Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive202

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

Request concerning DevilWearsBrioni

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC :

DWB is a user with a history of WP:IDHT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:BATTLEGROUND that causes considerable disruption in Balkan related topics. A dispute at Expulsion of Cham Albanians that began months ago over DWB's unsubstantiated claims of WP:OR has been dragging on because DWB cannot concede that there is no case of WP:OR. The dispute has been ongoing since January 2016, and in August of this year DWB filed at WP:DRN. The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB, but the outcome was 100% against him. DWB then goes to the DRN talkpage, alleging that the dispute was not handled properly even though there are no grounds to support this. This also drags on for a while due to filibustering and again the result is against DWB. The dispute then moved to formal mediation, where the mediator, User:Anthony Appleyard has asked him to stay on topic and stop filibustering. All the uninvolved users that have interacted with DWB in these disputes seem to think that DWB is behaving disruptively: User:Iazyges  , User:Robert McClenon , User:Anthony Appleyard. It is quite clear from these discussions that DWB is not going to accept "no" for an answer or WP:DROPTHESTICK. Added to that is a WP:BATTLEGROUND type behavior of filing frivolous reports at AN/I against users that disagree with him  (both reports a huge of waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed). Looking through this user's contribs, I see very little content creation and positive editing, and a whole lot of wikidrama. The disruption caused by DWB far outweighs any positive contribs. Athenean (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

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

I would also like to draw attention to this attempt at off-wiki canvassing by DWB on Reddit. DWB admitted was him in this AN/I attack thread. Athenean (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

@T. Canens: I have e-mailed MEDCOM to ask for permission to include the mediation deliberations as evidence. Further more, per WP:MC/P, ''Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of that party's communications.''. I firmly believe that DWB is being deliberately obstructive at the mediation proceedings. Athenean (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@T.Canens: I have struck the portion of my report involving the mediation proceedings. All diffs are from before Sep. 26 and are used to show a pattern of filibustering; the behavior at mediation was what led me to file a report. Athenean (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

1) Contemptuously dismisses guidelines like WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND as "essays". I have seen people banned for violating these. 2) Has to claim victory at every turn and cannot back down. For the rather strong claim that Italy invaded Greece in 1919 (a claim for which it should not be hard to find good sources if it were true), he presents with a) a purported document from the Greek delegation at the 1919 Paris conferece, b) an unreadable image of the "Literary Digest" from an unspecified (likely very old) date, and c) the testimony of a certain "cashier from Konitsa" in a 1958 English-language Greek newspaper . This goes to the heart of the behavioral issue.  Because this user just cannot back down, he will scrape the bottom of the barrel and then declare victory ("Everything seems to check out"). 3) A refusal to accept reliably sourced material. Here he removes a very solidly sourced claim that "large parts of the Cham Albanian community collaborated with the Axis occupiers", which is sourced to Hermann Meyer, an academic who specializes in WW2 and has written one of the definitive works on the Nazi unit that was active in the area at the time. Yet here he arguing that " "Large part" is not necessarily the same as "to a large extent/part" and that we shouldn't use Meyer. This is sophistry of a high degree.  He has no problem claiming the shoddiest sources back his claims but will use sophistry to try and dismiss one of the best sources on the topic we could hope for.  It's impossible to reach any kind of agreement at the tp with this kind of behavior, and attempts at dispute resolution devolve into similar charades. Athenean (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DWB's defense shows exactly what the problem is


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



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

Statement by DevilWearsBrioni
”The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB.” It was closed within a few hours after discussion was opened, which you would have noticed if you actually looked into it and not just routinely assumed things. While likes to throw around links to various essays like WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, I'll provide some illustrative examples of his hypocrisy in regards to this. When Athenean once tried to discredit a source, he argued that it should be avoided, and concluded "Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick." In his attempts to discredit the author, Athenean claimed that there were factual errors in the book regarding the Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. I provided him with additional sources that confirmed these details, i.e. contrary to what Athenean had claimed, there was in fact was an Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. Athenean ignored this, only to show up later in the discussion stating in a provocative way, "careful what you wish for" while simultaneously casting doubt on several sources, because according to Athenean, Chams weren't really oppressed, regardless of what the sources claimed. After I had provided Athenean with the additional sources that confirmed the events in 1917, Athenean only made one more statement related to it, he declared in another section/discussion that I had made up the "fictitious invasions of Greece by Italy in 1917." 

You stated that I would, ”per WP:M”, be blocked if I ”disrupt the decisions made” after you had closed the DRN. First of all, while I fully understand that your opinion should not be disregarded in the consensus process, you have no authority, as a DRN volunteer, to issue decisions concerning disputes. Second, the part in WP:M, which you referred to,  deals with user conduct during mediation. How is that, and I’m sorry if I’m being blunt, not clear to you? The part you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing content dispute decisions, because again, volunteers don't issue decisions, and it has everything to do with user conduct during mediation.

During mediation SilentResident was, in regular fashion, campaigning for sanctions against me, and apparently took everything she said at face value. The latter filed a report against me at AN/I, stating that ”User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third” which essentially echoed what SilentResident had told him moments earlier, i.e. ”resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing”. For clarification, I had received one ARBMAC warning by an editor I've rarely seen eye to eye with on anything. And honestly, it boggles my mind that an admin of 10 years just parrots what he’s being told and uses that as an argument for sanctions against me at AN/I. Anthony, when you claim that I have ignored two ARBMAC warnings, what do you mean and how does my behavior justify sanctions? Could you point to something specific? Did you actually bother looking into whether SilentResident's accusations were true?

How about you provide some evidence (diffs) for the things you accuse me of? You could start with diffs of 3RR breaches, an accusation you like to throw around. Recently you even told Anthony, among many things in your efforts to get me banned, that I've resumed "with new 3RR breaches". Would you be so kind to provide those diffs?

Question to admins: I'd like to ask for permission to post my side of the story with regards to my interactions with SilentResident, but it's currently not possible since I will exceed the 500 word limit. I will provide diffs to show that the editor created a erroneous narrative about me that I maintain should be sanctionable. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @Athenean: Oh yes, my "contemptuous" dismissal of guidelines. Ridiculous hyperboles aside, "Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick" is the epitome of battleground behavior, and so is, within its context the taunting reply "careful what you wish for".  Furthermore, I did not claim victory; you on the other hand did by asserting that I had made up the "fictitious invasion of Greece" while also refusing to discuss the issue on the talk page.  Whether the invasion actually happened or not, you knew for a fact that at least one reliable source (despite your futile efforts to dismiss said source at RS/N ) maintained that it had occurred. Thus the accusation that I had made up "the fictitious invasion" is not only false, but also dishonest, which further confirms your battleground behavior. I will not bother responding to your analysis of the sources since that discussion belongs to the article talk page, but I will tell you that the three sources were only meant to corroborate the one source you failed to discredit; they were never intended to be included in the article (which is why I never added them). At the end of the day, you never brought forth any sources to substantiate your opinions concerning the supposed inaccuracies. With regards to Meyer, the claim that I've argued that we "shouldn't use Meyer" is a lie. So is the statement that I tried to "dismiss one of the best sources on the topic". I disagreed with some of the wording on the article, but I never questioned the source itself. Finally, maybe you could explain why you put "oppression" in quotations marks despite several sources asserting that Chams were in fact oppressed?

Statement by User:Iazyges
One thing that concerns me is his apparent knowledge of many WP guidelines but it seems that when it comes to WP's that disagree with or contradict him, he either has selectively avoided them or feigns ignorance. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  14:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also add that for the DRN case, it was arguable that there was fault, but this is because the DRN isn't for a "right wrong" conclusion, unlike OR or RFC there are no "winners", it's for building consensus so that ideally all parties agree to something, because of this a OR case like this doesn't really belong in DRN. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I gave DWB a (arguably) formal warning, by telling him that if he chose to continue disruption without community involvement, I could request that he be sanctioned by an admin, per WP:M (Which covers informal mediation, DRN and mediation comitee mediation. While RFC was an option, I suggested formal mediation or else arbitration, (I was at the time under the misconception that the mediation committee's agreements were binding, I was informed that it wasn't later by another mediator of the DRN) due to the history of the talk page and OR arguments. He chose to ignore these warnings.
 * I have removed some of this after reviewing it and realizing that I mis-read it earlier. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I resent your implication of partiality. How have I been partial? I closed it in a logical manner, unless the source that agreed with it was totally disproven it isn't OR. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  01:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the filing party that the only way to avoid disruption is to give User:DevilWearsBrioni an indefinite topic-ban from all Balkan-related editing. Informal mediation was attempted at the dispute resolution noticeboard. DWB persistently argues that any edits with which they disagree are necessarily original research, in spite of repeatedly having that argument considered and rejected. I then proposed formal mediation, which is being done by User:Anthony Appleyard, to which the parties agreed. However, DWB apparently isn't following the mediator's instructions to stay on topic (even though multiple copies have been defined) and is filibustering. I don't see any alternative to an indefinite topic-ban, because this editor is not contributing constructively to the encyclopedia in the Balkan area but is being disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have, belatedly, given User:DevilWearsBrioni the formal alert concerning discretionary sanctions. It is unfortunately my opinion that this case will have to be withdrawn as being defective in two respects.  First, it appears that the formal notice wasn't given earlier.  Second, it relies partly on inadmissible testimony from Mediation proceedings.  As a result, I think that DevilWearsBrioni should be given a very strong normal administrative warning that any further disruptive editing in the area of the Balkans will result in a topic ban.  A topic-ban isn't (as far as I can tell) within the scope of normal administrative action.  Clearly formal mediation isn't going to work, because it has already been tried and has failed, so only administrative action is available.  If anyone wants to go back to WP:ANI and ask for a community topic ban, that is within the scope of the community.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the alert was given on 26 September 2016. Therefore any disruptive editing after 26 September 2016, except in formal mediation, is sanctionable.  I defer to the judgment of the Mediation Committee and the administrators here as to whether disruption of mediation is sanctionable.  However, it doesn't appear that there was any disruptive editing outside of mediation after 26 September, so that I restate my recommendation that this case be closed with a very strong normal administrative warning that any further disruptive editing will result in at least a topic-ban and possible an indefinite block.  At this point, a topic-ban is unfortunately out of scope, and a block would be punitive.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:SilentResident
The problem with user:DevilWearsBrioni is that although he has a decent knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, his editorial conduct so far has been extremely disruptive on ARBMAC-protected articles. His actions and stance have not contributed anything, besides disruption. He's trying to impose certain POV regarding historical events of the past, at the expense of neutrality. To achieve this, he keeps raising false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH cases, (where in NOR Board, DRN Board, ANI Board Mediation Board, and Talks, absolutely no neutral party has backed him). By insisting on his own perception of rules, broke 3RR, violated ARBMAC , violated NPOV, abused the Tagging , acted against consensus, refused to be reasoned by others, dismissed dispute resolutions , and refuses to remedy. This leaves us no other options. I suggest that DevilWearsBrioni is indefinitely banned from any Balkan topic-related articles, or at least be given a strong warning like Robert McClenon suggested. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note for T. Canens: Such a diff exists, just it seems the filler forgot to include it: . The AE report has now been corrected. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Moved to editor's section from results section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply to Resnjari: Since the majority of the scholars agree on traitorous collaboration of Chams with Nazis, and only a minority adopts the viewpoint from that peer viewed content you have tried to restore, then I have every right to remove it until it is fairly presented into the article, without leaving a false impression of being the majority's viewpoint. If you do believe that citation reflecting a minority viewpoint shouldn't be clarified in its attribution (name those who support it), then, you better send an e-mail to the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and tell him your disagreements with his rules. What he said: "1) If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; 2) If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; 3) If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research." As for assuming Bad Faith, this unfortunately is not the first time. Such assumptions you have made in the past too, like here:, where you have assumed the Wikipedians for bias against Muslims when they do not accept your positions. Furthermore, accusing the Mediators, such as Iazyges, for partiality just because they did not rule in favor of your positions, makes your own objectivity and good faith rather questionable. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  08:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mediation Committee
A request to waive the privilege of mediation has been made to the Mediation Committee and will be discussed on the Committee's mailing list. Unless and until such time as the Committee consents to waive the privilege, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)


 * The request to waive the privilege of mediation has been declined by the Committee. The privilege of mediation remains in effect and, as noted above, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Statement by User:Resnjari
I am a little concerned about some editors in here advocating for a ban on Brioni in participating on all Balkan related topics on Wikipedia. Brioni’s insistence on raising certain content issues have been in relation to one article, that of the Expulsions of the Chams. A number of editors who have participated in that discussion themselves have resorted to colourful language and made editing unpalatable at times, things of which they accuse Brioni in here. Moreover when Brioni has taken matters to DRN, the process was closed within a short period of time which he felt certain issues were not addressed adequately. I noted a similar sentiment on my part to editor Iazyges who eventually acknowledged that a concern of mine was within reason (see my comments: ). No editor who participated in the Chams discussion in here is clean and one can cite multiple issues on their part in the talkpage. The process is now at formal mediation where it should have gone long ago (where discussion can be had in depth, over time, instead of it being rushed and without an impartial third party watching over proceedings). All editors need to observe good faith there and stick to content instead of trivial issues. The topic of the Chams is complex and yes there are passions. Passions though should not guide the editing process such as this insistence of “traitorous actions” by Silent being invoked to remove peer reviewed material thereby making good faith questionable. A final warning should be made to all participants.Resnjari (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to . Well it’s not just a scholar’s “opinion” and “traitorous actions” being a reason for removal of content do not suffice. The second pillar of which you cite is exactly my point. “Traitorous actions” is not a reason to remove peer reviewed content even if you don't like it.See this is why the in the end the discussion has had to go to mediation where an outside and impartial editor to keep an eye out on proceedings. Whether Brioni will be part of those discussions or not, i don’t know. Regarding myself, I now have time and will be partaking in the discussions.Resnjari (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2nd reply to . My comment was a follow up to your reason of “traitorous actions” which was not based on policy but your personal opinion regarding removal of peer reviewed content. What am I supposed to make of that? I have had more than a few experiences on Wikipedia by now with other editors on different topics. These editors acknowledged the mass violence and suffering done to Christian populations by Ottoman Muslim perpetrators, as I do. However when the religious identities are reversed relating to victim and perpetrator, those same editors have questioned such events and the validity of an article existing, even though peer reviewed sources exist. Such experiences have made me skeptical and it was with those thoughts in mind that I replied to you at the time. That’s why I prefer mediation and someone keeping an eye on things. May take longer, however it will be a binding and final outcome.Resnjari (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , once again you use that word “traitorous” and this time in front of “collaboration". The scholarship does not discount that a portion of the Muslim Cham population joined the side of the Axis powers. None though use loaded terminology such as “traitorous” like yourself. So I stand once again by what I wrote that issues relating to the article should be undertaken in mediation, so at least some kind of semblance of good faith is maintained.Resnjari (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , my comments were in relation to the process that occurred that was concluded within the scope of just an hour or two and closed. This left out other editors involved in the discussion being unable to comment. In the exchange that followed in the DRN talkpage there was acknowledgement that an issue I raised regarding Cham sentiments on the eve of the Balkan wars was within reason. The forum DRN that Brioni took the matter to is limited as it is designed to hear and resolve disputes in a limited fashion and not designed for a prolonged and in depth discussion. This subject matter is complex and is now at mediation., I stand by my comments and issues of that nature should be dealt at mediation. If you still wish to partake in the discussion, do so, if not your choice. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alexikoua
Apart from the evidence provided above, which appears quite overwhelming against DevilWearsBrioni, I believe that some additional piece of info may be helpfull: DWB displayed an aggresive pattern from his very beginning in wikipedia (forumshopping, reddit&off wiki activity as he admitted) and did not hesitate to fill two frivolous ANI reports against me (both of them summarily dismissed) [] []. Even the heading of the last report-attack leaves no doubt that this editor is not here to built an encyclopedia in a constructive manner: he questions eight years of contribution of a co-editor as he clearly declares in the heading.

After the following DRN turned against him, it was time for the DRN vollunteer to became his new opponent: he even edit-warred [][] and warned him not to revert again: []. Although he was again adviced by mediator not to engage in further edit-warring [], this wasn't enough: []

The OR obsession in the case of 'Expulsion of Cham Albanians' and the way it is handled by DWB during the last months, reveals a disruption and stubborness. The fact that a number of mediators/administrators asked for a ban/restriction isn't unfounded. Although a topic ban in the entire ARBMAC may be too much a restriction in a more limited area, let's say Albania/-ns broadly constructed, will certainly be a better solution.Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning DevilWearsBrioni

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


 * Two procedural points:
 * We need something more for "awareness", which has a very technical meaning in this context. See WP:AC/DS. If no such diff is available, we can't impose a discretionary sanction, but normal admin action is still available.
 * Per WP:MC/P, formal mediation proceedings cannot be used as evidence in subsequent dispute settlement absent prior written consent from MEDCOM. Unless such consent has been given, the portion of the complaint related to mediation will have to be stricken. T. Canens (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the formal notification diff we have is from Sept. 26, can the complainant organize his diffs to make clear which ones took place before the formal notification and which one after? We can consider diffs before the notification as background or for normal admin action, but not for a discretionary sanction. In addition, please remove all references to the formal mediation proceedings unless and until MEDCOM waives the privilege. T. Canens (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Information

 * The noticeboard discussion is now at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ה-זפר
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Blocked for 1 year for breach of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban (diff of block)


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : Admin notified - diff

Statement by ה-זפר
Copied from user talk page at User_talk:ה-זפר by Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. :I was blocked, with out a explanation, the reason stated was I did a violation of my ARBPIA articles ban, but I did follow my topic ban by not editing IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that Tel Aviv, Gush Dan, and even Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics. (and now it changed to Arab-IL topics?) :On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel. :After a recent report at AN, I got blocked? why? My topic ban was not explained to me and also I got blocked now? This is very unfair! David Aaron talk 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note I originally copied the above message incorrectly and lost the links. I have now replaced it with the source and it now contains the links - nothing else is changed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Copied from user talk page, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC) ...
 * , Thank you, hope you and the other admins go through my words and links. There's a thing in my mind = Golan Heights is no where related to Palestine. Golan Heights is a dispute between Israel and Syria. So, due to a revert conflict with a user on the article Golan Heights I was reported (not notified about it though), fine. But then why was I notified about being banned on articles related to Israel-Palestine conflicts? That's what I'm saying, then why was I even topic banned on first place? The other user was not even warned for the reverts, why just me? Also later I'm blocked (which says under violation of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban)? Are the administrators gone out of dictionary or it's meanings? Israel-Palestine conflict is something else and Arab-Israel conflict is other, whereas Golan Heights is not even near to the Palestinian territories, lol. If I'm notified on "Israel-Palestine conflict topic ban", the how can I be blocked on violation of "Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban"? It makes no sense to me! The topic ban and even the block makes no sense. I think some admins just want to sandwich me up! I had a headache for no sense. Haha. The revert conflicts could have been solved on the Golan heights talk page (as I already explained the revert conflict in the RED box above) HAHAHA...
 * On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds), indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to include, occupied by Israel in infobox.
 * HAHAHAHAHAHA..... David Aaron talk 10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston (re David Aaron's appeal)
It is unfortunate that the editor's responses show he doesn't understand the ban. If we could be sure he would follow Wikipedia policy in the future the block could be lifted. The ban itself is negotiable, though it can't be lifted by me since the ban was imposed by The Blade of the Northern Lights. The ban is in place due to a concern that he can't neutrally. When a new editor jumps into the hot-button articles right away (such as Golan Heights) and seems unaware that he is acting like a bull in a china shop it causes concern. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I find it astonishing that anyone would not realise that the Golan Heights are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I consider that ה-זפר was given a lot of support and guidance in how to avoid falling foul of the restriction, and failed to use it to material advantage. The length of his current block seems harsh, as he comes across as Tigger-ish not a WP:RGW warrior, but the restriction appears valid and the violation of the restriction, leading to blocking, unarguable, especially given the thoughtful help offered on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by ANI participant Dennis Brown
I will stay on this side of the line since I participated in the ANI. David seemed to have a great difficulty understanding the previous topic ban, even though it was explained many times. If someone is capable of stringing together coherent ideas into prose, you would expect they are capable of understanding the concept of a topic ban once it is explained more than a few times. As I said there, AGF is not a suicide pact and I find it difficult to believe that David is so thick as to not have understood all along. In short, I don't believe the feigning of ignorance. So was a block and ban justified? Absolutely.

As for the duration, we admin use our best judgement to determine what a consensus of editors would choose, and sometimes we fall short and sometimes overshoot the mark. One year is on the high side, but is within acceptable limits. It is impossible to gauge with any accuracy how long is "long enough", after all. If a consensus here believes a different duration of block is more appropriate, I'm sure would accept that consensus without issue. I support his block, but I'm willing to support anything for at least one month, which I think is grossly insufficient. I strongly prefer at least 90 days for the block, but I'm more concerned with finding consensus and moving on. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's note below, it is obvious David is choosing to not get the point, so I don't see how reducing the block would be beneficial either. My opinion would therefore be to simply leave it as it is.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID
Golan Heights are not Palestine. If administrators are taking/interpreting the Israel-Palestine case/remedy's to apply to Israel and all Arabs regardless of location under 'broadly construed' then there should probably be a request to amend the case to make this explicit. Thanks Roland for the correction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR
For the benefit of OID above, and in order to clarify any possible misunderstanding, it is worth repeating the outcome of the original arbitration case. By eleven votes to none, the arbitrators found that "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", and by fourteen votes to none they ruled that "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions". There is no possible ambiguity here. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
My view as stated at the ANI has not changed:. Indeed, it was reinforced less than 12 hours later by a follow-up comment:   Now there is an unexplainable level of confusion in these statements, particularly the latter. Now, clearly WP:CIR is not an issue, as his article creation shows, so I think there must literally be a blind-spot to this specific idea (the TBan). The question then, is how long it will feasibly take him to comprehend the restriction- and that is the length of time the block should run for. How long is a piece of string? But User:The Blade of the Northern Lights' agreement to clarify its parameters will surely help reduce this from a year. Personally I think three months should suffice. If it doesn't, then what will?
 * Striking proposal to reduce length of block. Due to the fact that, going by his second statement, ה-זפר seems to be getting mega-lulz out of this. Muffled Pocketed  07:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser
If my opinion be know, it is that 1. The initial indefinite topic ban was overkill. Banning all interested editors, or even all POV editors from the IP topic is a bad "solution". The one-year block was also excessive, and clearly punitive. It is not in the interest of this project to ban or block an editor who has shown he can be productive in this area for such an overly long period. WP:AE should be more understanding and use sanctions as a last resort. 2. It is easy to make an edit that is not related to the IP-conflict on a page that is related. We should show some understanding, and not slam people on the wrist for a mistake. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by ה-זפר

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


 * I agree with the comment by : "It's a puzzling fact that he seems not to understand his ban". Drmies (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that the sanctioning admin actually type out the exact wording for area of conflict from WP:ARBPIA or WP:AC/DS next time? It's not that much longer. T. Canens (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's on me. I stand by the ban, agree I could have been a bit clearer about it; I've gotten a little rusty with AE procedure. No specific comment on the length of the block, but the comments above about the implausibility of understanding the limits of the ban seem spot on. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The block is fundamentally sound, and I don't think we need to tinker with the block length at this time. We can revisit after three months if a more convincing appeal is presented then. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To my mind, trying to claim that Golan Heights-related issues aren't covered under WP:ARBPIA is a case of trying to get clever and skirt around something that ought to be very clear. I don't think that trying to find technicalities to get around a sanction is something that should be encouraged.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC).

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

Request concerning Ihardlythinkso

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

The article in question is subject to 1RR. log. diff.
 * 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) - October 31, 2016 2nd Revert
 * 2) - October 31, 2016 1st Revert (falsely asserts WP:BLPREMOVE)
 * 3) - October 29, 2016 2nd Revert (falsely asserts WP:BLPREMOVE)
 * 4) - October 29, 2016 1st Revert (falsely asserts WP:BLPREMOVE)
 * 5) - October 25, 2016 Revert of the same material. Falsely asserts BLP


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * Topic banned - August 2, 2016
 * Blocked - August 2, 2016


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


 * 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 August 2, 2016 by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Warned - July 20, 2016
 * Warned - October 29, 2016 (The warning was completely ignored).

IHTS routinely ignores consensus, makes false appeals to policy, and attacks those who disagree with him. As evidenced by the particular edit that he is pushing and the relevant talk page section: talk:Donald Trump, it appears that he is carrying on where a recently-topic-banned user left off.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

He is not above insulting other users who disagree with him. In this case, :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :




 * Contrary to what IHTS wrote below ("Take a look at the Donald Trump revision history of minutes ago, to see Mr X reverting my simple & correct change, and accusing me of valdalism in his edit sum. "), I didn't accuse him of vandalism; I accused the user who made the edit before IHTS' edit of vandalism, thus the 'and' in my edit summary. The reason why I included IHTS' edit in the revert was because his edit seems to go against MOS:DATERANGE which says "A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC."


 * In any case, I think I violated 1RR also (although not intentionally). Please feel free to topic ban me as well if it serves the greater good.- MrX 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by Ihardlythinkso
I removed misleading & erroneous text indicating Trump said he *did grope* [a woman/women], when he merely asserted on the tape that he could get away with doing so if he wanted to by virtue of his star status. (An enormous difference. The former is tantamount to putting in the BLP subject's mouth that he confessed to committing potential criminal act[s], something only imagined or contrived/fictionalized by presumably hateful political detractors. A little objectivity for what he said, please. As thoughtful, conscientious WP editor it was/is my duty to immediately remove.) Thank u. IHTS (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Disgusting commentary slamming me in goofy ways from MelanieN, Drmies, Dennis Brown. (MelanieN made back-handed insult of the BLP subject on the Talk page, that he's a liar. I suggested the illogical arguments she posted on the Talk page, plus the back-handed insult of the BLP subject, make her unfit for contributing at the Talk page. And Dennis Brown says *I* was "unnecessarily rude", and Drmies interprets as a "dig". False.


 * An editor reverted my BLP text removal with editsum argument that Trump's "I don't even wait" applied "obviously" to groping women, when that is purely bogus, it applied to kissing women. I'm sick of you three, block me for that? (The "ugly behavior" is not mine, Fleischman!) And where has anyone at any time explained how WP:BLPREMOVE has been inappropriately used for removing assertions the BLP subject never made, being stuffed into his mouth, when said assertion can fairly be read to be admission to potential criminal act? Nowhere. (I've done what is duty for WP editor to do. Yet you three seem to support the other side--slanderous false assertions attributed to the BLP subject.)


 * The discussion here is to what level *I* warrant sanction, are you sure you have your WP caps on properly? And you are admin? You need to explain yourselves in simple English. (Impossible for Drmies, who seems to communicate only by innuendo.) IHTS (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Dennis, you'd make a good judge (not), where your "I've been insulted!" dictates your rule of law. How shrimpy. IHTS (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * And IHTS, the comment to Melanie was unnecessarily rude. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC). Excuse me, I forget you are "King of admins" and your opinion is sacrosanct. (Just how advanced an admin are you, when prone to antagonizing a pissing/cat-fight like this? Your brotherly love philosophizing all over he WP is apparently reserved for those whom you like, and for those don't bow to you, they receive the Brown treatment, including "WP:NOTHERE" encouragements for full WP ban at ANI from you [as I have]. You're irredeemable, Dennis.) IHTS (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the Donald Trump revision history of minutes ago, to see Mr X reverting my simple & correct change, and accusing me of valdalism in his edit sum. (This s/ show you the quaility, prejudice, inattentiveness, and aggressiveness of the complainant, no?) IHTS (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * his edit seems to go against MOS:DATERANGE which says "A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC." - MrX 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC) From WP:DATERANGE: Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used [...] in infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column). IHTS (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting policy-free agenda: It'll cool down after the election hopefully, but temporarily removing some of the more invested participants from the article will also give everyone room to breathe and work collaboratively rather than competitively. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC). (So MelanieN, with her blatant illogic on the Talk, and calling the BLP subject liar, is not an "invested participant"?! And Nomoskedasticity's absurd rationale for revert here.) This smells. IHTS (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems a tag applied by another user has stuck for awhile (Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women), which somewhat accomplishes the same thing as my copyedit, but in a different way. So I'm pleased with that, and anything I may have done that may have spurred it along. (Especially I disagree w/ word "forcibly", which is misleading, per user Adlerschloß "nonconsensually" is accurate, though I never made comment at Talk:Donald Trump about same, but happily the tag seems to cover that to some extent as well.) This is not the first time I've seen a stable result come out of the oven like this. (It happened with the current long-standing Trump profile image, that popped out from I think user GoodDay after an RfC I initiated to put an end to edit wars and an unpleasant disorganized debate between two other competing images. It also happened at Bobby Fischer after a user's lengthy sec add consisting of random quotations from lesser players designed to impugn Fischer that he was, w/ no existing diagnosis, mentally insane.) IHTS (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Fascinating how Drmies undercuts importance of artificially introduced criminally self-incriminating language "bragged about groping" vs "being able to" ("The semantics here are really .... well find your own words.". There's no doubt in my mind having had awareness of Drmies's politically related issues posts that he sides w/ Democratic politics vs Republican, so he closes the Talk RfC as "neutral party", yeah? Oh yeah. (This is what gives WP a bad name, if you haven't heard that already. Plus if I were Trump, I'd consider suing WP for defamation.) IHTS (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Drmies, you can't seem to bypass any opportunity to dig me, in your usual unfair, uncontrolled, undisciplined non-concrete non-specific way. You just like to bad-mouth and smear, from years of holding a grudge. (And you call me "blind to hate"?! Look in the mirror, professor.) IHTS (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Purely disgusting. And the material in question doesn't even belong in the BLP lead, which I never contended with, or even mentioned, also. Amazing. Encyclopedia Walmart. IHTS (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Fleischman

 * , I think you might have misread the complaint since MrX listed the diffs in reverse chronological order. The latest 1RR violation was today, October 31. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , in my view your job should be not so much to minimize the force used, but to clean up the ugly behavior. I mean you seem to be effectively throwing up your hands and saying "anything goes" on the second-most visited article in the encyclopedia, one that has an impact on the election of the most powerful person in the world. An appropriate sanction of some sort--a tban, or maybe a short-ish block?--could at least have some deterrent effect. Frankly, between this complaint and the one I lodged above, I'm so frustrated by the current level of disruption at Donald Trump and admins' apparent unwillingness to step in and do anything about it that I'm about ready to give up until after the election. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would oppose sanctions against . They have been a civil and valuable contributor to the article, and we need more of those. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very troubled by 's most recent statement, which I think is saying that they are "pleased" that their edit warring has paid off. I hope I've misinterpreted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , flagging this comment from as a possible legal threat. I'd take this to ANI if we weren't already at AE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , no problem. I just thought it should be evaluated by someone with more experience in such matters than I. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
I'll make a similar comment to the one I made regarding the Anythingyouwant case. There are a group of editors who are intensely determined to include each and every negative mention of Trump that comes up in the news. Our policies and essays (NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, BLP, etc) are clear about what we as editors should do about this. This is simply another attempt to wikilawyer an editor opposing this viewpoint out of the topic. I'd hope that our admins are clever enough to see this filing for what it is, and ignore it until the election is over. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Ihardlythinkso

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


 * This seems stale, but that's unambiguous edit warring and WP:CRYBLP so I could be persuaded that this is another one for the post-Dec 1 restriction as per Anythingyouwant. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with except for the "stale" part. This is a pretty clear violation of 1R. The semantics here are really .... well find your own words. Editors are arguing over whether there was mention of forcible kissing and groping or just kissing. As for comments like this--well that dig is par for the course for this editor, I think. The question came up why this wasn't done at ANEW, as a clear 1R violation. One net effect of not reporting it there, but here, is that a block is unlikely, as this gets staler by by the minute. This board here should be used, in my opinion, for serial offenders; I don't know if IHTS is a serial offender in this topic area or not. If not, and I don't know if they are or not, then a topic ban is maybe too strong. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Par for the course, --I don't see a legal threat, just a very polysyllabic bit of asininity, the kind of thing that makes it clear that the editor is so blinded by either POV or hatred of those who disagree (especially administrators), or both, to the extent that I will roll with admins commenting below. I've heard this nonsense before, been hearing it for years from this user, and that's fine, but when they export their personal issues into talk space, article space, RfC space, then their behavior becomes sanctionable. The 2016 election topic area is already messed up enough. And for the record, if any of the admins want to look at the closes I made on the Trump talk page, please do. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why I haven't been supportive of topic bans in recent cases like this that I think are borderline. Yes violations, but I'm not sure it is crying BLP as much as not understanding that this won't qualify as a BLP exception, and not a serial issue.  There are going to be more cases like this as election day approaches.  If IHTS would voluntarily agree to avoid all post-1932 political pages until after the election, that would be acceptable to me.  Otherwise, the "Anythingyouwant" sanction at the most.  I'm not saying something stronger isn't within our authority, it's just that what is happening here is a mirror reflection of the country as a whole and we can't tban our way out of either.  It is the ugliest election I've seen in my 50+ years, so it's no shock that some ugly behavior is going to happen here.  Let's use the least force necessary to deal with the problem if we can, including future cases during this election cycle.  And IHTS, the comment to Melanie was unnecessarily rude. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman, I'm not throwing up my hands, I am accepting the reality that there are going to be problems today and tomorrow due to the events bringing out passions from both sides. Both of the choices I have presented here would remove IHTS from that article and politics in general during this heated period.  That is hardly throwing in the towel.  No matter what we do, that article is going to be frustrating for editors until after the election.  Admin can't fix that.  At best we can patch here and there.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck my idea of not using sanctions at all after IHTS's reply, leaving me with suggesting the short term tban, as bizarre as that is. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What, this again? Unsurprisingly, I find myself concurring with that this should have been sent to ANEW. However, it wasn't, and an edit-warring block would be punitive at this point. The diffs provided also show a tendency to stretch policy to breaking point to support their edits. As with Anythingyouwant, this sort of misuse of the BLP exception seems wilful, so I would also support the custom-made topic band we created for Anythingyouwant. If this were a one-off, I'd be willing to be lenient, but  banned them from the Trump page for a month not that long ago, and it didn't seem to achieve very much. Vanamonde (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the text being removed, I think that WP:BLPREMOVE is valid. Those arguing against IHTS are probably going a little too far in inferring Trump's meaning for a BLP.  So, no problem there.  What I do have a problem with is the tone of the comments on the talk page.  Some of them are borderline, but this one clearly goes way too far.  For this reason I'm happy with Guy's suggestion of a restriction similar to Anythingyouwant's.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Given the lack of fresh commentary and the consensus amongst admins for a restriction on IHTS (albeit for different reasons), unless there are any objections to the contrary I am going to close this as such in 24 hours. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Endorse a topic ban similar to the one for Anythingyouwant. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

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

Request concerning My very best wishes

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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,, 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)


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

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)


 * , the arbitration warning states: Consensus required: 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. This is what you did, three times. Your primary justification appears to be that you were following some sort of custom to preserve the material being discussed in an RfC. This custom does not "trump" (pardon the pun) active arbitration remedies, especially when you are re-inserting allegations of sexual misconduct in a BLP. I'll also note that WP:RFC states: Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , 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)


 * I have identified at least 3 verifiable falsehoods in '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)


 * ,, and , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)


 * , 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)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

13:42, 26 October 2016

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

Statement by My very best wishes
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)


 * 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)
 * P.S. Note that DrFleischman just threatened to report yet another user on WP:AE and ... violated 1RR rule on this page, (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 . Note that I made only three edits on this page during a week. My very best wishes (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

@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)

@James J. Lambden.
 * No, this is wrong count by you. Most people on the RfC agreed that at least one phrase should be included in intro.
 * 1) 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;
 * 2) 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",
 * 3) I think my editing of BLP pages is generally fine (I had no a single warning for this);
 * 4) 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)


 * @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)

@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)
 * @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)


 * 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)


 * BTW, I do not think this subject area will be quiet after electing such president. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tataral
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)

Statement by James J. Lambden
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: He made a similar comment a few days ago on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 talk page: Yet, examining his recent contributions I see he's involved in the following articles:
 * "As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest"
 * "I usually do not edit US politics and have more or less fresh eyes here"
 * 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 '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)

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: You expanded it to a paragraph shortly after, including a poorly-sourced claim of "child rape" (diff #1)
 * Yes: 5
 * No: 5 (one of those saying it should only be expanded to include Trump's counterclaims)
 * Maybe/Comment: 3

On Oct 20 the RFC asking whether the allegations should be included in the lede and to what extent stood at: Based on that you restored a full paragraph (diff #2)
 * Yes/short or one sentence: 2
 * Yes/more than short or one sentence: 9
 * No: 11

On Oct 26 the same RFC stood at: Based on that you restored a 3-sentence description (diff #3)
 * Yes/short or one sentence: 4
 * Yes/more than short or one sentence: 13
 * No: 13

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

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

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)

Statement by Schmarnnintelligenz
I came here feeling invited via a link posted by DrFleischmann to Talk:Donald Trump 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)
 * As I see that this is still an open case, I ask the admins to have a look at User talk:DrFleischman, 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)

Statement by EtienneDolet
and 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 '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 ), 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)


 * , 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Statement by Athenean
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. 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. 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 (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, wikilawyering about when 1RR applies , 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, 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). 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  and her people   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)

@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, 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. 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)

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield
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, only to see it immediately returned by My very best wishes. As explained here, 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)
 * 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)

Statement by JFG
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 and  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 considering his overall pattern of behaviour. Therefore I advocate the exact same "-standard" sanction for MBVW, with an encouragement to be less combative in his future contributions. — JFG talk 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning My very best wishes

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Dr. Fleischman, I stand corrected: I was citing from Talk:Donald_Trump. 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)
 * 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).
 * 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)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DaltonCastle

 * Appealing user : –  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Blocked 48 hours for 1RR violation on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : I am notified. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DaltonCastle
"This was a little harsh. I received no warning. My edits were not contentious. I am curious why the accuser never contacted me at all. This seems soundly unfair. As a token of goodwill I will stay off the page if you lift this block." Copied from the user's talk page per request. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)"

Statement by Ks0stm
Original change, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3. User had been alerted before. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
DaltonCastle re-inserted the POV tag over the objections of three other editors, twice after being warned here. That makes a total of three reverts on an article restricted to one revert. The block was appropriate and necessary. - MrX 02:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MelanieN
I was just on my way to ask for attention to this violation by Dalton Castle, when I saw that he had already been blocked. Dalton Castle repeatedly adding a NPOV tag to the Donald Trump presidential campaign article, despite consensus against it on the talk page. He added it three times in the past 24 hours. He did not start a talk page discussion or identify the specific NPOV violations he was alleging. When someone else started a discussion at the talk page he was dogmatic: "And we keep the tag up until we conclude it comes down." He not only violated the rules, but he still doesn't acknowledge that he did. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DaltonCastle

 * Seems pretty clear cut to me, the editor had been advised of the Discretionary Sanctions imposed by the arbitration committee, the block 48 hours it doesn't seem excessive to me. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 08:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by DaltonCastle

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


 * I would decline the appeal. If the 1RR was actually violated, then it's reasonable to proceed with an enforcement block unless there is some unusual issue that makes it unnecessary. Having read the thread at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 it looks like DaltonCastle had plenty of time to review the situation and reconsider his edits of the NPOV tag. His theory that discussion is required only for removing the NPOV tag but not for adding one seems novel and I doubt it can be found anywhere in our policy. ( There is nothing in the WP:EW policy to support this. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The 48-hour AE block has now expired. Unless there is objection, I would close this appeal with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The 48-hour AE block has now expired. Unless there is objection, I would close this appeal with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Request concerning DevilWearsBrioni (continued 1)

 * Concerning a request which is now in Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive202. It continues a long discussion which has been at:
 * Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive931
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians
 * Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians
 * (and ref an older discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive893),
 * please keep discussion as concise as possible and come to a decision as what is to happen with User:DevilWearsBrioni, and any other related matters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , i have no idea. The discussion on Brioni got transferred to the archive, yet there was no outcome. Because of that mediation discussion is in hiatus too. Have no idea in this instance what will happen. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with what the vast majority of the editors said, including, , , and , that action has to be taken against DevilWearsBrioni, either in the form of limited sanctions or warnings.
 * Although, personally I couldn't recommend sending him mere warnings this time, given how he has ignored all previous warnings in the past. For this reason, I believe that he be banned from editing the Expulsion of Cham Albanians ever again. An article-specific sanction on Expulsion of Cham Albanians could the best response to his constant disruptions. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, i think the best option would be a very limited ban, perhaps to all things cham related? That may be too harsh however, I could see how a one article ban would likely work better. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, a very limited ban on very specific articles rather than a generic topic-ban of a wide range of articles is what I believe to be fair for DevilWearsBrioni, given how most of his editorial misconducts and disruptions are concentrated to specific articles, not to all. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled. It appeared that the case had gone into mediation, and that there had been no disruptive editing of the article itself after the start of mediation.  It appears that mediation is stalled, but mediation is privileged, and failure to cooperate with mediation is not sanctionable.  I don't see any disruptive edits by DWB after the start of mediation.  Were there disruptive edits before the start of mediation, but after DWB was alerted?  This looks to me, unfortunately, like an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered.  Has the mediation failed, anyway, or should it be resumed?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert, if you do believe that DevilWearsBrioni has remedied himself and "dropped the stick" of his personal perceptions of OR/NOR and that he won't once again stubbornly resume his disruptions, then, so be it. A strongly-worded warning should be given to him, but, if he ever resumes his disruptions on Albanian-related articles again, then a ban is on way for him. I am sorry if I can't exactly share your faith and optimism about him showing a better editorial conduct in the future, because he is really stubborn beyond limits. From what I can see, he has given us not even a slightest sign that he is letting it go. That he has refrained from any new disruptions during the October month, does not mean he has stopped with his disruptions forever. As you can see, it is not unusual for him to stop his disruptions for a long period and then suddenly resume them, at a later time, as he has done in September, after a long August break. Given this, what can reassure us that he wont resume them once Anthony Appleyard's mediation is over, like how he has already done after Iazyges's mediation was over? This is a rather rhetorical question, because history tends to repeat itself and I just want to be cautious. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  17:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, i think it was less than a week between me closing the dispute and recommending RFC/ mediation, and him continuing disruption. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm equally puzzled. Not only does this request not follow the required AE template, Anthony has for some strange reason included a link to a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with me, while also pinging involved editors and urging them to "come to a decision as what is to happen with User:DevilWearsBrion". I'm once again baffled by the actions of Anthony. That’s an oddly accurate assessment from someone who partook in the pile on against me at AN/I and then later here at AE. What changed since then?

This was your closing statement, which contained several inaccuracies, at DRN. You then went on to remove the OR tag from the article since you apparently had decided that it wasn't OR. If you still believe you were justified in removing the OR tag because of your supposed authority as a DRN volunteer, then please say so. I'm still not clear on your position concerning this. Do you still believe that you have the authority to issue decisions? Or were you mistaken in believing so?

You will soon be given another opportunity to provide diffs as evidence for the things you've repeatedly accused me of, e.g. multiple 3RR breaches. You've failed to do so every time I've requested it. This may give credence to what I've said about you creating a false narrative about me, don't you think? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with 's assessment of the situation regarding Brioni. On my part i am ready to resume mediation. That matter regarding the Chams should have went there long ago, then when it did later. Now its there and should be dealt with there with the final outcome being binding for all editors. Much has been said of Brioni's behavior in here. However what has been ignored is that he has on many an article been a editor who has held a high esteem for wp:reliable and wp:secondary scholarship and used it in the article himself while also clearing up multiple problems of synthesis and other issues. A case in point is the Fustanella page (see talk: ). Brioni has shown a commitment to upholding Wikipedia standards. The outcome here should be a final warning and with the resumption of the mediation process. With the conclusion of that (whenever that happens), if further issues continue then the book can be thrown in its entirety if rules are broken, as with all editors. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You may have not understood the Mediation rules, Resnjari, and why the DevilWearsBrioni case can not be resolved through mediations. If you read the Mediation faq, you will find that the Mediation Policy clearly states:
 * "The basic aim of mediation is to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content'. As above, the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors; these should be directed to a project administrator (e.g. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for evaluation. Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions. It is not an aim of mediation to produce mutual amity between the disputants, but increased tolerance and respect is an important goal."
 * The Mediators intervening and helping in resolving content disputes could have been perfect if our case here was just a mere content dispute and nothing else. The Mediators can not intervene or help in regards to editorial misconducts by certain editors here who have been ramming content into the article and failed to show any willingness for compromises, and kept assuming bad faith of any editor they disagreed with. The editors refusing to think beyond their stubborn positions and reach a consensus with the rest of the community is what caused the current deadlock. Seeking a compromise which complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, did not prevent them from acting as if they are owners to the article and edit wars to ensue and Edit Warnings / ARBMAC Warnings to be given on their Talks. Since the Mediators are not here to tackle with the core of the present issues, and since a certain user here was able to ignore the outcomes of previous Mediations, then what can guarantee that the new Mediation's outcome won't be ignored again? Please. If you really wanted to participate in a mediation, then why haven't you done so in either Iazyge's or Anthony Appleyard's mediations? You had your chance you participate in two mediations thus far, but you have consciously chosen to be absent from both, unlike me, who participated in both mediations and who endured DevilWearsBrioni's endless rattles. Now, if you may, Anthony Appleyard was very clear: please keep discussion as concise as possible and come to a decision as what is to happen with User:DevilWearsBrioni, and any other related matters.. Please stick to this. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  11:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for highlighting the vexatious nature of this complaint: "The mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors." Here are some of the things you were allowed to say about me with impunity during mediation:


 * "not befitting a reliable and honest editor of Wikipedia"
 * "The editor DevilWearsBrioni must understand that editorial bias and arrogant behavior can not be tolerated"
 * "DevilWearsBrioni is not a suitable and accountable editor for editing and improving ARBMAC-protected articles"
 * "He is only using OR and SYNTH as a trojan horse to impose certain POV"
 * "A very long dragging of feet for nothing besides listening to DevilWearsBrioni's POV everyday"
 * "he has resorted thousands of times into disruptive edits and tactics to achieve this goal."


 * Contrary to what mediation policy claims, attacking the character of editors and lobbying for sanctions against them during mediation is totally fine apparently(?). I don't expect this to matter since mediation is privileged, but it's worth bringing up for context. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DevilWearsBrioni, as you may be aware, my comments on your behavior were the result of your failure to abide by the mediation's procedures which require that every participant sticks within the discussion's framework set by the mediator. You have been repeatedly called by both Robert and Anthony to stick to the point during mediation, but you have failed and refused, and this exactly is the exact reason I explained to Anthony and Robert why the idea for Mediation turned out to be UNSUITABLE for DISRUPTIVE EDITORS such as you, and hence my above sentences about you. Robert's mistake was to try resolve disputes caused by bad faith and disruptive editorial conduct through mediation, even when the rules are very clear for such cases: that a Mediation can not tackle effectively any cases of disruption. And if my memory does not fail me, I have ALREADY warned Robert that any new Mediations are bound to fail, in this talk page here:, where I told him: "I have a feeling that from the moment certain editors who evidently have not respected the previous Mediations, a new Mediation won't make any difference. History tends to repeat and all what we may accomplish at the end is just dragging our feet around without actually tackling the editors responsible for their disruptive behavior." Everyone can see how I predicted the failure of any new mediations, for the fact that their procedures are not suitable for resolving such cases of disruption, and, as everyone can see now, Anthony's Mediation was no exception to this rule: his mediation was bound to fail from the start due to the unusual case of disruption we had to deal with. But Robert, despite my warnings and cautions, has ignored me and he boldly proceed to request mediation nevertheless. But I do not blame Robert at all. In fact, I congratulate him and I praise him for his tireless and sincere efforts to resolve this notorious OR/SYNTH case through peaceful means. I completely admire Robert for his peaceful efforts to resolve such cases, but thing is, you are extremely stubborn editor, and such stubbornness is the exact reason Robert's efforts failed, Anthony's mediation failed, Iazyge's mediation failed, disruption kept ongoing for 10 months, and more. Like I said: mediations are unsuitable places for disruptive editors. Am I clear or do I have to repeat myself? -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As i said before, i am still in agreement with Robert McClenon's assessment of the situation. The issue that has arisen here is that Brioni is disruptive when editing. All the examples cited here by other editors go back to earlier in the year. Yet this case was brought after the issue regarding the Chams article went to mediation. If there was such a problematic issue, should not the issue regarding behavior been brought long ago to this forum instead of after mediation occurred ? The reason why things have gone here or there is because this matter should have gone to mediation much earlier. No editor involved in that discussion in the talk page is clean. Its why mediation is needed in the end. At mediation whatever the outcome is, its final and must be accepted by all. This article is complex and that process should resume instead of time being wasted here. A warning as a final outcome would do with proper notification. On my part i am ready to resume the mediation process.Resnjari (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even more mediation with DevilWearsBrioni? Sorry but this ain't happening. I don't have all the time for him. DevilWearsBrioni already had more chances to remedy himself and he has drawn more attention than most disruptive editors normally could, but this farce has to come to an end now. It is time to stop dragging our feet around this OR/SYNTH case forever and finally have something be done with that user. Either ban him, either warn him, but in all case, put this to an end so we all can move on. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  15:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a editor participates in mediation is a separate matter for them to consider. On my part, I will be involved there. Like i said before i am in agreement with Robert's assessment of the issue regarding Brioni.Resnjari (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thought and Suggestion
First, it appears to be that the formal mediation has failed. Either the editors who disagree with DWB should withdraw from the mediation on grounds that it has failed, or User:Anthony Appleyard can (if the Mediation Committee permits) formally declare the mediation to have failed. Second, the next step is to resume discussion on the article talk page, and DWB has been formally alerted to discretionary sanctions. I don't see this Arbitration Enforcement request as serving any useful purpose. Close it somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I better declare that this mediation has failed. It remains to decide what to do with DWB. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree, and I have already decided to withdraw from Anthony Appleyard's mediation. Note: it is not Anthony's fault, nor Robert's fault. Just it couldn't work. If any new mediations are to be called in the future, they better be requested on grounds of resolving content disputes between non-disruptive editors as per Mediation's rules, and not on grounds of resolving disputes caused by certain disruptive editors, like I explained in a message to Anthony and Iazyges on my talk page. Again, I appreciate everyone for your tireless efforts to resolve the DevilWearsBrioni's notorious OR/SYNTH case. You have my thanks. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  18:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , how has mediation failed ? Four editors are listed for mediation. Brioni and Silent partook in the discussion regarding certain issues while others did not at that point in time. On my part i thought those two editors were capable and also was under the assumption that such a discussion on that forum would be over time without time constraints. I had to attend to a few things in my personal life back then. In no way did it mean that a discussion of all issues concerning the article was brought up for discussion, especially by me. What is the alternative? More long winded commentary in the talk or possible edit warring over time by other editors. Those outcomes are even more dispiriting and disruptive. This article is one of the few remaining articles of consequence for at least the Albanian Wikipedia project needing to be addressed and consensus at times has been skewed due to numbers and not consideration of the scholarship. Closing mediation will just mean that this article becomes a hotspot for the usual Balkan dispute that makes some editors more quick to launch enforcement requests than to be constructive in making the article better (just going by personal experience on this one).Resnjari (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Resnjari - Whether the mediation has failed is, in the end, the judgment of the mediator, User:Anthony Appleyard, but User:SilentResident appears to think (as do I, but I am not a participant), that User:DevilWearsBrioni was filibustering. If you and the mediator think that mediation will work, more power to you.  I had hoped that mediation would work, but there are other things that I hope for also.  In any event, this is not the place to discuss whether to mediate, and this does not appear to be a properly filed request for Arbitration Enforcement.  What do you, User:Resnjari, propose?  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * for years, and before DevilWearsBrioni appears, you didn't had any problem using the talk pages for reaching a consensus with other editors, including myself, for improvements and additions on various Balkan articles, including the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians. And this, without the help of the mediators. Unlike DevilWearsBrioni, you have managed just fine to use the talk page for discussing the changes for reaching consensus with others, even in the most difficult of all Balkan articles. Try using the Talk Pages and if you ever run into any problems or disagreements with other editors, Wikipedia offers an array of options for resolving them. As long as you and the others respect the rules, everything should be fine. And as for the current mediation, it is over for me, I am afraid. And I have withdrawn my participation as I do not think I can stick around the same case forever. Sorry. If you want to discuss anything, use the talk page, as User:Robert McClenon has suggested. As for me, I am going to take a much much needed break from the pixelated and bureaucratic world known as Wikipedia. I wish you all the best. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For me i would say to continue mediation. A final warning should be given here to all that only the scholarship should be the focus. No other shenanigans. Who ever stuffs up there (no more chances) loses the privilege and gets excluded from participating with the addition of further enforcement action (topic bans etc). Otherwise this will go on forever and in future there might be other editors creating other headaches on that article. User:Robert McClenon, you have seen how these Balkan related topics can go with disputes and become nightmarish. Mediation at least has a binding and final outcome. This article is one of those that requires a more prudent approach due too the complexity of the subject matter. A reconsideration by User:Anthony Appleyard of keeping open mediation would be most appreciated. At least two other editors involved should also have a chance to participate.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SilentResident I have used talkpages extensively and some editors have said i use them too much. This article though has reached many impasses. On the mediation page looking at it, the is a sense that one issue was being rushed and another introduced. It should be done one at a time with Anthony at the end saying this is decided or that is decided before another issue is raised. All at once is not a good thing and I thought little things would be resolved when the process started between both of you. Anyway mediation allows for a prolonged discussion without the added stress factor of haste. Maybe we can put it off for a week or two and everyone comes back with fresh eyes and a clear head (and from the date of resumption all need to participate). If mediation is closed the article has issues relating to the intro and other matters that will just fester and cause more problems that will stir passions among Greek and Albanian Wikipedians instead of a constrictive outcome. I have edited many contentious articles and have seen many have frustration guide their editing instead of guidelines and scholarship. Lets finish this off with a binding outcome in mediation.Resnjari (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Resnjari - Would someone please provide me with a link to the statement that mediation has a binding and final outcome? I was not aware of that.  A Request for Comments has a binding outcome, although nothing in Wikipedia is final because consensus can change.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon, as far as I know, no content can be "final". Everything in Wikipedia, be them rules, or articles, or whatever, can change, be improved or overwritten. Likewise, the content in the pages gets updated with new information and sources. Everything is susceptible to changes, even editorial consensuses cannot stay the same for ever and can be challenged at any time, as long as they are in accordance with Wikipedia's principles and rules. After all, the flow of information and sources in the world is constant, by both new and old scholars, and it is inevitable for Wikipedia to be updated to reflect the new information. I assume Resnjari meant the decisions being binding to the participants of the mediation? if yes, this is a totally different thing. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  21:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, in addition to what Robert said about consensus can change, certain rules are above consensus, such as WP:NPOV which states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  21:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon the final sentence of the mediation policy WP:M says: "The purpose of mediation is to secure a result that benefits the encyclopedia—not to ensure fairness for any one contributor. Mediators work with disputants but for the encyclopedia." In my comments i had that in mind and interpreted it as inferring something binding or at least towards being something final in the scope of discussing a certain matter at that point in time. I am aware that things are liable to change depending on the circumstances of new scholarship etc etc. I hope that clears things on my part. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am off to bed on my side of the world as i have stayed up too late. Ping me for further developments. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, keep mediation open, if it will be any use, with DevilWearsBrioni continuing to filibuster. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my... a mediation where the filibuster is the sole participant in it? I am up for it (as observer, not as participant), I could love see a filibuster's production of kilobytes... :-)
 * Anthony, may I ask, will you inform me about the procedures of the mediation's closure, or do I have just to withdraw from it? In this case, do I have follow any specific steps (such as deleting my name from the Mediation's list of participants or whatever)? My apologies for my inexperience, this is my first time in a mediation and I am unsure about how the procedures really work. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  00:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User:TransporterMan seems to be in charge of mediations. Best tell him, if you as well as me see no more use in trying to negotiate with DWB. I as an admin could block him any time, but I better follow the usual procedure. And, please everybody, try to keep discussion concise. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Per the statement of the mediator that the mediation has no ongoing hope of resolution, I have closed the mediation case. The privilege of mediation still applies, however, and anything heretofore said or done in the course of mediation may not be used as evidence in this or any other conduct proceeding. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)