely, you appear to believe that because there is no proof of it, that makes it okay for you to make this attack on others, rather than, as would common sense suggest, the opposite).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain to me why MyMoloboaccount is bringing up my supposed "Americaness" or whatever and what is this "charade" that he is referring to or how is this in any way relevant except as what appears to be an attempt to throw around more insults (though it's a peculiar choice of an insult in all honesty)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can one of the WP:AE admins please ask Moloboaccount to stop speculating outloud about my nationality/ethnicity since it's completely beside the point and is frankly none of his goddamn business? Should I start picking random editors out here and making stuff about where they're supposedly from and where they supposedly live and what their "true" nationality is? Is that kind of behavior acceptable? And please note that I have asked him several times to stop doing this as it's obviously meant to be either insulting (at least in his mind) or a form of intimidation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:User:Tiptoethrutheminefield has just [30] accused me of "being a shill", do I need to file a separate report or can that be folded into this one? (Also note how it's the same three or four users showing up to every single request in this topic area = Athenan, Tiptoethroughthemindfield, EtienneD, James Lambden - in particular the first three have a long history together). I'd appreciate it if some admins active on this page, like Bishonen, Dennis Brown, Drmies, Lankiveil, Guy, EdJohnston (listing those who have commented here in the recent past) would get around to looking at this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

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.

Ah, now that the campaign is over and it clearly didn't go his way, Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) has apparently decided that it's time to take out his anger on other users who called him out during the election for his blatantly ideological and POV edits. The mysterious "other editors" he's referring to above are in fact a single other extremely ideological editor, an editor he frequently worked with during this period: scjessey (talk · contribs).

Whether it was trying to sanitize anything relating to the DNC (one such example, [32]) or simply perfume a Clinton-related article (notice that the Clinton Foundation remains essentially a puff piece), I was one of many editors who called these two out during the process. In truth, Marek spent the last few months edit-warring with those he disagreed with while using Wikipedia as a political platform (I have a self-imposed policy of 1 revert per 24 hour rule on all articles barring blatant vandalism).

Now, there's so much misinformation attached to his misleading diff annotations above that I can only say that it looks like that, with the election over, Marek has found a little more time on his hands and is using it to go after those he blames. He even resorts to claiming that I've restored vandalism rather than simply my comments and then takes the time to describe Correct the Record as "just a website", lol. Despite the annotations above, however, nobody accused Marek or his pal of working for anyone. And to correct the record I've never been a Trump supporter, BTW.

One thing that is true is that bias has been a major problem on our articles throughout this election cycle. I've called it out as I've seen it and all of my comments above are about concerns regarding bias on the article they're attached to, usually discussing referencing. Meanwhile, Marek has at times resorted to ping spamming me (as some of the diffs above reveal) and relentlessly edit-warred with any editor that came along, at times breaking 1RR on a variety of political articles (ex. [33], [34], [35]).

This is purely ideological revenge editing on the part of the Marek and, frankly, isn't worth the time I'm taking to write this out. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—also a quick lol at the block request for telling a user to "have some dignity". :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@clpo13 (talk · contribs), please provide a diff where I've called anyone a shill. Calling someone a straight up shill versus calling someone out for shilling for a candidate isn't the same thing. You don't have to be an operative to be a biased, non-neutral and highly ideological editor peddling a party line. In fact, as the diffs above demonstrate, I was pretty explicit that there's no way for anyone to detect that anyone was working for a campaign in any capacity on Wikipedia (which is presumably why we have no policy against it to this day). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@clpo13 (talk · contribs), I quite explicitly accused—and accuse—these editors of ideological editing and blatant promotion of their candidates on the site under the guise of neutral editing. Thats pretty straightforward. As I said in the diffs above, however, there's no way of confirming, denying, or even blocking anyone for any affiliation with a campaign at this time. I'm not exactly known for beating around the bush on Wikipedia. To be frank, if anyone deserves any sort of sanction here, it's Marek himself and for exactly the reasons I mention in the diffs above. Were they operating as if they were the Wikipedia extension of the Clinton campaign? Absolutely. Were they doing anything but, well, volunteering? No clue. As a result, I haven't accused anyone of working with a campaign. Any suggestion to the contrary is bullshit obfuscation. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), I'm not going back and forth with you. Your edit history shows that you're a blatantly ideological edit warrior with zero concern for article neutrality, injecting pro-Clinton and pro-DNC bias into every article you've touched this election season. Along the way you've even somehow mustered the desire to attempt to edit war and whitewash articles in favor of such lovable figures as Debbie Wasserman Schultz (of course, that didn't fly). Sure, all that nastiness was ultimately for nothing but there are better ways to take out your personal frustrations than on wasting the time of others on Wikipedia.

And, gee, all this talk about concern regarding bias on these articles and the presence of the Clinton campaign. Outside of Correct the Record, there's also this interesting e-mail implying pretty strongly that the DNC has either been editing the Debbie Wasserman Schultz article (or looking to do so) since at least May of 2016. I mean, who woulda thunk it, right? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs), while I stand by all of my edits (including diffs above, regardless of Marek's dishonest—and frankly goofy—commentary) and I believe they hardly qualify as "rope", what incident are you referring to? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@drmies (talk · contribs), with all due respect, I really don't think you're a neutral editor in this matter. As you yourself note, you and I have a long history here. The edit you're referencing is in response to a relentless editor-warrior, this guy (don't worry, he links to it from his user page). However, IMO this is a pretty straight forward, revenge-motivated vexatious complaint on the part of Marek. If anyone should be blocked from these topics, it's Marek. And I'm sure that's coming sooner or later. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@drmies (talk · contribs), the statement was "which [was] operating as an extension of the Clinton campaign through stretches of the election" ([36]). Please correct. Did you somehow miss, for example, the Wikileaks drops on Donna Brazile giving Clinton campaign questions in advance during the primaries while working for CNN? [37], etc. One of the things that was so notable about this election was the role of the press, such as this incident. CNN did in fact work closely with the Clinton campaign throughout the election, at times operating as an extension of the campaign, as Wikileaks revealed. That's an objective reality. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@drmies (talk · contribs), what I'm seeing here is that a.) you seem to have not been following these incidents (Brazile is only one example involving Clinton and CNN, click the link I provided for another—and I can provide plenty more, generally from Wikileaks drops showing coordination between CNN reps and the Clinton campaign, and from fully reliable sources (a nice summary)) and b.) your aggressive responses tell me that you're here to settle an old score—presumably one I've since long forgotten about. You know, I didn't figure you for that. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone—folks, I'm dealing (via Wikimedia) with a troubling threat of violence against my person on the site. Do what you will, but I'm not able to respond or defend myself at this time. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real quick, I should probably point out Drmies's bizarre October 27 statement "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha". While this post may have started as Marek's revenge fantasy, it looks like it's shaping up as a convenient way for Drmies to finally get a taste. Note also the comments in the diff made by another user looking for blood up above. Funny how these things work on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil (talk · contribs), while I'm admittedly curious about what you've figured to be my "POV" (I've never stated it—these diffs are about a total lack of neutrality in Marek's edits), I haven't edited any related articles since a day or so since the election ended.

Now, I personally limit my reverts to one revert per article per 24 hours, and I've also intended to avoid all things Clinton on Wikipedia in the future even before Marek's vexatious request here. And I'll be doing that regardless of the outcome here. While I would have been silent about it otherwise, I guess here I have to state that I've voluntary removed myself form the topic space. Editing Clinton and DNC-related articles simply eats up far too much of my limited Wiki-time that is best spent on other articles for topics that are far removed from the last election.

As for Marek, looking away at his ridiculous edit history on these topics isn't going to make the situation any better but, given the way the election win, chances are he might just be less active in those spaces in general. Either way, this whole thing is moot and seems to only be serving to indulge revenge fantasies at this point (i.e. like Drmies's "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha"). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston (talk · contribs), yeah, there's "support" for a ban for topics I've already stated I'm not interested in editing. There's "support" from you, an admin who has openly stated that he's been looking to get me banned for years ("Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha"—whose comments should be struck), and another admin. Meanwhile, there's plenty of opposition above, largely associated with Marek's extremely non-neutral edit warring above, and my comments about how pointless and vexatious the whole thing is. All you're doing at this point is further enabling Marek. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I almost warned bloodofox this morning when I saw his harsh personal attack at talk:Hillary Clinton. I had no idea that there was such an ongoing pattern of disruption as evidenced in the diffs provided above. The Arbcom case findings of fact were clear that such behavior is prohibited.- MrX 16:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: What the actual heck are you talking about? This page is for requesting enforcement of Arbcom remedies, not for stream of consciousness story telling.- MrX 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Good Soldier Švejk, there is a character by the name of Marek, Volunteer Marek. According to Wikipedia, "The character of one-year volunteer Marek is to some degree a self-portrait by the author, who was himself a one-year volunteer in the 91st. For example, Marek — like Hašek — was fired from the editorship of a natural history magazine after writing articles about imaginary animals. Is appointed the battalion historian by Ságner and occupies himself with devising memorable and heroic deaths in advance for his colleagues." I can't believe Volunteer Marek is back here on AE clamoring for more heads. smh. will add more if absolutely necessary. SashiRolls (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, forgot this is a diff culture:, here are some more diffs of 1RR violations from trusty Volunteer Marek: 18:12 24 Oct 16:18 24 Oct (Though I stayed away from Clinton most of the silly season (as you know @MrX:), I was very surprised to read the Foundation page when I got to it, which I never would have, except that well, y'all didn't like what I was working on earlier...) I'm sorry I am not a diff culture native, in my world the names you chose are important, as is how you talk about including or excluding things from a page. This is poorly reflected in diff culture. :) SashiRolls (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, would like to add that words like "(cyber) shilling", "hack", "whitewash", "pinkwash", etc. have not yet been deleted from the language. In fact, shilling, in particular seems to be fighting nobly for its existence despite no longer being a legal tender coin. ^^ (ngrams: shilling, hack) SashiRolls (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm amazed that Drmies can say, "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now" and then neglect to recuse himself. Wikipedia seems to have some serious concerns: people are banned indefinitely and for long periods for daring to use the word "shill" when dealing with disruptive behavior, but another user gets away with a 48-hour block after having called me a "sociopath", for protecting BLP pages from copyright infringement and the modification of the meaning of wiki-text summaries of dead links to blog posts they admit they've never read (relevant here since Volunteer Marek's participated -- tag-team style -- in trying to maintain this attack on Tulsi Gabbard, before I explained *all* of my reasons for reverting the edit). (Cf. [[38]]). This selective enforcement should be very troubling, especially from an ArbCom member and from an admin who calls herself "Cardinal Mazarin" and says her "secret goal is to collect the entire little Arbcom in Bishzilla's pocket!" [39]. Troubling. SashiRolls (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding that (partial) table, James. (I'll add more data in March.) Strangely since cpo13 collapsed your table, I don't see any way of uncollapsing it. edit: works now, must have been a glitch There's also an interesting interpretation brought below by neutrality that simply revising the words "point out" can get you into trouble as concerns certain Wikipedian truths. You might have seen it. (cf. "to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement." -- from the MOS).

Calling anyone a shill, under any circumstances, should be met with sanctions. American politics is a bitter enough topic without unfounded accusations of paid or otherwise influenced editing. Claims of biased editing can be made without such a loaded word. clpo13_(talk) 18:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: Oh well, that changes everything. So long as you don't label someone, you can safely accuse them of all sorts of things. "I didn't call them a vandal. I just said they were vandalizing articles.", etc. No matter how you word it, it's a unnecessary comment that only inflames the situation. Throwing accusations around doesn't help anything. clpo13_(talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of the alleged proofs of bloodfox offensive remarkes actually lead to innocent statements like Hopefully you'll meet the next Wiki-gang on the block sometime soon and neutrality rather than political preference will win out. I remember VM making far more offensive comments without getting sanctions. Seems this is a case of a political spat resulting from HC's failure to win the election and VM being upset about this. Anyway can we finally drop the charade and call Volunteer Marek an American without him getting into a fit about supposed outing? The comments and edits in past couple of months make it clear that he is one. Thats all from me, I guess, people should cheer up, make Wikipedia great again and PRAISE KEK!.

Volunteer_Marek-there is nothing insulting in being American or editing from USA. Many editors in the past have been confused by your nickname and thought you are from Poland, that is is all. As to supposed, I think your edits and comments about voting in recent US elections make it clear anyway(and since we are friends of Facebook I know that indeed it is true :P). It's no big deal but clears up confusion, and for some reason in the past you treated it as very big outing.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone familiar with this topic area knows full well that VM comes here with unclean hands. Volunteer Marek complaining about another user being incivil is quite the irony. VM has been pushing a strong POV in this area from day 1, with typical incivility. Just one of many examples [40] [41]. It's not hard to find such examples. Many of his talkpage contribs are laced with accusations of bad faith and condescension, designed to get under his opponents' skin as much as possible without quite crossing the line into outright name calling. In addition to incivility, he edit-wars frequently, afterwards claiming to "forget" that an article is under 1RR [42]. And just recently he agreed to a voluntary 1RR restriction to narrowly avert a topic ban [43]. Given Marek's unclean hands, the request has no merit and should be struck. Athenean (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "shilling" accusation, there is no question that Volunteer Marek has been a shill in the past. His activities in the past have at certain times fitted the definition of shill - appearing to act independently but in fact acting as part of an organized group and behaving according to a predetermined plan so as to realize a particular goal. That was proven in a previous notable case. This does not make bloodofox's accusation / implication of shilling justified, but it questions the real level of offense felt by VM. I don't find VM's assertion that he felt it "obnoxious and insulting" to be particularly credible. The insults and personal attacks seem mild stuff when taken one at a time and this case looks a lot like Volunteer Marek allowing another editor to produce enough rope to hang themselves. Taken as a whole there probably is enough rope here - and little in the cited posts of bloodofox cogently address content issues. But I suspect only one side is being shown and I wonder about what content issues and disagreements produced these exchanges. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding Drmies "complete lack of good faith" comment. I gave no such "you were asking for it" justification - I actually said the opposite, that bloodofox's accusation of shilling was NOT justified. What I was questioning was the level of offense caused by that accusation. It is not "bad faith" to refer to a notable case [44] that found VM had been editing on behalf of a secret off-wiki mailing list group in order to advance a particular pov. That pov is still at the heart of every VM edit - and if it is supported by sources is all fair and good. But the often extreme fringeness and obsessiveness of EEML beliefs is revealed in this recent post by another former member of the same mailing list group [45] - the idea that Hitler was a result of a Russian conspiracy, and Trump too is also a result of a Russian conspiracy - and both conspiracies have the same aims: Russian domination of the world. I think that in the EEML world view there are Russians lying waiting under every bed and in every closet, attic, cellar or dark corridor, ready to spring out and drag the unprepared to hell or worse. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with DoubleCross and SashiRolls regarding Drmies here [46]. Administrator on a mission or what? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a catalog of recent election-related requests might be helpful/illuminating from a data analytics standpoint. Table includes: filer, accused, whether the edits were (reasonably) pro-Clinton/anti-Trump or anti-Clinton/pro-Trump, and the result.

Note: I couldn't figure out how to collapse the table – if anyone knows how I'd appreciate it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with bloodofox and SashiRolls regarding this statement by Drmies - he has absolutely no business being involved in this request. DoubleCross (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have blocked Tiptoe for the "shill" comment, for 72 hours. It exhibits a complete lack of good faith, and suggests a kind of "you were asking for it" justification. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• About the case: yeah, "shilling" is a blockable insult (as a complete violation of AGF), but I was all ready to say something like "Bloodofox is a bit heavy-handed, heat of the moment, etc" until I ran into this one (I went from the bottom up), which tells me that the editor is way too not neutral to be editing in this area. I support a topic ban from this election and all articles directly associated with it. I don't propose a more broad topic ban, of all politics since 1932 or whatever. Note: I've had some dealings with the editor, some better than others, and I've criticized them for edit warring and problems with sourcing reliably. I do not consider myself involved in respect to bloodofox, and all our dealings have been in articles that were many miles and many years removed from this area. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloodofox, if you claim that CNN is an "extension of the Clinton campaign" then you have already disqualified yourself from objective editing in this topic area. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you wish to argue this moot point here speaks volumes: your claims are about one individual, who was in fact fired by CNN for her behavior. Extending that into a blanket statement means you lack the judgment to be neutral and separate fact from internet story. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can accuse me of aggression (or ignorance) all you will; it makes no difference to me. I think the diffs speak for themselves here. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloodofox, I'm entering this in the record late, since I was only just alerted to your response. It should be obvious to anyone that the comment I made about having tried to block you was an obvious joke; note the "haha". Note also that I made this comment jokingly in a thread in which I seriously defended your edits which I thought were unfairly criticized. Let's have further discussion, if need be, elsewhere please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • EdJohnston, if you look at their edit history you see they're focused on the "Clinton side", so to speak--esp. Clinton herself, the Clinton Foundation, the Podesta emails, and Huma Abedin. One might expect them to move into the Trump area now that the election is over, perhaps, but if they become disruptive there we can, I suppose, always expand the scope; with many of these recent cases I prefer conservative topic bans. So for now I think I'm satisfied with my rough formulation of a topic ban but I am perfectly happy to have you or others tweak it or propose something broader; I am sure that a few more admins will weigh in. But we do need to have a topic ban of sorts, and a year is plenty long. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • DoubleCross, I don't know who you are, but I do know this: I have no current conflicts with Bloodofox and am not INVOLVED with them. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with a topic ban of User:Bloodofox under WP:ARBAP2 as proposed by User:Drmies but the scope of the ban would need to be well-defined. Do you think 'this election and all articles directly associated with it' is specific enough? What about the Trump transition – is that included? How about Trump cabinet members? If the scope can't be nailed down, what about a time-limited ban (such as one year) from all of WP:ARBAP2? EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not even going to consider anything from before November; if it wasn't worth reporting then it's not worth reporting now. I could potentially AGF this as a botched attempt to revert a perceived problematic edit. This still leaves a bunch of problematic battleground stuff, exactly the sort of thing that we don't want. The discussion over the precise meaning of "shilling" is a red herring; regardless of the intent it's still a personal attack. I'm seeing someone who is too dedicated to pushing a particular POV to be a useful editor in this topic area, and I don't see that anything short of removing User:Bloodofox from the topic area is going to stop the problem, although I'd welcome suggestions for solutions less drastic than that. Finally, with regards to Marek's alleged sins; I invite anyone to raise a request here if they feel they've gone further than Bloodofox. We can't action concerns that aren't raised. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bloodofox: I appreciate that you've managed to stay off the topic area in the past week or so, my main problem is that from your responses here you don't seem to understand why the battleground mentality you've exhibited is a bad thing, retreating into semantic arguments that completely miss the point. Help me out here; how do we stop this from happening again? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• There is support for a ban but the wording of the ban is not settled. How about "Bloodofox is banned for one year from the topic of the Clintons, and from people and organizations related to the Clintons on all pages of Wikipedia" That would be broad enough to include the Clinton Foundation and Huma Abedin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a ban with that phrasing, EdJohnston. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • It seems to me that this request is ready to close, with "Bloodofox is banned for one year from the topic if the Clintons, and from people and organizations related to the Clintons on all pages of Wikipedia". I will do this soon if no other admin beats me to it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now closing with a topic ban for User:Bloodofox as described. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. 06:54, 17 October 2016 The first time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of an RfC. Instead of posting something on the talk page, My very best wishes described the perfectly reasonable RfC as "ridiculous" and accused the requestor, EvergreenFir, of using it to stonewall. The irony here is that the one stonewalling was My very best wishes, not EvergreenFir.
2. 21:27, 19 October 2016 The second time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of the RfC.
3. 09:54, 26 October 2016 The third time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to Donald Trump without consensus during the pendancy of the RfC. In the edit summary they acknowledged the existence of the RfC. My very best wishes ignored repeated talk page comments that the content should be excluded during the pendancy of the RfC. A pretty clear violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT.
4. 12:19, 26 October 2016 Playing dumb and failing to acknowledge RfC, after AE warning.
5. 12:40, 26 October 2016 Refusal to self-revert, and failure to acknowledge that their re-insertions violated our WP:NOCONSENSUS policy.
6. 19:58, 27 October 2016 My very best wishes continues to edit war over this material, now re-deleting an {{undue-inline}} tag that flagged the existence of the RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

17:35, 20 October 2016 (one of many).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(My apologies if I've messed something up, as this is my first time lodging an AE complaint.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My very best wishes, the arbitration warning states:

My very best wishes, thank you for pointing out that I did accidentally and technically violate 1RR just now (after filing this complaint) by restoring a dispute tag while the relevant dispute was ongoing. I acknowledge my mistake and have self-reverted--something you have refused to do. As for your suggestion that the RfC be closed, I agree that would help toward resolving the content dispute, but not toward resolving this conduct dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have identified at least 3 verifiable falsehoods in Tataral's statement, but they really bear on the matters not pertinent to this complaint, which is about My very best wishes's conduct, not about my conduct or the content dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies, Lankiveil, and Guy, I think some of you (at least Drmies) have misunderstood this complaint. I'm not screaming BLP violation, I'm saying that Mvbw clearly and flagrantly violated the arbitration remedy that provides: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Mvbw and I have a disagreement about content, which is being hashed out on the talk page. The difference between my behavior and theirs is that I have used only the talk page and tagging to "stick to my guns" whereas they have repeatedly re-reverted the same content without consensus, in violation of active arbitration remedies, to stick to theirs. One is the right way to edit DS articles and the other is not. I'm puzzled that you're so quick to excuse such behavior on one of the most visible and contentious articles in the encyclopedia - one that was basically what DS was designed to manage. Drmies, I'm also surprised at your uncharacteristically un-AGF comment. If you look at the entirety of my contributions to Donald Trump you'll see that I've taken all sides, sometimes with Mvbw and sometimes against, and I have nothing against them beyond that they have behaved disruptively in this particular dispute and have set a very poor example for less experienced editors. I have to be honest, this smacks of favoritism toward the long-timers, even if unintended. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I must say I'm completely baffled by your latest response, and I think you continue to misunderstand me. I absolutely disagree with those who say that insertion of the rape content is immediately blockable, and I'm blinkered as to how you can tag me with poor arguments made by others. Moreover, your suggestion that Mvbw "did something I think is wrong and didn't repeat it" is verifiably false. Mvbw restored content without consensus three times--in clear violation of AE remedies, no?--while there was ongoing talk page discussion. The third time I had specifically called out this behavior and asked editors like Mvbw to stop restoring the content without consensus. So what does Mvbw do? They ignored the discussion and restored the content anyway. (1) How is this good behavior? (2) How is this in compliance with AE remedies--and if it's not, are you really ready to signal that enforcement of AE remedies is discretionary? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, say what? You continue to misread. The RfC was set up by EvergreenFir, not by me, and the comments you're quoting aren't part of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I hope I can answer your questions by saying: (1) Yes, I hope everyone will stop fighting over that content, not just Mvbw; (2) Here is the reason I chose to bring this complaint against Mvbw; and (3) My dream remedy would be an uninvolved admin posting a big, bold notice on the talk page saying something like, "Everyone, knock it off and leave this material out of the lead section pending formal closure of the RfC or other consensus to restore this material, per policy. Violators will be tbanned until after the election." I don't know if you guys have authority to do that, but it would solve a lot of problems all at once. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Schmarnnintelligenz, you are deliberately misrepresenting my motives. In the very same comment that you linked to, I explain that the reason for this complaint is to discourage bad behavior (edit warring, reverting with out discussing) by Mvbw and others. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:42, 26 October 2016

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.

In the first diff of complaint I refer (edit summary) to this unhelpful RfC request closed by an administrator. I obviously did not mean user EvergreenFir in this edit summary. I meant other users.

An administrator who closed this request also opened another RfC that was a lot more helpful. Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC by admin. The content under discussion in the RfC was the last paragraph in the introduction. Strictly speaking, this paragraph should not be modified during standing RfC until it is closed. However, I do agree that the initial version of this paragraph was POVish, and it evolved to another, more neutral version, one that I have restored here (3rd diff in complaint).

I think this latest version is fine and should remain, possibly in this, even more neutral version. However, if the RfC will be properly closed with conclusion to remove, I am very much willing to agree with consensus. But the RfC is still open, and there is no consensus to remove this material from intro. I fully explained my edits here and here. Nevertheless, the filer decided to go ahead with this complaint. Why? If am wrong here, please explain, and I will try to improve. Note that I discussed this subject on article talk page.

As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest, and I did not receive a formal warning about discretionary sanctions in this area, although I know about these sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A constructive suggestion. Could an uninvolved admin look at this RfC and close it please, one way or another. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. Note that DrFleischman just threatened to report yet another user on WP:AE [47] and ... violated 1RR rule on this page [48],[49] (note that both his edits are restoration of "content challenged by reversion" he complains about here). DrFleischman is well aware of the 1RR restriction on this page, but refused to comply [50]. Note that I made only three edits on this page during a week. My very best wishes (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DrFleschman now self-reverted, but asked other users (edit summary) to continue edit warring on his behalf. I tried to explain him that he acted inappropriately, but without any success. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden. After reading comments on the RfC, it appears that most people agree with this edit by Awilley. His text is similar to that in my last edit on this page. I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden.

1. No, this is wrong count by you. Most people on the RfC agreed that at least one phrase should be included in intro.
2. Even if I made mistakes, I corrected them later - see my last diff which places essentially same content as was previously placed by admin based on his reading of comments on very same RfC;
3. I think some participants around here are gaming the rules by removing everything they do not like to claim "hey, you can not place this back as something I challenged by reversion",
4. I think my editing of BLP pages is generally fine (I had no a single warning for this);
5. This is all beyond the point because I am not going back into this mess per suggestion by Lankeveil. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EtienneDolet and James J. Lambden. Yes, I have some interest in US politics, but this is not an area of my main interest. Why do you see it as a problem? My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankeveil. I agree to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EtienneDoliet. In the comment you quoted I refer to this RfC. Yes, this RfC is ridiculous because it asks about the number of words in a phrase. That's why an admin posted another RfC instead. As about child rape accusations, I saw them in this section of a WP article and they seemed well sourced to me. I do not insist these accusations should be placed back. This is something to be decided by WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why three contributors below (EtienneDolet, Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield) blame me of "Putinophobia", and not for the first time. This AE request has nothing to do with that subject. I do not even edit page about him for a long time. EtienneDolet does. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ED. No, I do not edit disruptively: I do not think any of my edits during last 3 weeks caused anyone's objections. Yes, you made this AE comment, and I preferred to respond on your talk page rather than here. Was that disruptive? No, I simply tried to mend some fences and make a friendly social conversation with you in response to your repeated accusations on various administrative noticeboards. No, I did not really talk about people, but about elections. There is nothing fringe here. This is all discussed in mainstream media. As about the role of German Communist Party in historical elections in Germany, this is simply a textbook example. I could give you some refs if you were interested in. But if you are not interested in history, that's fine. Why bring it here? My very best wishes (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, User:DrFleischman has made at least 3 reverts during the last 24 hours in violation of 1RR. It is somewhat amusing that this user, DrFleischman, who is engaging in revert warring and battleground behaviour to such an extent, threatens to file frivolous reports over the same issue against one editor after another (who unlike him haven't edit warred and who have made only one edit during a whole week reinstating the stable and consensus-supported version) when he doesn't get it his way. When someone claims everyone else is wrong, it's usually the other way round.

When reading the talk page in its entirety, after 2 weeks of discussion, it is clear based on policy-based arguments that there is consensus to include a brief mention of the controversy, in the form of the wording that has been stable for quite some time now. Numerous editors have presented sound policy-based arguments (summed up nicely by JasperTECH under the heading "My comment copied from below") in favour of its inclusion, at least in the form of a brief mention (as is currently the case), but on the other hand there is a case to be made that consensus is against including a whole paragraph on it, as was originally the case. The current two-sentence wording is much shorter than the original paragraph, and also a lot more neutral, and is really a compromise and the result of painstaking work by many editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording that complies with the BLP policy to the maximum extent possible. If User:DrFleischman disagrees with it, he should seek consensus on the talk page instead of revert-warring or trying to bully other editors. --Tataral (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in My very best wishes's response do I see a link to any discussion showing consensus to include the text he restored. Did I miss it?

His comment above is also dubious:

• "As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest"

He made a similar comment a few days ago on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 talk page:

• "I usually do not edit US politics and have more or less fresh eyes here"

Yet, examining his recent contributions I see he's involved in the following articles:

• Donald Trump
• Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations
• 2016 US Russian cyber conflict
• WikiLeaks
• Clinton Foundation
• List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
• List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
• Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording controversy
• Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy

Now I'm just a simple caveman but the Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy seems like a relatively obscure topic for someone not very interested in American politics.

It will be interesting to compare editors' responses in this request to their responses in Anythingyouwant's request above, since they involve the same bit of text in the same article. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: You say: "I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page." Let's see:

On Oct 17 the RFC asking whether the existing coverage ("Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.") was sufficient stood at:

• Yes: 5
• No: 5 (one of those saying it should only be expanded to include Trump's counterclaims)
• Maybe/Comment: 3

You expanded it to a paragraph shortly after, including a poorly-sourced claim of "child rape" (diff #1)

On Oct 20 the RFC asking whether the allegations should be included in the lede and to what extent stood at:

• Yes/short or one sentence: 2
• Yes/more than short or one sentence: 9
• No: 11

Based on that you restored a full paragraph (diff #2)

On Oct 26 the same RFC stood at:

• Yes/short or one sentence: 4
• Yes/more than short or one sentence: 13
• No: 13

Based on that you restored a 3-sentence description (diff #3)

Comments addressing potential BLP violations are I believe misguided - the relevant policy (as DrFleischman specifies in his complaint) is WP:ARBAPDS:

• All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

In each of these instances consensus was not just absent but against the multiple-sentence description restored by My very best wishes.

My own opinion (as far as BLP) is that a single restoration of a poorly-sourced child rape claim, against consensus, in a highly visible BLP and an area covered by discretionary sanctions is grounds for a permanent ban from BLPs. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came here feeling invited via a link posted by DrFleischmann to Talk:Donald Trump#Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2 and am really astonished reading this (not all tl;dr;) and just wanted to leave this comment: While working on some of the current politics articles I saw the name DrFleischman really often - and often reverting other users. Then suddenly he placed a warning on my usertalk although I had strictly followed the 1RR rule prominently displayed on the Trump article, so I looked a bit more what he was doing and to me several edits look like breaching the 1RR or "avoiding" it by using just other words. Also in my eyes DrFleischman is very skillful on talkpages interpreting disagreements towards the solutions he wants to achieve, often by accusing fellow contributors of not adhering to the guidelines, also often by positive, constructive language. In the Difflinks provided I don't see [My very best wishes] acting against the rules, just editing with similar means like DrFleischman. Perhaps both could agree to both adhere more to our giudelines and look more friendly for consensus while accepting that consensus is not always "what I want" and that consensus is fluent and not only the "powerusers" here have valid arguments. My suggestion would be: Close this here and Keep calm and focus on content, folks :-) --SI 17:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see that this is still an open case, I ask the admins to have a look at User talk:DrFleischman#AE question, especially this edit: "Tell you what, if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my complaint.". I'm really shocked. So this case here is deliberately used to force content out of an WP article by trying to force one user to grant a consensus with many others? Do I undestand that langauge correct? --SI 14:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil: and @JzG: and to all the other admins involved in this case. There's a lot of misleading claims here that My very best wishes regularly employs in order to excuse himself when the going gets tough. Just two months ago, in this case, Mvbw was quick to say that he was actually interested in American politics to excuse himself from tag-team edit-warring charges piled against him. Here is exactly what Mvbw said at the tag-teaming accusations against him:

If it helps, I promise never look at the editing history of VM in the future, even though this is not forbidden by policy. That however, does not guarantee that I will not appear on the same pages as him, because we have a significant overlap of interest, including US politics.

To clarify matters further, he also said the following in response to Softlavender's concerns that the tag-team edit-warring was spreading to different topic areas:

@Softlavender. Even if I was not interested in these subjects (yes, they are actually interesting to me), but only wanted to improve content as a generally disinterested contributor, that still would be OK.

And indeed, there's this stark comment here:

It was only very recently that the ongoing presidential campaign in US brought my attention. This is something highly unusual and therefore interesting to me.

So it's one form of the truth when he's under fire with one accusation, but it's another form of truth under another. Apparently, it's an all too familiar pattern of playing dumb when it comes to not only editing at mainspace (as exemplified by DrFleischman), but even as he defends himself as well. All in all, it's quite deceptive towards admins that haven't known this user's history and apparent pattern of disingenuous handling of his affairs. As for Mvbw's editing pattern, I'm surprised this user is not banned for this edit alone. As I am also surprised that he wasn't banned for this. I mean, there's a pretty strong pattern here of treating the articles of people he doesn't like with a sly attempt to destroy them, either by undermining the consensus building process to make them better, or to directly add material that would undermine the article altogether. I suggest the admins look beyond this report and seriously consider the long pattern of problematic behavior this user has be accused of doing. It's the only way of truly grasping the extent of the concerning behavior this user has caused in the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, see the edit-summary of that edit. You see the part that says "RfC is ridiculous and used for stonewalling"? Well, that's not the same as making a wrong edit that's "not maintained by consensus". Indeed, that would make it sound okay. As in, much more blameless than it should be. You know, as if it were some accident or something. But this was a highly contentious edit in the most visible BLP article in Wikipedia (and of a guy that's known to sue, might I add). To top it all off, Mvbw makes a mockery of this project's consensus building procedures (calling it: "This is probably the most ridiculous RfC I have seen in the project") and has the effrontery to dismiss those who participate in them as nothing but "stonewallers". And he does this not once, not twice, but three times, which in itself makes a mockery of the RfC. So it's not just a wrong edit, it's a disruptive POV pushing pattern. He has openly taken a side on the issue and pushed his POV even while good faith editors were in the process of building a consensus. The pattern is there. The disruption is there. All the fundamental signs that would usually lead to a topic ban are there. What else is missing? I've seen users get indeffed for doing much much less. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should not give you the right to delete material you don't like only hours before you made that remark. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could admins here make in any less obvious that they are waiting until after the elections to resolve this case? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: Honestly, I don't think this report matters anymore. Mvbw (or VM for that matter) received something worse than a topic ban: a Trump presidency. It was a nice try on their behalf though. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So here we have Mvbw saying that he would rather have a topic ban, or a site ban, than a Trump presidency. In a follow up remark, we also have him hypothesizing some pretty bizarre conspiracies: mainly that Hitler was brought up by the Russians, and that Trump's rise (with Russia's help) is no different. Yet, this is nothing new. He often invokes Hitler when talking about world leaders he doesn't like. He pulled off the same stunt at Vladimir Putin several times ([51]). So now that we know what his personal POV is, and now that we have diffs of him pushing his POV all over the topic area in a disruptive manner, do we still think this user is neutral enough to edit this topic area? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mvbw now sneakily removes a previous comment he made on this very thread that points to an op-ed entitled: "America Elects a Bigot". Better yet, Mvbw references this article and says "I do not think this subject area will be quiet after electing such president. Did anyone else catch that? I narrowly missed it myself. But I'll say it once, and I'll say it again, Mvbw is not shy about his opinions when it comes to Donald Trump. We all know that that's not a problem in and of itself. But when he is editing to that effect, that would mean there's some serious POV pushing going on, and he should therefore be restricted from making edits to this topic area altogether. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly amazed My very best wishes hasn't been topic banned from US politics articles already. At Donald Trump in particular, all he does is edit war [52]. The rape diff alone is especially disturbing and grounds for a ban just by itself. He is edit-warring to reinstate extremely defamatory, poorly sourced material to the lede of a high visibility BLP article. for crying out loud. Can anyone think of something worse? Because I can't. Drmies' special pleading that it was a "setup" is baffling. Users are fully responsible for their edits, and Mvbw is a veteran contributor. Especially in hot articles like Donald Trump, all users should be extra careful with their edits. The conspiratorial suggestion that he was somehow "set up" is simply mind boggling.

As someone else has pointed out, for someone who disingenuously claims to "not be interested in American politics articles", he sure edit wars a lot [53] [54] [55] [56]. In fact that's pretty much all he does in this topic. Content building is virtually zilch. Talk pages are mainly used for obfuscation and deception instead of trying to resolve disagreements in good faith. For example here is demanding users not edit the article until the RfC is closed [57] (but he himself has no problem re-adding controversial material on Donald Trump even though an RfC on the material is ongoing), deliberately misconstruing RfC results ([58]), wikilawyering about when 1RR applies [59], the list goes on.

Which brings us to what is arguably the most disruptive aspect of Mvbw's editing: the active use of deception. Mvbw frequently plays dumb (e.g. pretending not to notice an RfC is ongoing) even though he knows full well what is going on. Rules and guidelines are selectively misquoted and manipulated as desired. This shows great contempt for the wikipedia community and its processes. In one edit summary he will say an Rfc is "ridiculous" and use that as an excuse to revert [60], in the next edit summary he uses the fact that the RfC is ongoing as an excuse to revert again (but this time he validates the RfC) [61]. This user just makes a mockery of the entire wikipedia community process at every turn. This is a game to him.

Finally, I would also like to disabuse everyone here of the naive notion that Mvbw's disruption in this topic area will magically cease after Nov. 8. As anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia. This is why he edit wars to remove any material that reflects negatively on Clinton [62] [63] and her people [64] [65] using absurd, mocking edit summaries ("not every cold deserves mention", "petty details", "RfC not closed", etc...) and edit wars to reinstate any material that reflects negatively on Trump (the more defamatory the better). Reliable sources and wikipedia process mean nothing; it's all about the mission. Regardless of who wins, I can guarantee the chance of Mvbw abandoning these articles after election day is zilch.

Considering the lack of positive contribs, and the disruption wrought, I can't think of a single reason why this topic area benefits from Mvbw's presence. Athenean (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: So the fact he re-instated the child-rape only once makes it ok? I find it impossible to believe that Mvbw didn't do this knowingly and intentionally. Then we also have this [66], which while not quite as bad as child rape, is quite close. Then there's this little gem here with the whole guilt-by-association gimmick with Mike Tyson [67]. Doesn't quite accuse Trump of rape, but comes quite close. This is deep, deep in WP:TEND and WP:BLPVIO territory. I'm just curious, what would this user have to do to get banned from this topic area? Because if the above behavior is not enough, I don't know what is. Athenean (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with Athenean's "anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia" description of the editing aims of My very best wishes. Regarding the Mike Tyson gimmick Athenean mentioned. I also tried to remove that content [68], only to see it immediately returned by My very best wishes [69]. As explained here [70], this off-topic content about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction was being added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump in order to blatantly imply guilt by association. That Mvbw has continue to edit war in this obviously invalid content is telling, but I think even more telling is the silent agreement of many editors to allow it and similar disgraceful content to remain and allow Mvbw to be the attack dog in reversing any attempts at deletion. This is not just "sticking to one's guns", to use Drmies' wording - it is a constant and pov consistent obstruction to the removal of content that clearly breaks numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines on content, language usage, editorializing, and BLP issues. These policies and guidelines take precedence over article-specific sanctions, so Drmies' hand washing "there was some kind of consensus over it" shows a failing in the judgment and guidance that are expected from an administrator. It also displays some flippancy - can Drmies actually point to the talk page discussion that decided on the consensus for the Tyson content he claims exists? There was none - the "consensus" that has allowed that content to remain is nothing more than a "the party that edit wars the longest wins" - this is not how consensus should be determined, and article-specific (even if article-specific ARBAPDS sanction supported) consensus anyway cannot decide to ignore site-wide policies and guidelines. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, re your question, by "attack dog" I didn't mean this is what you have been doing, but that I think there are editors who look on you as having that purpose for them: they would like, for pov reasons, to retain for example the Tyson editorialized content, but chose not to defend the material on talk (since it is ultimately un defendable). Instead they are letting you do it through your reverts, knowing that if you are blocked it does not affect them - you are a recent arrival to that article and are editing there for different reasons. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes is clearly an experienced editor who knows very well how to walk a fine line on the edge of the rules, and quickly retract when caught. I wouldn't go so far as to call him "on a mission" but I concur with Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield about his general editing style and behaviour, which tends to discourage editors who are not as strong-willed or as passionate. Unfortunately, neutral and consensus-minded editors can get tired of fighting such people and refrain from further attempts to improve articles on sensitive topics — precisely driving away the kind of contributors we need at Wikipedia: that is the key issue to me in this case. This particular violation doesn't look like a big deal, but it is part of a tendentious pattern coupled with sometimes derogatory or lawyeresque comments. In that spirit, I would find it unfair that MBVW escape with a mere slap of the trout when just a few days ago the same kind of minor violation (although from an editor who has generally proved to be more amenable to consensus discussions) was sanctioned with a TBAN for Anythingyouwant considering his overall pattern of behaviour. Therefore I advocate the exact same "Vanamonde-standard" sanction for MBVW, with an encouragement to be less combative in his future contributions. — JFG ^talk 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It is hard to escape the suggestion that this is a setup, and some commentators confirm that. The worst in all this is the inclusion of the "rape" phrase--but that's only in the very first diff. Another editor (Steeletrap, if I remember correctly) used that word on another Trump-related article (can't find which one right now) and I warned them not to do that again--perhaps My very best etc. saw that warning. Moreover, that content was there before the RfC started, so whether removal or reinsertion is the disruptive bit remains to be seen--in other words, what the B is in BRD, for instance. And so what we have is three reinsertions over the course of a week, the first one of which with what I consider a serious BLP violation, but the second ones without that mistake. Now, when exactly which RfC was started and when what content was in, that's less interesting than other matters here: there is no BLP exception (except for in the first, already mentioned and not repeated edit), and the content itself is better documented than the recent effort to land something on Mars. Now, someone inserts that rape shit again, me and a bunch of others will be happy to block on the spot. You want a sentence instead of three sentences on this content, that's fine--but you wait until the RfC is closed before you go to AE, because--again--while one may argue it is undue, it is very hard to see it as a BLP violation. So, this AE request certainly proves that My very best sticks to their guns, as does Dr. Fleischman--good for both of you. It also proves that every single case here has the potential of becoming a lithmus test, which is why James Lambden should really withdraw from this subject matter, since they seem to be incapable of treating any Trump-related conflict as just an editorial conflict, not as some matter of life and death. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. Fleischman, I am surprised to see you read so much, or misread, my "stick to guns" phrase. Seriously. I have little more to add, except that I just saw yet another editor saying that the rape thing ought to be immediately blockable. It's not. It's not a crazy edit (read the sources, there are some)--just a wrong one which was not maintained by consensus. One of the things that needs to happen here is that if someone does something you think is wrong and doesn't repeat it, that you be happy and maybe congratulate the other editor. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etienne Dolet, Athenean, et al., "inserted" or "reinserted"? As far as I can tell the editor only inserted it once. Yes, that's not great while an RfC is going on but it's better than twice. Now, that "sexual advances towards" --> "sexually assaulting" edit, claiming that that's somehow almost as bad as accusing someone of child rape is prima facie ridiculous, and such commentary invalidates the point--never mind that "You can do anything. ... Grab them by the p---. You can do anything" is well verified, and is read widely as describing sexual assault. Grabbing someone by the qeuynte is indeed a "sexual advance" in one literary text, but that one is a fabliau and hardly a reliable source for dating advice. And if the Mike Tyson reference is guilt by association, then you have a bigger problem since apparently it's in the article right now, which I assume means there was some kind of consensus over it. Besides, what the editor did was modify something that was already there, so I don't see how that is POV or disruptive or whatever. No, I do not believe I have seen editors indeffed for less. That kind of exaggeration is typical, maybe, for this topic area, and I hear it on TV as well, but in an arbitration forum it is counterproductive. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. Fleischman, I don't quite follow. The three diffs do not make the same edit. The first contained the rape allegation. That's contentious, I agree, but they didn't repeat it. The second is hardly as controversial as you may claim, and is more a tweak than anything else--as long as we're talking about the lead, and not about Tyson (which is not, as far as I can tell, the subject of talk discussion). One can easily argue that it's an improvement since it turns a specific point about the campaign (already there in the lead--the groping bit) into a general point about the subject, which in this article is (more) appropriate. The edit appears factual and well verified, or at least easily verifiable; I don't see how one could call that change a BLP violation or something like that--just compare Anythingyouwant's version to My very best wishes's. The third actually restores content that was already there in Anythingyouwant's version just before My very best wishes "second" diff--so you're faulting Mvbw for basically making the same edit that Anythingyouwant made when the latter moved that same material to another spot in the lead. And I assume that if Mvbw did that while an RfC was ongoing, then Anything also did it while an RfC was ongoing.

    Plus, I don't want to nitpick, but that RfC is not much of an RfC. I'm not big on formalizing anything, but it seems like a discussion over a few phrases more than a well-formed, clear RfC. The question, as Lankiveil says below, is reasonable, but it's hardly a clear-cut question to be answered with an unambiguous mandate to include or exclude some specific content or organize it in some specific way. I mean, the opening section ends with "Or just listen to the tape yourself." I wouldn't call this RfC ridiculous, but to have that ongoing discussion being used to get someone banned is pushing it too far. If you want RfC's to be binding, set them up better. The second part, for instance, is this: "Saying Trump "appeared to" brag is non-neutral. He bragged, and sources such as the Washington Post article verify this." OK, that's a statement by an editor (you), and editors can discuss. But that's not much of an RfC. If you want to nail an editor for reinserting "appeared to brag" after you said on the talk page you didn't like the phrase, that's your prerogative, of course, but I can't see how this is some grave violation (or any violation at all) which needs an arbitrated slap on the wrist. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dr. Fleischman, I stand corrected: I was citing from Talk:Donald_Trump#Language_in_lead_section_about_sexual_misconduct. But I deny that I continue to misread, and my point about Mvbw's edits compared to those of others stand. As for the RfC, well, no conclusion is ever going to be reached on it--and I would like to ask you, since the RfC is technically still ongoing, whether you will also file charges against the editors who have (re-?)inserted the groping content which is currently in the article. Doesn't that very fact suggest the RfC is either impossible or already outdated? Isn't your time better spent dealing with that little tag and rather outlandish claims such as "serious BLP issues"? Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I might be sympathetic to the comments about the RFC being "used for stonewalling" if it were ridiculous and heading for the snowball clause, but I see a perfectly reasonable question with no clear consensus either way. The user should not have re-inserted this material while the discussion was under way. I'm not sure this rises to a level where sanctions need to be considered (assuming the problematic edits are not repeated), but it might be best if MVBW were to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, which I assume will not be a problem given that it is "not an area of ... major interest". As for the 1RR breach by User:DrFleischman; it is there but given that the user has voluntarily self-reverted I don't see anything to be gained by throwing the book at them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Meh. The election is weeks away and the candidates both highly divisive, anyone expecting calm and measured editing is delusional. Long-time Wikipedians would be best off showing everyone else a bit of class and following WP:BRD with emphasis on the D, but this specific case is in the end a content matter where reasonable people may differ. Perhaps a slap with the WP:TROUT and move on. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this? None of the three admins who commented are proposing a sanction, though JzG wants a slap with the trout. The practical effect of closing this with no action might be that User:My very best wishes returns to editing at Donald Trump, where he has not participated since 28 October. Since I don't see a major downside to that, and no admin wants a block or a ban, I suggest closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For better or worse, this report is deeply stale at this point and probably needs to be closed on that basis alone. Of course all the discretionary sanctions on the affected pages remain in force. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Towns_Hill 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Arbitration enforcement sanction 2

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

As the banning administrator, I am aware of this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original ban was imposed invalidly to begin with. It was hastily issued and based upon one editor's incendiary comment to an admin's talk page. I was never reported at AE and was not even given a chance to defend myself. I was banned on a comment of an editor who went on admin shopping and knew which admin would be more than willing to entertain his request because that specific admin has been mentioning distributing topic-bans on forums in the past.

Towns_Hill 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I won't write up a new statement here, but I refer you to my comments in an AE just above, where the AE requester was asking for a block of Towns Hill due to a ban violation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't, specifically, remember the 1-month 1RR restriction I added a while back (as alluded to by Black Kite, below), nor the editor specifically—in my defence, it's been a busy year—I can tell just by what's happened since then that stronger sanctions would have been required. A topic ban due to repeated, continued disruption in the area would be justified. Furthermore, while it's encouraged that admins open a thread here on AE before taking controversial actions, uncontroversial actions, on the other hand, can forgo the WP:BURO of doing so. This, in particular, allows for swift action to be taken against single-minded editors that throw caution (and policy) to the wind. I feel that things like topic bans and 1RR restrictions are fairly toothless without continued action on the part of the editor and are therefore frequently within the realm of "uncontroversial" by-default when prior disruption has occurred or prior warnings have been issued. Worst case, they're easily overturned without any real sort of "black mark" on a person's "record" should they be appealed. If Towns Hill felt the topic ban was controversial or outright invalid, the correct approach would have been to file the appeal here before continuing to edit within (or anywhere remotely close to) the topic area. --slakr^\ talk / 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment on the previous thread concerning TH, there were some reservations I had concerning the sanction. I do see that Towns Hill needs to improve as an editor. In particular, the talk page interactions and communication areas could do with improvement. Per my previous statement, I said I was willing to assist TH where possible because he was new. I do think TH has potential as a productive editor in his topic areas; the Kashmir topic was one area, as Kautilya3 agreed. In the short term, some roadmap could be helpful identifying how TH could return and edit in other contentious areas. It's not difficult if he adjusts to WP:BRD and other mechanisms. In the end, a sanction is not supposed to be punitive but preventive. I believe spending too much time over noticeboards sometimes has the opposite effect, and lessens productivity. Mar4d (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Towns Hill, any uninvolved admin can issue topic bans, blocks, or other sanctions per the Arb com ruling on India and Pakistan. There is no 'take it to AE' requirement. Unless you can show that the admin is an involved one, your appeal doesn't really have standing. --regentspark (comment) 13:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• RegentsPark is absolutely right. AE is an area where potentially sanctionable behavior can be reported by non-admins, admins who are involved and so can't take action on their own, or uninvolved admins who want more opinions before taking any action. There is no requirement that an AE report be filed prior to sanctions being imposed; any uninvolved admin who sees a violation can impose a sanction for it right then and there. It also does not matter how they came to learn of that violation or if the admin previously issued warnings that sanctions might result. The only potentially valid appeals are that the sanction was invalid to start with, such as that there was no actual violation it was based on or the admin who imposed it was inappropriately involved, or that it is no longer needed to prevent damage and disruption. Since you've recently violated the sanction, I sure wouldn't be quick to believe it's no longer necessary. Do you have any evidence of the first scenario, that it was never valid to begin with? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Towns Hill was issued an ARBIPA warning in January after edit warring, then again edit warred on the same subject and was issued a final warning in March, yet continued to do so and received a block (from User:Drmies) and a 1RR restriction (from User:slakr) in April. Their talkpage is then a litany of 1RR and EW warnings until EdJohnston applied the topic ban in May, which frankly looked well overdue. Since then, Towns Hill has been again blocked twice for violating the topic ban, so complaining about the original imposition of it - which was perfectly within policy, the link they provide is routine discussion between admins - is ridiculous. This request has no merit. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBGMO and WP:ARBAP2

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

1. 13:29, September 24, 2016: Anonywiki removes with the edit summary: "Rubbish. There is no 'scientific consensus' that GMOs are 'safe' period and neither could there be, the only consensus is that they are not inherently, necessarily harmful.)"
2. 10:56, November 13, 2016: Anonywiki removes statement about scientific consensus on GMOs with the following edit summary: "RUBBISH"
3. 11:47, November 13, 2016 less than one hour after being reverted by Snooganssnoogans, Anonywiki reverts with the edit summary: "I assure you that GMOs are not 'regarded as safe by scientific consensus"
4. 13:02, November 13, 2016: after being reverted, Anonywiki changes "pointed out that they contradict the scientific consensus" to "alleging they contradict the scientific consensus...," despite the fact that several of the cited sources—including this article written by an academic who studies the rise of conspiracy theorizing—notes that the article subject "engendered GMO conspiracy theories...despite the overwhelming scientific consensus..."
5. 20:11, November 16, 2016 after being reverted, Anonywiki again reverts with the edit summary: "Please check your reading comprehension. There is no 'unwarranted doubt' to alleging, 'pointing out' is false"
6. 20:37, November 16, 2016: removes entire section, including 10 cited references, with the edit summary: "I'm sorry to say this, but these links are really all nonsense. They are all opinion pieces, they aren't proper news citations for the claim at all.)"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. (Two blocks and multiple warnings from before 2010 are not mentioned, for brevity's sake and because they are too distant in time to be relevant)
2. September 27, 2010: Anonywiki blocked for personal attacks or harassment by Seraphimblade (72 hours)
3. October 1, 2010: Anonywiki blocked for disruptive editing and WP:POINT by John & Chaser (1 week, lifted one day later)
4. 17:20, December 12, 2011: Anonywiki is warned by McDoobAU93 for making personal attack
5. 16:31, 13 December 2011: Anonywiki is warned by Sergecross73 for making personal attacks
6. 22:43, May 24, 2014: Anonywiki is warned by Daffydavid for 3RR violations & disruptive editing.

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

• 11:04, November 13, 2016: warned via edit summary by Snooganssnoogans to "see talk page. this is under discretionary sanctions, do not revert."
• 12:44, November 13, 2016: given alert on user talk page about discretionary sanctions for both post-1932 American politics and GMOs
• 18:49, November 16, 2016: warned via edit summary by me of intent to pursue Arbitration Enforcement would be next stop if disruptive editing continued

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Anonywiki makes large-scale or controversial edits that change stable article content without meaningfully engaging on the talk page, even after his edits are reverted by multiple other editors.
• Anonywiki routinely disparages other editors and their work in edit summaries (e.g., "check your reading comprehension"; "Rubbish"; "RUBBISH"; "all nonsense").
• Anonywiki leans on his or her own authority, rather than on citations to experts/scholars/scientists, journalists, etc. ("I assure you that GMOs are not 'regarded as safe by scientific consensus'")
• Anonywiki fails to cite to policies or guidelines in making wholesale removals of material, nor in adding/changing contentious material.
• Anonywiki makes incorrect or misleading statements of fact — such as saying that references cited are "all opinion pieces" when in fact the sources cited include a detailed Washington Post news piece from a policy reporter and an analysis from a political science professor at the University of Miami who is the co-author of American Conspiracy Theories (Oxford University Press, 2014) — both of which directly and clearly support the proposition in the article.
• Anonywiki's statement below that "there is NO SOURCE that states commentators 'pointed out she went against the scientific consensus'" is simply wrong (and typical of the tendentious editing and "I can't hear you" behavior of this user). See the following refs (all cited in the article, and removed by Anonywiki):
  • Max Ehrenfreund, What Jill Stein, the Green presidential candidate, wants to do to America, Washington Post (August 2, 2016): "Her platform calls for a moratorium on GMOs in foods 'until they are proven safe.' A recent report published by the European Union reviewed dozens of studies of genetically modified organisms and concluded they were no more dangerous than conventionally bred strains. The American Association for the Advancement of Science agrees...")
  • Joseph Uscinski, The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016, Politico Magazine (August 22, 2016) ("Stein [has] ... engendered GMO conspiracy theories, which claim that big agriculture and biotech companies are hiding the negative environmental and health consequences of farming and consuming genetically modified foods. This is despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that genetically modified food is safe to eat").

--Neutrality^talk 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 21:02, November 16, 2016

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.

The claim is that commentators "pointed out she went against the scientific consensus". There is NO SOURCE that states commentators "pointed out she went against the scientific consensus".

It's just reading comprehension. Instead of coming up with a bunch of cliched "arguments" I suggest that's what the user should be more concerned about.

The "scientific consensus" claim is on very shaky ground, there are tons of scientists that state there is no scientific consensus. This was a compromise statement. User has no understanding of the issue. Hobbyists and dilettantes should refrain from making edits on such points that have specific scientific meanings and contexts that are clearly lost on them. Anonywiki (talk)

I am fine with the new wording. I didn't argue that currently used GMOs are unsafe and I don't see evidence that Jill Stein did either. If someone in the New York Times writes Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union do we say "commentators have pointed out Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union"? It's a distinct claim. It also depends on the context you are using "safe", coca cola and fries are "safe" but they aren't very good for you. I apologize if I was a bit hostile, which on re-reading I have to admit I might have sounded and in part may have been not assuming good faith. Anonywiki (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The subject of GMO foods has caused trouble in the past, and making GMO-related reverts of articles of presidential candidates such as Jill Stein can cause a lot of uproar. Anonywiki seems very attached to their position. He has reverted an edit that put the following in Jill Stein's article: "Commentators have criticized Stein's statements about GMOs as contradicting the scientific consensus that existing GM foods are no less safe than foods made from conventional crops". The text that he thereby removed as incorrect seems consistent with Proposal 1 of the GMO RFC: "There is a scientific consensus[1][2][3][4] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[5][6][7][8][9] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction." This Proposal 1 represents the Wikipedia consensus view according the closers of the RfC. So it appears that Anonywiki's change went against the Wikipedia consensus on the safety of GMOS. In his above answer to this AE complaint Anonywiki says "Hobbyists and dilettantes should refrain from making edits on such articles that have specific meanings and contexts that are clearly lost on them." It looks to me that Anonywiki's crusade is running up against the conventional Wikipedia position as established by consensus in the RfC. If I thought there was much likelihood that Anonywiki would reconsider, I'd suggest waiting to see if he will promise to accept the results of the RfC in his future edits. Otherwise, a one-year ban from the topic of GMOs on all pages of Wikipedia seems justified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with EdJohnston. Aside from the RfC, references have been presented above which clearly do state that Stein's position is counter to the prevailing scientific consensus, so to claim that no such sources exist is a form of I didn't hear that. Anonywiki needs to understand that a widely publicized community RfC carries a great deal of weight, and that it will not be acceptable to just unilaterally go against it. That doesn't mean you can't argue that something different applies in a given case, but you'd need to establish clear consensus behind that before carrying forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with EdJohnston --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. User:Anonywiki made a response above on 24 November which is a bit conciliatory but doesn't satisfy my concern. I'm going ahead with a one-year ban from the topic of GMOs on all pages of Wikipedia, with the right of appeal in six months. The evidence above shows Anonywiki removing a *qualified* statement about Jill Stein's views which asserted that specific people had accused her of ignoring the scientific consensus. Regardless of the truth about GMOs, it is undeniable that commentators made those assertions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DevilWearsBrioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

SilentResident has for the past few months fought tooth and nail to get me banned by casting aspersions. Her rants, mainly against the undersigned, include condescending lectures, [71][72] self-victimisation, [73][74] wikilawyering, [75] temper tantrums, [76][77][78] and personal attacks [79][80][81][82] ("I recommend you come back to your senses", "you need to come back to your senses", "Being stubborn is not a positive trait", "you're not an honest person" <- later removed). She has successfully conned editors into believing her lies and half truths by pestering various talk pages with lengthy posts about my character and supposed motives. For example, SilentResident recently explained to Anthony_Appleyard following her tirades at Formal Mediation that "resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing, because he has already ignored any of the previous ARBMAC warnings". [83] When Anthony_Appleyard subsequently filed a vexatious report against me at AN/I, he repeated SilentResident's falsehoods almost verbatim. [84]

SilentResident had previously filed a report against me at AN/I, notifying two editors she knew were on "her side" in one of her pile on attempts. [85][86] SilentResident's mudslingings also include blatant distortions, e.g. "acting against established consensus" and the allegation that I have on multiple occasions broken the 3RR, [87] a fabrication she just recently repeated when she told Anthony_Appleyard that I have resumed "with new 3RR breaches". [88]

She has made questionable insinuations about me, [89] which in light of her own statements are quite ironic. She vehemently opposes the inclusion of "ethnic cleansing" anywhere in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians unless it's followed/preceded by "according to some scholars", even though it's been classified as "ethnic cleansing" by several experts, including Mark Mazower. SilentResident discredits their expertise as "more their [scholars] opinion than something proven" and "that is the opinion of the scholars, not a fact". [90] She resorts to distortions (she implies it's the opinion of "2-3 scholars" when I in fact had presented her with 7) and Wikilawyering. [91] SilentResident quotes material from a Greek propaganda book to demonstrate that there are opposing views. [92] She shamelessly adopts a reductionist rhetoric similar to that of Greek nationalists: [93][94]

• "The Expulsion of Cham Albanians is about a minority that betrayed, fought and occupied its own country for 3 years"
• "Since the Cham Albanians weren't expelled on fly, but as result of their traitorous actions, there is no solid consensus among scholars".

She recently made a outburst about me in a passive-aggressive manner, telling an editor: "please, being a little bit more careful in front of him, without underestimating his stubbornness, couldn't hurt." [95]. She is still actively trying to influence Anthony_Appleyard and she has recently begun to refer to me as "the filibuster" in her interactions with other editors. When SilentResident, in a discussion with another editor, is on the receiving end of almost every allegation that she herself has accused me of, she responds aggressively and requests an apology: [96] The flagrant hypocrisy is astonishing. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Whereas SilentResident continues to cast aspersions on various talk pages, God forbid I actually defend myself on the appropriate page!

@Robert McClenon: Are you saying that this is a retaliatory filing against SilentResident because Athenean filed a report against me? Moreover it's good to know that if someone were to tell you to "come back to your senses" you wouldn't think of it as a personal attack. Neither would you care if someone told you that you're "not an honest person" or that "being stubborn is not a positive trait". If an editor pestered various talk pages with lies about you I presume you would be fine with that too. Reporting that user would clearly be a case of harassment.

That is a very strong warning from an administrator. You mean the same administrator who filed a vexatious report against me at AN/I, reiterating some of the falsehoods SilentResident had told him? The same administrator that's also an emeritus member of the Mediation Committee but wasn't until very recently aware of the fact that mediation is privileged? The same administrator that's acting as an uninvolved administrator in this case and the previous one against me, even re-filing an erroneous report after the original by Athenean had been ignored and archived? Please excuse me if I don't rely on his judgement concerning my conduct. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Still waiting for an answer or are you still going to avoid answering any questions? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: You never answered any questions, you've just made evasive statements. Also, you can partake in the consensus process, but you don't "pick winners". DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Great detective work there! How did you figure it out? Was it maybe the obvious clue I left behind? [97] With regards to "It shouldn't have been filed at the DRN", that is not true. It would likely not have been opened to begin with if it was misfiled. You are seemingly incapable of admitting that you were wrong. Here's what you wrote at AN/I: "He appears entirely unable to accept the decision I ruled, I removed his OR tag after it had been made abundantly clear to him it was not OR". By the way, thank you for brining light to some of my older contributions, which I'm quite proud of. This is how the articled looked like before my involvement, compared to after. Keep digging though, maybe you'll find something.

@Iazyges: You're a) not uninvolved and b) not an admin. Please keep your statements to your own section.

@Iazyges: I recently explained to you that you should keep your statements to your own section because you had made a statement under "Result concerning SilentResident" even though it clearly says below: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." Does that make sense? It's understandable that you don't like me, after all, I've questioned your competence. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: Wouldn't it be easier to substantiate allegations such as 3RR breaches and NPOV violations instead of bringing up stuff from almost a year ago? I was indeed blocked, but my block was subsequently lifted which you conveniently fail to mention. What's worth noting is that I started editing on Wikipedia on 17 December and was warned by an editor on 18 December, contrary to Please don't bite the newcomers guideline. I mistook the warning editor for a mod/admin, hence my (over)reaction which I now regret: I referred him to "Alexikoua's mod friend" and accused him of "taking sides". Curiously though, the warning editor later conceded, in light of the evidence I presented, that I may have been right regarding some of the concerns I raised. [98] Now that we've discussed my "troubled history", let's discuss yours! Last year an admin left a message on your talk page, telling you: "Fuck it, I'm sick and tired of you. When will you finally learn to bloody fucking first go to a talkpage and make an effort to understand people's objections before you start revert-warring?" (ouch!). You were also warned for edit warring by another admin, who also filed a report against you at AN/I. Both cases in relation to edits you had made on ARBMAC-protected articles. What does this say about you?

@SilentResident: First of all, it doesn't matter whether you think you were right. You could in fact be right and there could still be a consensus against your edits. Second, you've claimed that I've broken the 3RR, but the only evidence you've provided are the warnings by Alexikoua and yourself on my talk page. Don't you find it hypocritical to accuse me of "3RR breaches" by pointing to the warnings on my talk page while you're brushing off the warnings on your talk page as "mistakes"? How come, when given the opportunity, you don't provide the necessary diffs to prove that I've actually broken the 3RR?

@Athenean: I see that you've recycled some of the stuff from your frivolous AE report which was a huge waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed. [99] DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean: Strong warnings by whom? By the way, how many drama cases have you been involved in? What did your attacks against VM and MVBW result in? If one were to look through your history, what would one find? Continuous drama with Albanian editors perhaps? An AE report where you and Alexikoua were referred to as a "travelling circus" by an admin? Wait, so it's no coincidence that you came to Alexikoua's rescue after he had reverted me on the false pretense of a supposed consensus? [100] Would you mind clarifying about this supposed consensus that caused you to revert me? [101]

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 28 September, 2015, 15 August, 2016, 25 October, 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Like with many other editors, admins and mediators out there, I already tried very hard and very patiently for many months to reason with the editor DevilWearsBrioni, who has caused a 10 month-long disruption in ARBMAC-protected articles in Wikipedia; even getting myself to the point of repeatedly reminding him about Wikipedia's rules and principles, even when the rules suggest that sanctions to be applied to them instead of spending more time cleaning up their mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines. I hoped he could listen to the people and give up on his stubbornness and finally contribute positively to the Wikipedia project without stirring more debates, grievance and disruption, but, I am very saddened now, because his AE report against me has once more proved my worst fears about him: that he could not. No matter what, talks after talks, warnings after warnings, mediations after mediations, he is not willing to be reasoned with, nor drop the stick, and insist with his personal perception of Wikipedia's rules. This is unfortunate, as the admins have already sent him a warning and blocked him in the past for his disruptions: [102].

Unfortunately, such a move against me proves once again what happens when persistent disruption is ignored and not tackled; and instead, is tolerated. Given his stubbornness, this AE report was expected and, frankly, I couldn't be surprised if he makes similar moves against the other editors too once he is done with me. I am sorry to say this, but it appears that he has taken his defeat in the OR/SYNTH case very personally, which is no good. -- SILENTRESIDENT 23:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: Really could you go as far as to equate an editor who was a long-time member of the Wikicommunity, who contributed to the project, has never been sanctioned previously, is trying to do the right thing, didn't hesitate to communicate with every goodwill editors around and ask for their advises on resolving the difficult dispute, with an editor who has caused disruption on ARBMAC-protected articles, turned deaf ears to everyone's advises, filibustered, violated constantly the rules and even got himself sanctioned & into troubles already from the very first days of his young editorial life? And this equation because you want to defend the filler with whom you share certain POVs? Even when he could go to great extends to force his opinion on others at the expense of Wikipedia's rules, norms and principles, and where he does not succeed, to take revenge on others, such as me, through this ill-intended AE report? That's unreasonable. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: You are arguing that "DevilWearsBrioni has not been sanctioned", but, in fact, he has, in 2015, as an anonymous user with IP:37.46.188.80. Diff provided: [103]. Perhaps you would argue now that the user:DevilWearsBrioni and user:37.46.188.80 are not the same person, but I am afraid they are. If you look more carefully here: [104] where DWB, by himself, added a direct link taking you from his old user page to his new user page. As you see, the user:DevilWearsBrioni and user:37.46.188.80 are one and the same person and he has already been sanctioned for disruption on ARBMAC-protected Albanian-topic articles. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DevilWearsBrioni:, your accusations against me once again lack credibility. Let me highlight the facts to you:

• Answer 1: The Admin who said "Fuck it, I'm sick and tired of you." to me, unfortunately, was wrong here, as he has tried to remove the name "Eastern Roman Empire" from the article Byzantine Empire's lead, in violation of the Wikipedia's naming rules about commonly-referred names. As you can see on the lead, here (click), the name "Eastern Roman Empire" has been permanently restored back on the lead, because the Wiki community shared my position that the commonly-referred names about that political entity should not be opted out. Like it or not, all the editors, including those with the admin rank, have to respect and follow Wikipedia's rules [both when it comes naming rules (i.e. East Roman Empire) and polity rules (i.e. use of offensive words such as Fuck it)).
• Answer 2: You mention of an ANI report against me, but you do not mention that it has failed completely because the filler has counted my 2RR + self-revert falsely as a violation of the 3RR rule (self-reverts do not count towards 3RR). Thankfully, the uninvolved editors recognized the filler's mistake and backed me, which resulted to the failure of the ANI report against me and to the article's protection level being raised against anonymous IPs (it was an anonymous IP who edit warred here, not me), and no decisions for sanctions for disruption on ARBMAC articles were taken against me. Unlike you, dear DWB... -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: Your statement that "user:DevilWearsBrioni is not your client and you are not his advocate", is not convincing. Your actions contradict your claims. You know, it is not only Robert who has this impression about you. It is me too and everyone else here, I am afraid. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Anthony Appleyard, Athenean, Resnjari, Iazyges, Alexikoua, Robert McClenon, and TransporterMan: I can't help but notice how every other case here in the Arbitration Enforcement (EVERY other report), is either in the progress of being closed (3 of them in progress for closure), or already closed (7 of them already closed). And only the "SilentResident" case filled by User:DevilWearsBrioni is still without an AE volunteer. This is utterly disappointing. And the fact that User:DevilWearsBrioni himself seems unwilling to concede the retaliatory nature of his report, delusional as he may be, that he is striving for justice (God forbid otherwise!), is not helping either. Honestly, what am I supposed to do between these two tragicomical dead ends? Shall I laugh or shall I cry? Shall I conclude that I am stuck between two facts: 1) Wikipedia is not a place where rules apply for everyone, and 2) frivolous reports are an absolutely fine thing to do in Wikipedia? Tragicomical, and yet, this gives me a very backstabbing feeling.

EDIT: Perhaps, Anthony, the AE volunteers didn't realize that this AE case has yet no volunteers, mistakenly thinking your comments under the "Result concerning SilentResident" section of this report, for being the comments of an AE volunteer? Anthony, perhaps you should move your comments under a new section with your name on it (i.e "Statement by Anthony Appleyard")? It is tragicomical to ever make such assumptions and suggestions now, but... it is a tragicomical situation after all (just saying; no offense to anyone meant). To me it is very likely that this AE fill will just get archived without a proper closure, and this is saddening. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with silent resident, I am honestly beginning to wonder whether DWB is delusional, and no this is not an insult. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DevilWearsBrioni: I haven't answered because I've said it enough I sound like a broken record, but the reason I removed the OR tag is that it was clear it wasn't OR, you are right that a moderator doesn't "pick a winner", however I was brought a pick a winner case and fulfilled it to the best of my abilities. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DevilWearsBrioni:, your right, I've never said that before:^[1],^[2]. And I believe I have addressed the don't pick a winner things many times, It shouldn't have been filed at the DRN, the DRN is for bringing together editors to establish consensus, not deciding on OR, which incidentally has its own noticeboard. I at the end suggested Mediation, arbitration or appeal the OR, and Robert suggested a RFC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean: You got me interested so I had a little looksie: He as of posting, has 792 live edits, 315 are article, and 239 are talk, of these:

• Talk Pages:
  • Expulsion of Cham Albanians — 105
• User Talk:
  • SilentResident — 18
  • Alexikoua — 13
  • Resnjari — 10
  • Robert McClenon — 4
• Wikipedia
  • Dispute resolution noticeboard — 25
  • Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement — 15
  • Reliable sources/Noticeboard — 15
  • Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents — 12
  • No original research/Noticeboard — 10
  • Neutral point of view/Noticeboard — 6
• Wikipedia Talk
  • Dispute resolution noticeboard — 16
  • Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians — 40 (I don't believe the number of edits to it is covered by privilege of mediation but <s> it if it is.

Oh and an Interesting history of interest in Albanians always being the good guys. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DevilWearsBrioni: can you confirm or deny if you are one in the same as User:37.46.188.80? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: Nationalist isn't the right word, but he does seem to have an interest in Albanians being seen the good guys/ victims, that is undeniable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DevilWearsBrioni: Your desperate attempts to be the good guy, to be a poor, victim, is exactly why most everyone you have come in contact with don't like you, not because SilentResident is somehow manipulating us all, which I find very insulting, you seem to not believe that people could dislike you de tua virtute. I will request you withdraw your A/E case, as a show of willingness to follow consensus, as all, even Resnajri, are for the case being closed, and you being warned (or blocked), showing that you are willing to follow consensus may be good for you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DevilWearsBrioni: Respectfully, what are you talking about? 1. I never claimed to be by speech or did anything that might impersonate one, and 2. I am in my own section, what are you on about? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Anthony Appleyard May I request a closing of the case, as it appears all active members (correct me if I'm wrong Resnjari) are for a close, except for DWB. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a retaliatory filing only. The only real question to be addressed is whether this filing should be dismissed with a very strong warning to the filing party or whether some sort of sanction is necessary against the filing party. A sanction against the filing party could be anything from a topic-ban on filings at AE and ANI having to do with the Balkans, to a topic-ban on the Balkans, to an extended block (but blocks are not punitive), to a site ban. At this time I would suggest that action is necessary, but that the least burdensome sanction would be a ban on User:DevilWearsBrioni from AE and ANI filings, to prevent further harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resnjari writes: "The issues brought here regarding Silent are to be dismissed? If so then a dismissal regarding Brioni should also occur on his case." I don't see a case against Brioni pending. It is true that a case was filed against Brioni, but it was badly formatted and may have been removed. In any case, there isn't a case against Brioni. Whether this case should be dismissed should be judged on its own merits. I don't see any merits. I see an attempt by User:DevilWearsBrioni to send a message that editors who challenge them will be dealt with punitively; however, I don't see a substantive case against User:SilentResident. I will restate my original statement that one of the following is in order (1) dismissal of the filing with a strong warning (the case by SilentResident against Brioni having already been dismissed); (2) a ban against AE and ANI filings by Brioni; (3) a topic-ban on the Balkans by Brioni; (4) a site-ban of Brioni. I ask the admins here to propose some action. I suggest that (3) and (4) are too strong, but that (1) is too weak, and recommend (2). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive202#DevilWearsBrioni. The case against User:DevilWearsBrioni was archived. The list of archives only displays through 200, and the case is archived in 202; the problem is that the box showing the archives is too small. Can a clerk please expand that? In any case, this was clearly a retaliatory filing. If it wasn't meant to harass, it looks as if it was meant to harass. I suggest closure with a ban on the filing party against further filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resnjari - I agree that too much time is being wasted. However, at this point, since you appear to be DWB's advocate, it is your client who is wasting the time. Can you tell your client that vexatious litigation is an offense? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the archive box so you can now see Archive202. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't implying that User:Resnjari was being paid by User:DevilWearsBrioni. I said that Resnjari was acting as Brioni's advocate. As the dictionary shows, that is someone who is arguing the case for someone else. Any case against Brioni has already been dropped by being archived. This case is unwarranted and retaliatory. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resnjari, User:Anthony Appleyard - It appears that cases here, like cases at WP:ANI, are not always formally closed, but that if they are robotically archived without action, that is the end of them. If I am mistaken, someone will correct me. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:DevilWearsBrioni - Anthony Appleyard wrote: "Make an end of the business, and the sooner that DWB is blocked, the better." That is a very strong warning from an administrator. I suggest voluntarily withdrawing this case as a way of acknowledging the warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown, User:Lankiveil, User:Bishonen - Is any uninvolved administrator who is active at this noticeboard willing to do something about this vexatious case, such as dismiss it with a warning to the filing party, or just dismiss it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issues brought here regarding Silent are to be dismissed? If so then a dismissal regarding Brioni should also occur on his case. The report filed here shows that Silent has engaged in certain behavior too of which Brioni is alleged to have done. All Brioni has done is place a focus on the other side too. Dismissing one while focusing on the other is problematic when the coin is the same on both sides.Resnjari (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident:, Brioni has also not been sanctioned and has made contribution to very difficult articles in pointing out their deficiencies. I noted a example of this in the Fustanella page which was very POV before Brioni took time and effort to make it better. Your interactions with Brioni and his with you have not been dignified in any measure. In both your exchanges things have escalated in a tennis match of absurdities in the Chams article. Its why i said in the previous arbitration case that no one would come out of this clean and i stand by it. Either both of you get a warning or this gets dismissed for both. More time has been wasted on this than making attempts to resolve issues with the article itself.Resnjari (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless of concern here is the pronouncement made by @Athenean, an editor who brought forth the case against Brioni. In a comment here he makes a very serious allegation that Brioni is an "aggressive Albanian nationalist". This is a very serious charge to make and has brought nothing to back up this claim (which resembles as an attempt at smear). This is a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The motives for going after Brioni at this point are questionable and veer more toward the area of settling scores. I cite this as a concern because of my interactions [105], [106] with Athenean in the past who has used such language and has a problematic track record when interacting with other Albanian editors [107], [108] which has earned him bans [109]. I hope that this is not a repetition of that behavior. I also hope that his claim of "aggressive Albanian nationalist" regarding Brioni was not what he really intended and done instead in haste and urge him to withdraw that remark in the spirit of good faith.Resnjari (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:, one could make the same claim for Silent who used the words "traitorous actions" when there was attempt to remove peer received content regarding seeing the Greeks as good guys/victims and the Albanians as being at fault. Either both get sanctioned or none do and a strong warning for both (my preference for the latter). Regarding the Chams article its why i have called for mediation. This article whether its Brioni or other editors in future will cause this type of never ending time wasting because there aren't other to oversight the discussion which eventually would lead to a resolution.Resnjari (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:, You say again that Brioni interprets Albanians as the good guys and cite an example of this at the Individuals and groups assisting Jews during the Holocaust article. Apart from no other editor contesting Brioni's edits there in the article talkpage (or his talkpage), the additions he made to the article were based on peer reviewed material. He clarified the sentence that parts of Kosovo and Western Macedonia were annexed to Albania by the Avis powers (and not by Albania itself), then under firm Italian rule being annexed itself in 1939 [110]. If that is somehow an issue, my goodness. Then the other edits he made on that page clarified things further. Within this enlarged Albania, the bit that still known today as Albania, Jews were spared and he cited that part accordingly using among other things peer revived material that meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary and other strong sources (for more see all edits: [111], [112], [113], [114]. In Kosovo events went differently and that is not contested. As Albania and Kosovo are not one country today the scholarship on this matter treats the issues of Jews surviving or not surviving the war differently and literally their experiences were different in Albania and Kosovo. As such that is how the article is structured on the matter. Citing those edits as being in some kind of breach or of having an agenda about being "good guys" does not suffice otherwise the same charge can be made at many other editors, some who are participating in this discussion. I am becoming concerned as to where the discussion on Brioni is going where mundane edits are now being cited as evidence of supposedly something.Resnjari (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident:, on that matter about the IP and Brioni being connected, its the admin's call on how to go about this as i am not familiar with things on that part. I usually don't partake is this arbitration hearings, not my thing. Whether its pinned to an editor or considered separate when a person creates a account, not sure. Anyway this is a time wasting excersize. The energies of editors editing and discussing with admins acting as a conciliators for the Chams page would have been better placed there than in here. Many words, blame this or that, more undignified commentary which i am not comfortable with even on my part. This is very disappointing and the article still remains unresolved and will become one that is a blackhole (like for instance the Souliotes page used to be) and will cause more disruptions and this kind of rapport between editors.Resnjari (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:, this is turning into farce or some soap opera resembling the US elections of recent times. If some of the editors here had spent their energies on making the article better with just a admin or two to act as mediator or a kind of referee the article might have been solved now. My preference is a strong warning (it being a final warning made very clear). With option two though not sure how long a ban would go in this instance. Brioni has edited ok in most other articles (and his editing got better over time) and made them good, difficult ones too. Not sure how to go about it. Something though needs to done about this. Taking too long and wasting to much time that can be put to use elsewhere. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:, i work alone and no one is my "client" or am i an "advocate". Any insinuation of the kind is uncalled for and does not build good faith. That i have crossed paths on a few articles where Brioni edits is due to his and my topical interests coinciding. I am participating in this discussion as editors have done and will continue to do. It is in the end a admin's call as to what happens. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident:, my account on Wikipedia dates back to 2008, older than most of the editors active here in this discussion. I work alone and its why i am still here while many others are long gone. One should have in mind that personal impressions can also be interpreted as smear. As you have the right to participate in this discussion, i do too unless advised otherwise by an admin.Resnjari (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:, its what vibe i got for your comment. I am not advocating for someone. Otherwise other editors involved here in the discussion could also be interpreted as being advocates too for a certain view. If Brioni's case has been officially dropped (an admin needs to close that) then should this one. On both i see no issue continuing because as i have consistency neither of the editors comes out clean. Too much time has been wasted while the Chams article still remains problematic and unresolved, time and energies that should have been devoted to that endeavour.Resnjari (talk)

@Anthony Appleyard:@Robert McClenon wrote that "Any case against Brioni has already been dropped by being archived". If its archived then there is no case for Brioni or is that still ongoing ? Some clarification on the matter. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:. Thank you for the information. I appreciate it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a reminder to everyone that everything said or done on the mediation case page and talkpage related to this matter is privileged and cannot be used or considered as evidence in this application. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

I'm going to cut straight to the chase: DWB is an aggressive Albanian nationalist SPA whose main contribution to wikipedia is drama, lots of drama, and little else. Just a brief look through his recent contribs [115] shows only two things: Endless filibuster at Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians and endless filibuster of every dispute resolution attempt of said article. And now this latest frivolous report. He has a history of filing frivolous requests against his enemies [116] [117] (both reports dismissed by the community), using colorful language and misleading diffs. His report here is in the same vein. Lots of colorful language, gross hyperbole ("temper tantrums"), aspersions, and lots of diffs that do not stand up to scrutiny (the old "diff-padding" trick - load the report with diffs, even if they do not stand up to scrutiny, in the hope of making it look hefty). Even more ludicrous are his conspiratorial assertions that SilentResident somehow "conned" Anthony Appleyard and turned him against DWB. Not only is this grossly insulting to Anthony Appleyard, it also shows an individual with a striking inability to acknowledge or even willing to consider his own faults. It is no coincidence that every user from outside the topic area that has interacted extensively with DWB (Iazyges, Robert McClenon, Anthony Appleyard) has found his behavior disruptive and asked for sanctions. And yet we are to believe that this is all a conspiracy orchestrated by Silent Resident? Alas, this is exactly the conspiratorial mindset typical of Balkan WP:POVWARRIORs that plague this area. Content building contribs by DWB are minimal to zero. It's all drama, all the time. This is in contrast to Silent Resident, who is a valuable contributor with many content building contribs [118]. Any discussion in which DWB gets involved invariably ends up getting bogged down in endless wiklawyering, quibbling, hair splitting, and eventually a drama board. Seeing how this user contributes next to nothing but drama, I think it's high time for a ban from Balkan topics, or at a very minimum a ban from iniating (invariably frivolous) reports at AE and ANI. Athenean (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DWB: I can imagine why you would be annoyed at me bringing up your history of filing frivolous reports, but bringing attention to it may not be the best move on your part.

@Resnjari: You keep repeating yourself, but DWB has already been strongly warned, many times, and any attempt to "better the article" at any article he is involved turns into an interminable flame war. We're already long past that point. Athenean (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all uninvolved editors confirm DevilWB's aggresive pattern: Frivolous reports both here and at ANI [[119]] [[120]], combined with forumshopping, reddit & off wiki activity (as he previously admitted) leave no doubt that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. It's also really sad when editors do not hesitate to launch edit-wars even against volunteers, as DWB did against Iazyges [[121]][[122]], [[123]], [[124]], [[125]]. I'm fully convinced that this kind of large-scale disruption warrants a topic ban.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be reasonable to wonder if user:Resnjari has some kind of permission to post 6.000+ words here: x12 times the amount of text permitted.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @SilentResident, TransporterMan, Robert McClenon, Athenean, Resnjari, Alexikoua, and Iazyges: For your attention. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @SilentResident, TransporterMan, Robert McClenon, Athenean, Resnjari, Alexikoua, and Iazyges: Make an end of the business, and the sooner that DWB is blocked, the better. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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