Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive205

Gilabrand
''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 Gilabrand

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Indefinite ARBPIA topic ban :


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


 * 1) 23 November Edits history and other information about an Israeli settlement in Israeli-occupied territory: "Had Ness was established by the Herut Beitar settlement movement. Home ownership was approved in March 1982, after the Golan Heights Law was passed in 1981. Families began to move there in 1987." "Many residents of Had Ness run guesthouses and zimmers."
 * 2) 5 December Edits Israeli-built ski resort article located in Israeli-occupied territory
 * 3) 4 December Moves an Israeli settlement in Israeli-occupied territory

Looooooong list: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AGilabrand
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notified

Discussion concerning Gilabrand
''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 Gilabrand
When the topic ban was discussed with HJ Mitchell, he specifically noted that I could edit Israel-related articles as long as my edits were not about the conflict. I have been editing now for over a year and not once has anyone challenged or reverted any of my thousands of edits. With respect to Had Ness, you attribute to me all kinds of horrible motives, but I just happened upon the article because a clown friend of mine said he was going there to perform. I had never heard of the place and googling it came across an actual reference to it in a scholarly book. Looking at the article and seeing the history section was unreferenced, I added it. There was nothing about the conflict. It was just a historical statement of fact. I also saw that the spelling was wrong, and moved the article to reflect a more correct spelling (again, not perfect, as the "h" sound in Hebrew has no parallel in English). I have tried exceedingly hard to stick to the rules over the past year and I find it sad that there are editors like SD who have been on the warpath for years and are basically holding Wikipedia articles hostage. The one and only reason for my edit was to add a reference where there was none. Geewhiz (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Oh, and for the record, I was not the one who added the material about the guesthouses. I removed a chunk of uncited PR material that was promoting a specific guesthouse. So SD should actually be thanking me for ruining their economy...

Statement by Sir Joseph
None of the edits have anything to do with the IP conflict. All of the edits were improvements to the article. This is just yet another "gotcha" style enforcement action. Furthermore, why are these articles subject to ARBPIA enforcement?
 * Well they certainly have something to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict: "Had Ness was established by the Herut Beitar settlement movement. Home ownership was approved in March 1982, after the Golan Heights Law was passed in 1981. Families began to move there in 1987." "Many residents of Had Ness run guesthouses and zimmers. " . She is editing texts specifically about Israeli settlers in occupied territory. Other edits she is editing settlement articles, which she shouldn't be touching at all. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And? Are we now going to put all settlements and Arab villages under ARBPIA? Her edits have nothing to do with the conflict and are an improvement to the article. This is just you trying to get a pro-Israeli editor banned. It's a petty and vindictive action. This is not what AE nor Wikipedia is about. She changed the name from Had Nes to Had Ness, and you bring her to AE for that? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All Israeli settlements in occupied territories are under ARBPIA, Yes. Her edits are directly about the Arab-Israeli conflict specifically talking about the Israeli settlers and when they moved to the Israeli settlement in the occupied territory and when the Israeli settlement was founded and by which settler movement. She is topic banned for a reason. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when are all settlements and Arab settlements under ARBPIA? You need to go to ARBCOM and clarify that. You're just nitpicking trying to push your POV and make Wikipedia more toxic. Please don't respond to me anymore here, I will not reply to you. Stay in your own section. I reiterate that no actionable edit occurred. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I refer admins to the statement above: "Disruptive...groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." We have edits from "ages" ago, that are not in the ARBPIA area and this is a groundless complaint merely brought to shut down an adversary. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The suggestions below begs the question if editing Arab villages and towns would also fall under ARBPIA, or is it just Jewish towns? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarification, and since mentioned it, the ARBPIA templated was only added yesterday. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
In response to, it is not helpful to a topic-banned editor to encourage them to make edits which others could interpret as a breach of the topic ban. Topic bans quite often contain the phrase "broadly construed" and most editors will interpret that in terms of ARBPIA to include editing topics about settlements in the occupied territories, whose existence is inextricably linked with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Had Ness is a clear example. The consequences for you of being wrong are zero; whereas the consequences for a topic-banned editor of following your advice if you are wrong are serious.

The convention on Wikipedia is for a topic-banned editor to check the talk page for a notice such as ARBPIA. The presence of the notice is a clear signal to keep away. The absence of such a notice is not, however, a green light to edit the article. The usual practice, in the event of any uncertainty, would be to seek advice from a knowledgeable-admin – perhaps the one who performed the ban – whether they considered the article covered by the topic ban. In my humble opinion, it's probably best for an editor who is topic banned "broadly construed" to assume that all settlements in the occupied territories are subject to ARBPIA. Nobody's going to get sanctioned for following that advice. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount
I suggest lifting the ban. I did see a while back Gilabrand was sailing somewhat close to the wind of the topic ban on occasions, but the nature of the editing tended to be gnomish stuff like category editing, WikiProject bannering, image adding etc. None of the edits have been problematic, and she has been editing for over a year without incident since being unblocked. She has not touched the "battleground" parts of the topic.

HJ Mitchell wrote: "I would suggest, as a ball-park figure, that six months would be an appropriate amount of time passed before I would be wiling to consider lifting the AE block."

She seems to have surpassed that requirement with a goodly amount of decent editing. The fact that it's taken this long for anybody to notice and complain here is evidence of the benign nature of her editing to date. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
To put it bluntly: anyone assuming good faith with Gilabrand, is a gullible fool. Seriously. She lied about IP socking while banned, was forgiven and let back, and "repaid" by socking again. See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147, where User:Bukrafil was found to be one of her socks. I was taught to  turn the other cheek, but I have run out of cheeks, w.r.t Gilabrand.

So no, I simply do not believe that, say, that first diff is an innocent mistake. Having said that, as long as she only does copy- edits, I do not mind that she edits articles under ARBPIA.

I think a block is in order, but not a long one, (she has done constructive work, too). Say, 1 to 3 months?

Statement by Malik Shabazz
I don't think it's very nice that Gila refers to her friends—any of them—as clowns. Isn't there a policy or guideline against that? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Gilabrand

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


 * Context for reviewing admins: the topic ban was imposed in this 2014 AE thread; Gilabrand was indefinitely blocked at the same time and unblocked just over a year ago. I see I noted at WP:DSLOG when I logged the topic ban This topic ban is indefinite [...] and will continue in the event that Gilabrand is unblocked. I'd prefer this complaint be adjudicated by other admins (and make no comment on its merit for the time being), but I'll monitor this thread. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Supreme Deliciousness, please post in your own section. And the first diff listed shows Gilabrand removing the following material from the Had Nes article: It is hard to claim that removal of the phrase 'unilaterally annexed by Israel', when referring to the Golan Heights, is unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In my opinion diff #3. the move of Had Nes to Had Ness looks innocuous, though I take note of the view that anything done to articles on Israeli settlements in occupied territory may be questionable for a topic-banned person. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks like an example of testing the boundaries. A settlement in the Golan Heights will be viewed by many as certainly within ARBPIA, it is not the job of topic-banned editors to make this determination by testing the boundaries. Gilabrand needs to pay very close attention to the words "broadly construed" and adopt a policy of not touching an article unless it is either unambiguously and unarguably free of ARBPIA (so with no connection whatsoever to Israel's disputed borders, for example), or asking for advice before editing. My view is that the very next edit to any article which is arguably related, should lead to an immediate block. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am persuaded by Peacemaker67. Though the last block was a while ago, it is very clear that Gilabrand is still determined to edit in this area and is also still unable to restrain the strong POV which led tot he restriction. I have blocked for 3 months, see . Guy (Help!) 09:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to provide a warning that edits to settlement pages are within the broad topic area if not for the portion of the first diff highlighted by above. Topic bans cover any edit, not just any page, and it's beyond clear that removing the phrase "unilaterally annexed by Israel" is within the topic area. Given the number of previous blocks for topic ban violations, I see no choice but to block here, probably for a long period of time. This editor has long since exhausted their share of good-faith errors related to this ban. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the whole thing from the beginning, I think (as noted by EdJohnston then Rob) it is self-evident that removing the phrase "unilaterally annexed by Israel" is a violation of the TBAN, which was "broadly construed". Any assumption of good faith around the edges of that is surely long gone. Given the back story (which reaches back to 2008) regarding blocks relating to this topic, I don't support Guy's suggestion of a final warning, as I think whatever rope there was has been played out. I suggest at least a three month block is an appropriate response, with the TBAN still in force indef after the block expires. Given the past history of socking, any socking during the block to result in an indef block. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Request concerning Solntsa90

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe and Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :


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


 * 1) 18:55, 27 November 2016 Removing "debunked" from descriptor about conspiracy theory affecting WP:BLPs.
 * 2) 19:00, 27 November 2016 The New York Times apparently not good enough source for this user in disputes -- adds "claims to have debunked" instead of "debunked" before the newspaper.
 * 3) 4 December 2016 - adds Russia Today in violation of indef topic ban from all related Vladimir Putin topics.
 * 4) 4 December 2016 - again inserts Russia Today in violation of topic ban.
 * 5) 20:46, 7 December 2016 Insertion of unreliable source against talk page consensus, later removed by . -- see previous topic ban from Russia Today.
 * 6) 7 December 2016 - again adds Russia Today, this time after edit-summary warning by . Again in violation of topic ban from all pages related to Vladimir Putin.
 * 7) 20:43, 7 December 2016 Edits in subsection directly related to Russian propaganda - AFTER notification by of topic ban violation on all pages related to Vladimir Putin, and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
 * 8) 20:44, 7 December 2016 Edits in subsection directly related to Russian propaganda - AFTER notification by of topic ban violation on all pages related to Vladimir Putin, and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
 * 9) 21:48, 7 December 2016 Edits in subsection directly related to Russian propaganda - AFTER notification by of topic ban violation on all pages related to Vladimir Putin, and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
 * 10) 21:50, 7 December 2016 Edits in subsection directly related to Russian propaganda - AFTER notification by of topic ban violation on all pages related to Vladimir Putin, and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
 * 11) 15:54, 8 December 2016 Edits in subsection directly related to Russian propaganda - AFTER notification by of topic ban violation on all pages related to Vladimir Putin, and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
 * 12) 15:55, 8 December 2016 Edits in subsection directly related to Russian propaganda - AFTER notification by of topic ban violation on all pages related to Vladimir Putin, and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification. And after the proposal by  of three-month-long-block.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 17:23, 19 January 2016 Six-month topic ban from "from the article RT (TV network) and its talk page." (Note behavior recently inserting Russia Today at .)
 * 2) 23:33, 28 February 2016 Blocked for violating unblock condition related to WP:RFARB.
 * 3) 26 February 2016 Indef topic ban from Vladimir Putin - therefore insertion of Russia Today is violation of this sanction.


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


 * 20:39, March 30, 2014 - Discretionary sanctions alert by EdJohnston as to Eastern Europe and related topics (WP:ARBEE)
 * 26 February 2016 Indef topic ban from "the topic of Vladimir Putin on all pages of Wikipedia including talk."
 * 28 November 2016 Discretionary sanctions alert by as to both (i) pages regarding with living or recently deceased people (WP:ARBBLP), and (ii) pages involving post-1932 U.S. politics (WP:ARBAP2)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notification given at 21:55, 7 December 2016.

Discussion concerning Solntsa90
''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 Solntsa90
The article on Fake News has literally nothing to do with Russia, except for media claims that this originates in Russia--still nothing to do with Vladimir Putin--and the fact I'm using an RT News source as a citation.

The burden of proof will be on you to prove that this topic is directly related to Vladimir Putin.

I didn't violate my topic-ban; You're just attempting to get rid of me on a contentious issue. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My edits aren't even related to Russia. The burden of proof will be on whoever issued this complaint to prove that my edits were on an article directly related to Russia or Vladimir Putin, of which neither were; This is all happening because I dared to use RT News as a source. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality
I agree with and fully join in Sagecandor's request regarding Solntsa90. I see this as a flagrant violation of his topic ban(s), and one more example of an ongoing pattern of behavior that indicates a complete inability or unwillingness to edit productively in the topic area of American or Eastern European politics. Particularly illuminating is his statement, in an edit summary, dismissing "a few editors [that] have an objection" because "Consensus is not needed on valid sources, of which RT is." Solntsa90 seems to believe that his understanding is baseline/predicate. He doesn't seem to appreciate that others might have rational views to the contrary. Nor does he seem to understand that generally, the burden of showing a source's reliability is on the proponent of the source.

Even if this isn't quite a NOTHERE case, it certainly is one that calls for:
 * A broad-based, long-term topic ban. Since targeted sanctions haven't work, there should be consideration of a ban of Solntsa90 from all pages, project-wide, touching "government/politics related to the United States, Russia, or Europe, and journalism/media/news related to the United States, Russia, or Europe, broadly construed," or something to that effect.
 * Some sort of 1RR restriction that bars Solntsa90 from reverting anything but obvious vandalism.

Neutralitytalk 22:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Solntsa90

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


 * I agree with Neutrality. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, after this edit, "I think the issue here is who decides that they are the arbiter of truth? Is it simply by how much media influence you have, how much money you spend on advertising or your editorial team, etc.?" I am convinced that SoIntsa90 simply can't play by the rules, and does not, or does not want to, understand how consensus and RS works. Much in that comment is on the sly--for instance, "the issue here" could point to "here" as "in general"--in the US, in the West, whatever--but it probably means "here on Wikipedia", and thus the "editorial team" that's on whoever's payroll is us Wikipedia editors. It's bad enough that the whole liberal media conspiracy theory gets so much air time on Wikipedia talk pages, including by SoIntsa90, but this is also a total violation of AGF and a toxification of the entire process. Enough already: I'm blocking now for a short period considering this one particular violation, and add my support for an AE block to EdJohnston and Peacemaker. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The ban from RT (TV network) was mentioned by User:Neutrality. That particular ban was for six months and it has expired. But the pattern of problems continues. I would favor a three-month AE block for continuing problems with neutral editing in the area of WP:ARBEE, since they have got themselves named twice in the WP:DSLOG for ARBEE this year alone.  See the user's block history. The log includes three blocks for edit warring and a two-week block for harassment. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with EdJohnston that the editing pattern persists despite previous blocks. Enough rope has been played out. Three month block for the ARBEE issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing. User:Solntsa90 is blocked for three months as an arbitration enforcement for failing to adhere to community standards regarding the ARBEE topic. While Drmies issued a shorter block above for a specific violation, he did express his support for my proposal of an AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Subsequently blocked indefinitely by Bbb23, per . Sagecandor (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871
''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 Doc9871

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :


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


 * 1) 11/22 Telling other editors (in particular me) to "shut up" (misspelling it doesn't make it better). Compare it to this diff which is what led to Doc's original topic ban, and this statement by
 * 2) 11/22 Discussing other editors instead of content, speculating about other editors motives and making groundless accusations. Making some kind of threat. Note that this is *exactly* the kind of comment that led to Doc9871's initial topic ban. He is just repeating it.
 * 3) 11/22 Discussing other editors instead of content. Doc seems to be more interested in insulting other editors than actually discussing article improvements. Note the edit summary.
 * 4) 11/22 More insults and incivility. Completely pointless and gratuitous too. Like, what's the point of this?

More minor, but indicative of the fact that the editor is WP:NOTHERE


 * 1) 11/22 Taunting other editors in edit summary
 * 2) 11/22 Taunting other editors (wasn't aware I lost any elections)

And for good measure


 * 1) "Fuck off now". It's on his talk page, so by itself wouldn't be a big deal. But part of a pattern.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 8/1 Doc9871 was topic banned for 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump. Furthermore, the closing admin, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights stated, reflecting admin consensus on that report, "(Doc9871) is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban". The diffs above show that such an extension and broadening are needed.


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


 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 8/1 by  which was originally imposed by.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Exactly the same problem as the one which led to his original topic ban. Almost like reading from a script. Doc9871 is incapable of discussing this topic without immediately resorting to insults and abusive language. This behavior derails productive discussion. It's also completely pointless as it offers no suggestions for article improvements. It's just gratuitous insults made for their own sake.

@Lankiveil - what "plea bargain" are you talking about? I just left a message on his talk page asking him to remove the personal attacks (like telling me to "shut up"). I actually dislike having to report people to WP:AE and try to give them plenty of opportunity to correct/revise/strike/undo. Is there something wrong with that? Hell, I get messages like that on my talk from admins once in awhile too ("you might want to reword that") Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 

Discussion concerning Doc9871
''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 Doc9871

 * It's not a "personal attack" to say that Volunteer Marek (VM) is heavily biased against the subject. There is absolutely no question about his anti-Trump bias. So how is it a personal attack to point this out? It's just a simple fact.
 * Statements like this show how VM, a very ardent anti-Trump editor, has been holding the article hostage for months, and abusing the process quite severely. It's not a "personal attack" to point this out. He claims that only things "central to the life of Donald Trump" can be included, yet when challenged on what is "central" he not only can't explain what that means, but instead suggests more, only negative, info that should be included. Please read VM's very pointed response more than once for traces of "incivility".
 * His assertion in the diff above that adding very reliably sourced material in the bios of the "goofy" celebrities who took to the media to announce they were leaving the U.S. would somehow automatically violate BLP should be of grave concern to every responsible editor here.
 * VM offered to let certain "personal attacks"... "slide" if I removed some statements (that were not personal attacks) to his satisfaction. Specifically: "All the insults and personal attacks". Nothing specific was mentioned that could have been reasonably stricken were there a concrete issue. As a reward, I would not be reported here. I don't do "plea bargains" when they are not warranted.
 * There's been absolutely no "disruption"; rather just a bruised ego. I've done some good work on the article recently; decent enough that I have been thanked for those edits by multiple editors, including admins. It's all there in the article history. This is a meritless, spiteful report. VM's claim that I am NOTHERE after nearly 9 years and 23,000 edits is similarly meritless.
 * I did not come up with the "goofy" thing. That's why I keep putting it in "scare quotes". "The answer is that this is an article about Donald Trump. Not about some goofy celebrities." Those were his words, not mine. First he tried to dismiss it all as "textbook trivia", then we discredit the sources, then the celebrities themselves.
 * An indefinite ban as recommended by seems heavy-handed, as bans are to prevent disruption and not meant to be punitive. The last ban was for a month, and there's been no "disruption" until I dared to question VM's iron-clad notion of exactly what is UNDUE and "allowed" at the article. This has morphed from allegations of personal attacks into something else. I haven't done anything to any of the "goofy" celebrities' articles, gleefully or otherwise. The true disruption is that I'm a little too sarcastic for some at times, and I am supporting an unpopular subject. I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway.
 * - I wouldn't exactly say that we "talked". It was more like you jumped in and took over a conversation to deliver several scathing lectures on a page that had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. You, who are not an admin and have never made an edit to that talk page before, decided to "set me straight". Any length of sanction is appropriate, yes? Doc   talk  09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - I’m surprised and extremely disappointed at the theory that I am basically incorrigible, needing a permanent ban on all things Trump because I had a little argument with a user on the talk page. I’ve been very insulted being told here that I’m a dishonest, unreasonable, irrational editor. That my "political sensibilities” have clouded my judgement so severely that I must be banned; that I am incapable of editing peacefully; and, most insultingly, that I am incapable of avoiding disruption in this topic area "even if they want to". We’ve gone straight from “Take back the insults, or else!” to excommunication for disruption. I expected a little better faith, for certain. Doc   talk  08:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - I definitely do not “dislike” VM, or anyone else commenting here. We all must agree to disagree. If we didn’t disagree on things there’d only be one “correct” political party or religion. The only editors I dislike are the trolls and the socks and the vandals. I’ve had various disagreements with many editors over the years, including more than a few watching this page. It’s all business, nothing personal. Doc   talk  09:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - What is editing "peacefully"? Doc   talk  12:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm incapable of editing peacefully... but only in this area, correct? Doc   talk  14:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:EEng
(Just happened to stumble on this thread since, ahem, this page recently came onto my watchlist...) I think it's important to bear in mind that editors need not be neutral, and it's OK -- even desirable, when you think about it -- that they reveal any biases in discussions. It's only their edits that need to be neutral.

If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally.  E Eng  08:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Regarding the above: "If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally." It's not that we expect our editors not to carry any personal bias, since, with the exception of the bots, they're all human. What we expect is for editors to contribute to the encyclopedia in such a way that doesn't promote their biases, or skew facts and information because of them. Not necessarily an easy thing to do, and we all, I think, slip up on occasion, so the question becomes "How often and how badly." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Calton
Doc needs to read WP:NOTTHEM at some point. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Question by Cas Liber
, why did you change sources here? From reading it, both sources can support the statement, but (a) why swap and (b) the edit summary? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I can comment in this section, right? That diff, I believe, I was already punished for. I'm sure it was because the Breitbart source was unilaterally declared to be a non-RS, despite lengthy discussions on the RSN that didn't fully conclude that it is a non-RS that must be removed. I'll note that the actual reliability of the source doesn't always apply. Doc   talk  11:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My question was, why did you replace the source with the Breitbart one in the first place? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Breitbart source already was there - I didn't insert it. I re-inserted it because it was declared a non-RS. It actually was inserted back on July 17 by . VM tried to declare it a non-RS here, and I reverted him. Doc   talk  12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Both sources support the sentence. Hence the edit summary was wrong. And you'd have to agree that a definite RS is better than an arguable one. So it was a real WP:BATTLEGROUND edit, wasn't it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it was a real battleground edit on my part. An admin put that source in in good faith. One user gets to declare it a non-RS all on their own? On what basis? Doc   talk  13:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one is declaring Breitbart a non-RS all on their own. There is a hierarchy of sources, some better than others. Easier to use more widely accepted ones rather than pushing it borderline ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * VM's edit summary is unambiguous: "replace non-RS with RS". It occurred to me that removing Breitbart sources in favor of more widely accepted sources was a factor in the swap, but the reason for the swap from Breitbart to CBS was due to it being declared to be a non-RS by VM in that edit summary. Doc   talk  11:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John
I see enough here to concern me, and I was taken aback to discover this was the behaviour of someone coming back from a shorter ban. There is enough here to make User:EdJohnston's suggestion of an indefinite topic ban seem like a reasonable one. This user seems to have been overwhelmed by his political zeal in this one area and to therefore be unable to edit objectively. --John (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Removes a perfectly valid and referenced statement from the article, with the edit summary ""Non-scientist". Not a word. Do better, please."
 * Chides me at my talk for using the term "non-scientist":
 * Sarcastically posits that different standards apply to descriptions of people with different political views.
 * This is either consciously dishonest or the user has allowed his political sensibilities to cloud his judgement. As has been pointed out, this could not reasonably be characterized as an attempt to plea bargain.
 * This statement just above contains the highly disingenuous "I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway" (my emphasis) Given the problematic behaviours preceding this complaint I would have been more reassured to see a more insightful and self-reflective statement than this.
 * As I pointed out, I'm involved in 3 additional currently active threads on the very same talk page.,, I'm not surprised at seeing the same old enemies pile on here. I guess I'm just completely out of control and must be stopped. Doc   talk  11:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And the "disingenuous" statement? I said I am biased for Trump! How is that highly disingenuous?! It would be disingenuous to say I am not biased for Trump when I am. I don't let that bias get in the way of NPOV. Big difference there. Doc   talk  11:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
I talked with Doc9871 here. Based on their responses, he does not see his behavior as problematic and will continue doing exactly the same. Therefore, the sanctions are warranted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Doc9871. Let's be rational. You have been banned already for making very similar comments. What else can you possibly expect this time? My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Doc9871. I am only telling that your recent comments are exactly of the same kind as comments which led to your previous t-ban. Therefore, they are not OK, and you know it. You do not behave rationally, even though you are definitely a rational person. Why? I do not really know, but my best guess is that you do not like people who disagree with you and therefore want to make their life on-wiki miserable. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Doc9871. You tell: this is strictly business, nothing personal. OK. But your comments were not about improvement of content, but negative remarks about other contributors made on article talk pages. So, that is your business? OK. But I do not think that business is profitable, or serves any useful purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
I have had moderate interaction with Doc on contentious political pages, and I don't understand the pile-on against him. OK, he's a bit sarcastic and rough around the edges, but so are many many many editors (especially those willing to engage into editing such topics, you do need nerves of steel and a good dose of humour); it's no problem at all. Our friend VM reporting Doc today can be quite abrasive himself, but has never been sanctioned for that. I see Doc as a good-faith contributor who shouldn't be t-banned for such peccadillas as reported here. This sounds more like a personal vendetta than a genuine attempt to quell disruptive behaviour. I would personally let him go with an admonishment to smoothen his talk page comments, that's all there is to it. That being said, let the wisdom of the admins fall where it may… — JFG talk 19:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
I've looked over the edits   , and they are very troubling and disturbing. Looks like things are moving in the direction of a topic ban. I would also suggest a block due to WP:NOTHERE and the complete disregard for WP:No personal attacks. Sagecandor (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Doc9871

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


 * If it doesn't sound too pretentious, I'll "recuse" from this complaint, since I was deeply involved in the previous complaint against and sanction of Doc in August. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC).
 * I'm looking less at the diffs about Doc's talk interactions with VM, but more at Doc's initial posting on the talkpage that sparked this latest altercation. His tone in gleefully proposing to stamp several BLP subjects ("bigtime celebrities") as "liars" (for not immediately following through with their declared intention of leaving the US if Trump won), combined with the way he's been speaking about them here ("goofy celebrities"), shows that his interest is not in creating fair coverage of the Trump campaign but in systematically discrediting his opponents. I'm not particularly impressed with VM's tit-for-tat counter-proposal of adding more coverage of Trump's misuse of Twitter either, but maybe that's another issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the last AE as linked by Bishonen, seeing the new complaint and noting the warnings issued by the other admins last time (User:Laser brain, User:Seraphimblade, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights and User:Lord Roem), I propose an indef ban of User:Doc9871 from the domain of WP:ARBAP2. It seems that Doc9871 behaves quite badly on talk pages and that behavior hasn't changed since the last time around. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Doc9871, do you have any diffs or other evidence that VM tried to make a "plea bargain" with you? If these events took place as you described them, I'd consider that a very serious matter indeed.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC).
 * If I'm reading the diffs right, this is supposed to be the evidence for the "plea bargain" claim. I don't remotely read that as an attempted plea bargain, nor do I see how any reasonable observer could do so; it's clearly a notification by VM that if matters aren't resolved he's going to consider requesting formal action, not an attempt at a bargain. &#8209; Iridescent 18:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll AGF that VM didn't mean it that way, but I can definitely see how that would be interpreted as a threat, especially in a charged atmosphere. Bravo for giving them a chance, just be a bit more mindful of the chosen wording next time.  On the other hand, Doc9871's behaviour is problematic and most worryingly I don't see that they understand why it is a problem; without understanding the issue I don't see how they can improve even if they want to.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC).


 * I don't see any reason not to permanently remove Doc9871 from this topic area, as they have proven repeatedly they cannot edit in it peacefully. Endorse an indefinite topic ban from ARBAP2. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Broadly, I'd say focusing on content and not personalizing issues, focusing on being civil and professional rather than making posts dripping with sarcasm and invective, and focusing on logic rather than behavior coming from an emotional response and designed to produce an emotional response. It's been well-documented in this filing that you are incapable of editing peacefully. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is pretty evident that an indef TBAN of Doc9871 from ARBAP2 is exactly what is needed here, and this is exactly what discretionary sanctions are for. Their behaviour hasn't changed despite previous warnings. This is long-term and ongoing behaviour that deserves appropriate action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This has gone awhile without any further comments, so let me stick my neck out and propose that the admins commenting here seem to have a rough consensus that Doc9871 ought to be permanently banned from this topic area. If there's no administrative dissent from this in the next 24 hours I'll enact the ban. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Agree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After reading the further discussion, I continue to support an indefinite ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast
''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 Kamel Tebaast

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 18:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles :


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


 * 1) 02:58, 28 November 2016‎ first revert
 * 2) 17:53, 28 November 2016 second revert


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 11 October Indefinitely blocked and topic-banned
 * 2) 13 August topic banned


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see above for previous sanctions
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, through email with The Wordsmith

This editor has already been topic banned twice in less than 6 months. This is his second 1RR violation since having the last topic ban lifted. There is a much larger report covering all of his recent "contributions" to this encyclopedia, and the pettiness and bad faith exercises in those edits, but that will take a bit to compile. For now, here's a fairly clear 1RR violation. This user has proved himself incapable of abiding by the rules to edit in this topic area, and I really hope an admin doesnt indefinitely block and lift that block 2 days later after an off-wiki private discussion that they refuse to release any details about, and then lift the topic ban and allow this person to continue wasting our time.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Putting scare quotes around the right of return is not "solid editing". KTs edits since returning from his topic ban have ranged from mildly bad to outrageous. Id like to say more about this here but I think the more substantive complaint requires an email to the arbitration committee for privacy reasons.  nableezy  - 20:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

, the users very first edit coming off the topic ban was to remove a wikilink because it said the word "Palestine". He then, without ever once disputing that the agency in question was actually part of the British government of Palestine, proceeded to continue playing WP:IDHT on the talk page for a week. Along with that, he was arguing on the same talk page that the village in question was named after an ancient site that wasnt even discovered until several years after the village had been established and named. All because he did not want to include the well sourced fact that the name was taken from a nearby Arab settlement. See Talk:Beit_Alfa. Following that, KT proceeded to attempt to overwhelm the biography of a computer scientist and mathematician with irrelevant material, turning it into a proxy battle between Ephraim Karsh and Tom Segev, neither of whom are the subject of that BLP (diff. The rest of this cant really be discussed here. But, in sum, this person has repeatedly demonstrated that the agenda driven motives in his edits and the distinct lack of respect for Wikipedia policies, content and behavioral.  nableezy  - 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yall should really institute a rule that involved editors may not comment on an enforcement request.  nableezy  - 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

yes, this itself is minor. And maybe Im being lazy in seeing yet another minor violation and reporting it instead of actually putting together a more comprehensive report. But Kamel Tebaast is a terrible editor, an uninformed hyper-partisan who has contributed nothing of any substance to a single article in this topic area and has instead spent his time engaged in full out battle on behalf of his cause. He has personalized disputes beyond anything I have seen in however close to the decade Ive been here. He has been petty and vindictive, disinterested in abiding by even WP:BLP, willing to turn completely unrelated topics into proxy battlegrounds on either the topic or against editors he holds to be his antagonists. So yes, this is minor. But in the five months since this person has been allowed to edit in this topic area, a month after he began editing in topics since abandoned because his aim of being a warrior for the cause of Israel on Wikipedia is fairly clear, he has been topic banned twice for two of those months, and since returning has proceeded to demonstrate just how bad this person is for any project purporting to have the aim of creating reliably sourced neutral encyclopedia articles. As you have oversight Id be happy to email you regarding the private information that made me more willing to report a minor violation.

sent.

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast
''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 Kamel Tebaast
Nableezy is correct about one thing: I did violate the 1RR. I wish I could self-revert, which I would, but it is obviously too late.

They should place warnings: DON'T EDIT WHILE ON MEDS. My only excuse is that I'm on heavy medications prior to a surgery tomorrow. I mistakenly thought that I had made a revert on another article. In any case, the revert in discussion was solid and should not to be construed as disruptive editing. If my intent was disruptive in nature or aimed at violating policy it would be one thing. This wasn't.


 * I made a technical mistake. As noted, I would have immediately self-reverted had someone pointed it out to me. However the 10 minutes between my edit, the revert, and the filing at AE did not allow. I did not revert the same text, so I was obviously not edit waring. I don't understand why I shouldn't be given the same opportunity everyone receives to correct such a minor technical error.  Kamel Tebaast  16:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

My only question is what are the administrators waiting for in order to close this complaint? The two complaints (and there were more) filed ahead of this have been closed, and five complaints filed after this have been closed.

In terms of consensus, six uninvolved editors (Shrike, Monochrome Monitor, John Carter, Debresser, Sir Joseph, and Sagecandor) have written that no sanctions are warranted (other than a possible warning); one uninvolved editor (Malik Shabazz) did not suggest a sanction, but we can assume that he wants the death penalty (although I recently took him to AE, so I'm not sure how impartial he is); and one editor abstained with a solution (Irondome).

The consensus of the administrators was more of the same, with four uninvolved admins suggesting, at most, a warning: BU Rob13 wrote, "Based on solely this instance, I see no reason to take action." He further added that "In the future, a good-faith message on the editor's talk page asking them to self-revert should be made before this is brought to AE." (Maybe this could become an official warning to Nableezy.); Lankiveil wrote that this "seems to be on the extremely minor side of things, and I don't see any reason not to AGF where the explanation is concerned..." They added that they are "still be in favour of closing this with a stern "don't edit while drugged up" warning..."; Peacemaker67 backed a "warning about editing while under the influence", and; The Wordsmith wrote, "Going by consensus, this seems like a relatively minor infraction".

So, again, what will it take to close this complaint?  Kamel Tebaast  21:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike
Usually users that violate 1RR given chance to self revert.The Kemal was not given such chance and he does accept it as mistake I think warning about being careful in the future will suffice--Shrike (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Monochrome Monitor
It's unfair that he was reported without getting a chance to self-revert. This is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, where rules are preventative and not punitive. This is simply a "gotcha!" complaint, catching KT (drugged or not) in the act breaking the 1RR rule. Well, from my experience the 1RR rule is easy to break, and nableezy has reported me similarly for doing so without letting me self-revert even though I expressed intent to. But this isn't about me, I'm just saying this because I don't think nableezy understands what 1RR is for. It is not to punish your enemies but to encourage healthy debate, and these vexatious AE reports have a chilling effect.--Monochrome _ Monitor  21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why revert completely if there are parts you dont object to? Why not just remove the scare quotes as you describe them?--Monochrome _ Monitor  22:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we keep this civil?--Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If they revert themselves, what's the problem? There is no "impunity" if they self-revert, and even you call it a "mistake". It's a fact that the vast majority of 1RR violations are accidental. Alerting users to their mistake doesn't mean you can't report them, it just means waiting a bit before doing so. The result is the same, their edit is removed, just without getting AE involved. Making people less likely to go to AE is a GOOD thing. The fact is that many users, like myself, never go to AE, and others, like Nableezy, go whenever an "enemy" slips up. (I will gladly take that back if someone can produce an example of Nableezy reporting an editor with his POV for a 1RR violation) If anything we rely too much on 3RR and 1RR violations as "hard indicators" of misconduct, warranting punishment regardless of the circumstances. But WP:IAR is a thing and if anything we should be more reliant on what are currently "soft indicators", namely, being a jackass. The worst offenders who act against the spirit of wikipedia by gaming revert restrictions would fall under that category, but those who politely apologize and self-revert do not.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  23:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with his baggage but the vast majority of editors (and things in the universe) are not "useless".--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
Boo hoo! I was drunk, so I'm not responsible for my umpteenth violation of the rules. I'm on the side of the angels, so I deserve a second third fourth chance. I only broke the rules because the evil nableezy caught me, so it really doesn't count. What a bunch of pitiful whiners! — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I don't know that I've ever seen someone say they may have been temporarily impaired as a result of medications for surgery. If it is true, and I assume it is up to the AE enforcers to determine how much credit they give it, that it was due to such a unique set of circumstances, having myself been in a similar spot in the past, I can see how it might not be unreasonable to maybe allow a single instance of misconduct related to that slide, provided that there is no recurrence. If there ever is recurrence, throw the book or computer at him. The fact that the editor apparently wasn't given a chance to self-revert might also be considered in the decision. FWIW, I edited a wikisource page on a treaty when I was in the same situation, not here, but that was under probably different circumstances. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My thanks to for his offer of mentorship below, which seems to me to be one of the better options available here. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on one of the comments by an admin below, I am reminded of Bucky's sentence after destroying part of Philadelphia under the control of some supernatural mind control or other, 25 years remanded to time served (of a few months). Something like that seems to be what is suggested below - this is a serious violation, and recurrence will not necessarily be tolerated, but you've got a decent excuse this once. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser
To me it is clear that Kamel Tebaast made one edit in the evening and a completely different one in the morning, and probably just forgot that he had made an edit the previous evening. In addition, the edits are sound, and I see nothing contentious about them. Nableezy's post here seems like his umpteenth attempt to get an editor from the "other camp" blocked for no real violation. I think this report should be dismissed and that's it. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I echo what Debresser wrote and what I would like perhaps added to the rulebooks is that if you are bringing an AE action for a 1RR you also need to show that the user had notification of the 1RR and time to revert. There is a huge chill in the air in certain areas and it's just not nice to be around anymore. We need to bring back the "fun" of editing and not harp on every edit. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think to settle this matter, the mentoring offer should be looked into as a valid option. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
A lot of nonsense is being written here. Editors who are known for editing in good faith are frequently given a chance to revert their mistakes before getting reported, but bad faith editors like Kamel Tebaast do not deserve such a courtesy. Establishing this as a "right" would fundamentally alter application of policy and would allow bad editors to violate 1RR/3RR with impunity, knowing that they can back out safely if they are challenged. As for my charge of bad faith, one can mention his edit-warring and bad faith argumentation at Beit Alfa, immediately after removed his topic ban. At the talk page there you can see him trying to argue that this location was named after an ancient site not known to exist at the time, and refusing to accept multiple sources that clearly identify a government department. Zerotalk 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What we must not allow is an environment where a bad editor can violate 1RR with the knowledge that they will get a chance to back off if the the edit is challenged. There is no such right, and if someone is reported for a 1RR violation it is their own fault alone. Nableezy already allowed KT to revert himself once recently; how many chances should he get? The admins who work here are capable of seeing the difference between a good editor who made an innocent mistake and a bad editor whose violation was not innocent. Note that "not innocent" is different from "deliberate"; someone who breaks 1RR without intending to during a pov-push is also not innocent. However, I personally think that 1RR is the least of KT's sins since he came off his topic ban. He should be re-banned because he is a disruptive useless editor. Zerotalk 01:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Irondome
I am willing to mentor, as a last resort. This entirely depends on whether KT gets the fact that they need help before community patience is collectively exhausted, and community consensus would support such a move. I have in the past briefly mentored one member of the community who is now positively contributing to this discussion. POV is irrelevant if one sticks by the rules, is intellectually honest and is capable of self-reflection. The medical issue I am keeping an open mind about, and am inclined to be understanding. Even so, it was a terribly ill-timed co-incidence of events. Now, <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;"> Kamel Tebaast , would you accept mentoring? My terms are strict, and I would not hesitate to hand over to admin action if you broke a mutually accepted mentoring agreement. I have watched this issue from the sidelines for some months, and am aware of the overriding problems to an extent. What does the community say? If agreed by all parties, I will present my conditions here. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
I would tend to WP:Assume good faith on this one, for if we all try to do that a little bit more towards each other, our community will hopefully be the better for it. A warning logged somewhere with a permanent link back to this discussion would be appropriate. Sagecandor (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Kamel Tebaast

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


 * I'm holding off on judgment for the moment, but suffice to say I'm not happy about this case. I had hoped (perhaps naively) that KT would stay out of trouble for the near future. You say you have additional evidence. I would like to see it, at least the portion that does not have privacy concerns. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * KT has indicated that he's going to be offline for roughly a week to recover from his medical procedure. Unless there is some compelling reason, I intend to hold this request open until then. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Going by consensus, this seems like a relatively minor infraction. There isn't a consensus for sanctions at this time, but I think the mentorship proposed by is probably still a good idea, to avoid future problems. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be on the extremely minor side of things, and I don't see any reason not to AGF where the explanation is concerned; the user should be aware that using similar excuses in the future will probably not elicit a very sympathetic response. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
 * If there is non-public or suppressed information that you'd like me to look at, please forward it to me via confidential email. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC).
 * User:Kamel Tebaast has given notice that he is back, and this request can proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Based on solely this instance, I see no reason to take action. In the future, a good-faith message on the editor's talk page asking them to self-revert should be made before this is brought to AE. There are likely broader issues here, though, and we need a more comprehensive report to look at those. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Nableezy says he has forwarded some private information to User:Lankiveil, who is an oversighter. We should probably wait to see if Lankiveil believes it should affect the decision here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless this evidence specifically relates to suppressed edits, likely can't act upon the information as per the blocking policy. (I ran this by an arbitrator before saying this, and they agreed.) This likely needs to be sent to the arbcom listserv if there's privacy concerns. We can't handle it on-wiki. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've received the email, and it is stuff that needs to be kept confidential (sorry, I can't go into any more detail), but in my mind it doesn't affect the substance of this particular request for enforcement. I'd still be in favour of closing this with a stern "don't edit while drugged up" warning, this other matter that Nableezy has made me aware of will be handled through the usual channels for this sort of thing.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Given the above, I'm minded to support a warning about editing while under the influence, and a note that in future, a similar excuse is likely to result in some sanction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ag97
''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 Ag97

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 and Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons :


 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2
 * 2) WP:BLPBAN as superseded by motion.


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

Sneaky minor edits at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) to minimize fact it is fake, even though it impacts BLPs including living people who were endangered by a shooter with a rifle:


 * 1) 23:23, 4 December 2016 - Removes large amounts of content from intro on good article page about BLP, reverted by.
 * 2) 15:36, 9 December 2016 - Words conspiracy theory as if factual, "and tie a number of pizzerias ..."
 * 3) 15:51, 9 December 2016 - Removes "discredited" from lead of conspiracy theory, calls this "minor change to lead".
 * 4) 15:54, 9 December 2016 - changes "determined to be fake" to "called "fake news" ..." in scare quotes, calls this minor change to lead".
 * 5) 15:57, 9 December 2016 - changes "debunked" to "described as false", removes word "debunked" from section on "debunking".
 * 6) 16:49, 9 December 2016 - WP:BATTLEGROUND retaliation. User starts talk page section about their edits, immediately responds with same in reverse with same passive aggressive wording.
 * 7) 06:30, 9 December 2016] - Inserts discussion of theory into related article which treats the conspiracy theory as a matter of debate rather than debunked falsehoods, despite the fact that both sources they cited explicitly describe the claims as "fake."
 * 8) 01:00, 11 December 2016 - "the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked."


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 23:12, 11 January 2013 - Warned about BLP, by.
 * 2) 15:39, 2 December 2016 - Warned about Fringe Topics related to BLPs, by.
 * 3) 17:09, 2 December 2016 - Warned about edit-warring, by.
 * 4) 17:09, 2 December 2016 - 48-hour block for edit-warring/3RR violation on Pizzagate, by.


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


 * 1) 16:00, 20 October 2016 - Discretionary sanctions alert for content related to post-1932 American politics, by.
 * 2) 15:32, 2 December 2016 - Discretionary sanctions alert for content related to living persons, by.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * New evidence: Complete and utter inability to understand WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources with this amazing bit of doublethink:
 * "the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked." -- 01:00, 11 December 2016
 * This is incredibly disruptive to talk page progress. Sagecandor (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 17:20, 9 December 2016 - Notification given about arbitration enforcement discussion.

Discussion concerning Ag97
''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 Ag97
This is absolutely ridiculous. I made several good faith edits that improved the Pizzagate article. I gave clear reasons for all the changes, and can defend all of them. I am very willing to defend any of my edits on the talk page. This is an attempt to block me by Neutrality. Neutrality has threatened me, saying "Ag97 has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation on this very article. I think it is time for AE on this. Neutralitytalk 16:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)." Neutrality previously got me blocked for edit warring, even though he himself was guilty of edit warring just as much as me. I find it very concerning that Neutrality is attempting to bully me by using his administrator rights to threaten to block me for disagreeing with him. All of my edits were made in good faith, were justified, and improved the article. Nothing was intended to be sneaky, my edits were accurately described, and improved the article by rewriting phrases using more neutral language that more accurately describes the cited references. If Neutrality has a content dispute with me, he should discuss it on the talk page, rather than trying to get me blocked. This is nothing more than an attempt by Neutrality to silence someone he doesn't agree with. Ag97 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

NorthSouthBaran 's accusations are also inaccurate. I never posted anything that was false, I said "conspiracy theory" and never claimed that the theory is true. The words "conspiracy theory" are sufficient to explain that the claims aren't true. No other Wikipedia article describes conspiracy theories as false, so why should this one be an exception? My edit was justified, as I explained. NorthSouthBaranOf and Neutrality have no right to get me blocked for disagreeing with them.Ag97 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, foundational Wikipedia policies mean neutral point of view. All other false conspiracy theories on Wikipedia, such as 9/11 or Sandy Hook, and never described as false, even though that is uncontested. So why should this article be written from a biased point of view when no other Wikipedia article about a conspiracy theory does that? Secondly, this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, where many people agree with me. [User:Ag97|Ag97]] (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Addition: I just want to point out that it is completely absurd that people want to block me from Wikipedia for having a discussion on a talk page, as what MjolnirPants wrote. It seems that I am being attacked by people who are angry that I disagree with their opinion. Ag97 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Addition: I attempted to negotiate with Neutrality on his talk page. He responded at first, but once he started losing the argument, he got angry, deleted my arguments, and got me blocked as retaliation. I got blocked because I accidentally violated the 3 revert rule. That was not done intentionally, and since then I have not broken any Wikipedia policy. Now Neutrality is trying to get me blocked for the second time for the same offence. Ag97 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
I view these edits as problematic as well; the user inserted a lengthy discussion of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory into a related article, Podesta emails, without mentioning that the theory has been widely debunked, discredited and is viewed as false by all mainstream sources. This despite the fact that the two sources they cited explicitly call the theory "fake."

The user in question may well be editing in good faith, but it is clear that they do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia content policies, particularly those regarding fringe theories and false claims about living people. They are clearly editing from the POV that the claims are "not proven false," which is at best a fringe viewpoint and at worst an overt attempt to spread libelous, ludicrous nonsense which has already resulted in one extremely dangerous incident. A number of the user's previous edits on the topic have had to be suppressed, and I suggest that the continuation of this behavior warrants a topic ban. They have demonstrated that they are not here to edit this topic in compliance with policy but rather in an effort to spread false claims about people, or at the least create the impression that there is some substantive debate about their veracity, as against the unanimous declaration of reliable sources that they are malicious lies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ag97 does not seem to understand that this is not a matter of personal disagreement, but a matter of alignment with foundational Wikipedia policies. That the claims of this conspiracy theory are false, malicious lies is an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion among reliable sources, not merely someone's personal opinion. Editing related articles to make it sound like Pizzagate is a subject of actual debate or that there is any truth to the claims whatsoever contravenes this policy. We must describe Pizzagate as mainstream reliable sources do — a fake, fraudulent conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality
I agree with Sagecandor and NorthBySouthBaranof. Ag97 has been extensively reasoned with, alerted, warned, and sanctioned, all to no avail. I consider the (repeated) BLP violations to be serious. Some sort of topic ban or revert restriction or both, applicable to American politics in general or conspiracy/fringe theories in particular, would seem to be in order. Neutralitytalk 18:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also: This hardly needs to be said, but Ag97's statement that I somehow "threatened to block him for disagreeing with me" is completely meritless. What I told him, on December 2, was the following:

"Let me be perfectly and unequivocally clear. You have two simple choices. You can either stop edit-warring in violation of our fundamental policies and guidelines. Or you can continue this conduct, and I will pursue and very likely obtain Arbitration Enforcement remedies against you. The choice is yours, but I strongly recommend the former."


 * Ag97 immediately disregarded this advice, disregarded my follow-up corrections to his incorrect notions about Wikipedia policies, and proceeded to consistently and flagrantly violate BLP, even after being blocked for the exact same conduct on the exact same issue. So here we are. Neutralitytalk 23:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, , : Sorry for bugging you all, but can we get a resolution here? I think that this has occupied the community's time, both here and at ANI. It's time for a closure, I think. Neutralitytalk 22:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Timothyjosephwood
The failure to understand that criticism of a source does not constitute a source is...fairly run-of-the-mill for these topics. The immediate jump to WP:ROUGE and WP:CABAL is concerning.

User:NorthBySouthBaranofs characterization of this edit as a "lengthy discussion" is at best wrong. It is, in fact, a single sentence, and that may be a little WP:ABF.

There has been a tendency on the article to want to pack in as much tentative and doubt-casting language as possible: The theory purported to claim that the "person" reportedly did the alleged "thing" which was a false unfounded hoax, not true, and very likely a fib. At at least a few instances of this has needed to be simplified. So there's definitely a middle ground there somewhere.

Not sure there's been an insane amount of disruption, but not sure that discussion is really possible, since in about six seconds it went from zero to This user is purposefully rewriting the article to remove neutral language and make it biased, reducing the overall quality of the article. In addition, he and his friend Neutrality have threatened to use their administrator rights to block me from Wikipedia in retaliation for voicing my opposition and concerns about their changes. Timothy Joseph Wood 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And now the inevitable speech on the impending doom of Wikipedia. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
I have to admit that I'm a bit perplexed why this RfE was filed.
 * Personally, I wouldn't have removed the sentence about Bush but editors are allowed to make WP:BOLD edits. Whether the edit improves the article is matter for talk page discussion, not RfE.  Further, the filer describes the edit as removing "large amounts of content", however, I count only one sentence being removed.  Can someone double-check my math?
 * This edit changed the word "ties" to "tie" and adds "contain coded messages referring to human trafficking...in Washington D.C". I don't see how this edit words this conspiracy theory as factual.
 * This edit does remove "discredited" but leaves in "described as a 'fictitious conspiracy theory". I'm not sure if there's a substantial difference between the two versions of this sentence, but the edit summary should have been more descriptive.
 * This edit changes the sentence that reads:

The theory has been described as a "fictitious conspiracy theory" by the District of Columbia Police Department and determined to be fake by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times,and Fox News.

to:

The theory has been described as a "fictitious conspiracy theory" by the District of Columbia Police Department and called "fake news" by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News.

I don't see any substantial difference between these two sentences. A more descriptive edit summary should have been used.


 * Another minor change of little significance.
 * Personalization of dispute. This is the first diff that actually shows the editor doing something wrong.
 * I wouldn't have made this edit. This is trivia within the context of Podesta emails.  That's the only thing I find objectionable about this edit.  I don't see how this treats the conspiracy theory as a matter of debate.  The edit plainly labels it as a conspiracy theory.  Since when is being called a "conspiracy theory" a good thing?

This seems to me to be a frivolous RfE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants
I'm not disowning what I said previously, but replacing it with a simple statement of fact: Since this editor started in at the article, almost all effort put into the article has been trying to convince them that reliable sources are reliable, and unreliable sources are not. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  03:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, , There is an ANI case ongoing at WP:ANI. I figured you guys should be aware. I don't know how this is usually handled, but I'm moving forward right now as if they are separate matters. To that end, let me say that I don't know if it's within the purview of AE to effect an indef block, but if it is, please consider it as you read this diff.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Exemplo347
The fact that this Arbitration Enforcement action is taking place does not seem to have given the subject of it any reason to reflect on their actions. I'd urge a swift resolution to this, if only for the sanity of editors who are having to deal with his editing - it's like having to follow a puppy around with a pooper scooper. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This editor is now trying to cause similar issues with other articles. I'm not sure how much longer "Assuming Good Faith" is going to hold up. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Acroterion
I've been keeping an eye on things Pizzagate for a couple of weeks. A few days ago I revdel'd a good bit of old defamation at related pages, some of which has since been oversighted, and I placed extended confirmed protection on the articles after semi-protection didn't do enough to stop disruptive editing. I've warned and blocked a few people for flat-out BLP violations. The pattern here is reminiscent of GamerGate, in which lots of new editors and previously inactive editors converged on the topic to insist that their POV, however discredited, was being suppressed in favor of material supported by mainstream sources, and that Wikipedia could not ignore what they termed "alternative media." The means by which both topics have been promoted are similar, and there is a good bit of overlap in the places where they are being promoted. The difference is that rather than shaming campaigns, doxxing, swatting and individual threats, Pizzagate involves enthusiastic defamation in the grossest terms and actual people with guns conducting "investigations." It is this enthusiasm for defamation, either overt or by omission that is being promoted here by Ag97 using similar arguments that somehow neutrality demands that we take lunatic fantasies seriously. Given the fact that the articles document real-time events we should not for a moment allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform for promotion of a pernicious assault on individuals who are unpopular with conspiracy enthusiasts. While some of hs edits are unproblematic or productive, Ag97 is using Wikipedia as a battleground for promotion of these attacks.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
I'm not surprised to see Ag97 here; I'm only surprised that it took so long. I gave Ag97 a DS alert when, after a two year lapse from editing, they burst onto the scene with this edit to Bill Clinton, writing "Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick in an interview published on the news network Breitbart." sourced to Breitbart News and freebeacon.com. This was followed by a series of poorly-sourced edits in which Ag97 attempted to add material to several articles    claiming that protests at Trump rallies were "done by paid instigators working for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign" sourced to the inimitable Washington Times.

Here, Ag97 expresses his disdain for Wikipedia editors:
 * "*Yes - Wow Wikipedia is one big joke. This is supposed to be neutral? You losers are still refusing to list Trump as the successor? You are in a state of denial. Your candidate lost, Trump is going to be president. Get over it! There is no logical reason whatsoever why Trump shouldn't be listed as the successor. Even Melania Trump is listed as the successor on Michelle Obama's article. For every single senate race, their successor is listed. On every. single. other. politician's. article on Wikipedia their successor is listed!! I don't know if you people are paid CTR shills or just radical leftists who hope that by throwing temper tantrums you can change the result of the election. Well guess what losers, it's not going to happen! And by tainting these high profile articles by showing your bias and not even attempting to be neutral, you make all of Wikipedia look bad. Shame on you."- MrX 00:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Eggishorn
Having literally never posted in connection with ArbCom sanctions, I hesitated to stick my nose in here. That said, I think posting to a contentious AfD discussion on a closely-related topic after this AE opened might be relevant to the discussion. Thank you Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ian.thomson
Lots of ground has already been covered by others and I think enough evidence has been presented. With a single exception (that does not outweigh everything else), all of Ag97's behavior at Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) has been tendentious: he has held incredibly low standards to imply that Pizzagate is real (pushing for citing a primary source on Wikileaks), while making every hypocritical and asinine argument to deny the reliability of mainstream sources that don't support the conspiracy theory.

He's been tried to argue that InfoWars is not a fake news site, because Alex Jones says it isn't, going as far as to misrepresent secondary sources based on his interpretation of primary sources, and completely ignoring the sources that have been cited across the whole site... because a noted conspiracy theorist says that his website isn't fake news (unlike, has said Jones, the New York Times). U.S. News & World Report is apparently unreliable, investigative journalism cited by other professional and mainstream news outlets is "simply made up the the editor", but "Not including Wikileaks is censorship". At a minimum, Ag97 does not need to be handling anything relating to Pizzagate. From what else I'm seeing here, he doesn't need to be handling anything relating to US politics, conspiracy theories, and possibly BLPs.

TL;DR: ''Ag97 doesn't get that InfoWars is fake news, but demands we cite an out-of-context email. Him editing pages relating to American politics, conspiracy theories, or BLPs is like having a homeopath edit medical articles.'' Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Ag97 appears to sincerely believe the fake news stories, and is acting on the assumption that failure to accept that POV amounts to deliberate malfeasance on the part of Wikipedia editors - an attempt to suppress The Truth&trade;. As others have said, that's a pretty serious problem and not one that's likely to be fixed by discussion, so a topic ban is needed please. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond my Ken
Admins may wish to take notice of this report at AN/I concerning Ag97, if they haven;t seen it already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
Just so that you all know, there is a really long discussion over at ANI regarding proposed site bans and topic bans on this editor, at WP:ANI. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Ag97

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


 * These Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) edits are quite damning: marked as minor, they blur the difference between fact and conspiracy. Edits on Pizzagate (dab) show they either have no clue about the BLP and its project-wide application, or no interest in such knowledge. Editor has no business editing in the area of US politics, as other edits and warnings have shown, and I strongly support a one-year ban from that area altogether. If others feel that the ban should extend to all conspiracy theories, I have no objection to that. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This feels like the start of Gamergate all over again, but with a much larger spotlight on this to start, it should be easier to devolute things. I do agree that some of the diffs of Ag97 are problematic after warnings, but I don't think all edits are incorrect. There is a difference between "fake news" (in the current context of websites running purely ficticious stories) and a "fake conspiracy theory" (as this theory appears fully legit by those that believe it, so it's not "fake". Debunked and/or proven false, yes, in that any validity to the theory has been investigated and found non-existent, so that the edits that attempt to change that wording are a problem, but I do see Ag97's point about the "fake conspiracy theory" being inaccurate wording.(*)) I'm not sure if the edit on Podestra's page is a problem: as long as we have the article on Pizzagate, his ties to it are unfortunately notable, but the language Ag97 added did establish the ties as "alledged" (though I would use "debunked" or "disproven" to follow the above comments based on sources). But overall, editing behavior and battleground mentality definitely needs to be addressed as that's still edit warring on articles clearly within the AE scope, and limited term topic ban seems appropriate here given past warnings/blocks. --M ASEM (t) 20:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to add noted at (*) above, I see that "fictitious conspiracy theory" is exact wording from the police per published stories; I think that's still awkward wording to use w/o the quotes and attribution (as again, it implies the theory itself is a completely fictional thing no one believes is true, but there's clearly those that think it still is despite the wealth of investigation from authorities to disprove it). --M ASEM (t) 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per behavior at the noted ANI, and the trend that a community topic ban is incoming, I'm thinking there's little to argue on this AE; the behavior at the ANI alone is far more troublesome than the noted behavior in this request. --M ASEM (t) 00:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that both here and ANI are leaning on a topic ban, I would suggest we close this and allow the community topic ban (which thus requires the community to review rather than busying ArbCom with that review) take precedence. The community topic ban appears to cover more than just the issues tied to the American Politics decision. --M ASEM (t) 22:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with that while each edit is perhaps defensible on its own, taken together they are pretty damning in trying to make this theory look more credible than it really is.  If this were an isolated incident of poor judgement from this user I'd be inclined to just tell them to be more careful in the future and not to do it again, but given the user's history and the comments described by MjolnirPants and MrX, I'm convinced that we don't want this editor on BLPs or in this topic area at all.  I'd support a year-long topic ban from both US politics and conspiracy theories.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Per Drmies and Lankiveil. I consider that this is pretty egregious battlegrounding over a conspiracy theory, and the demonstrated lack of understanding or interest in our BLP rules is very concerning. I'd support a one year TBAN on US politics and conspiracy theories, broadly construed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , the editor is currently at ANI where a similar topic ban was proposed; bizarrely, the editor proposed an indef-block of themselves, I think. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we have a good consensus for a TBAN and should just go ahead here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

YahwehSaves
''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 YahwehSaves

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS / WP:1RR / Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump


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


 * 1)  Changed descriptors of Donald Trump in lead sentence
 * 2)  Reverted by
 * 3)  Gave his suggestion on Talk page (unsigned), didn't get any response
 * 4)  Changed descriptors in lead sentence again, without prior consensus
 * 5)  Reverted by  with a very clear admonition to take it to the Talk page: Sorry, this is being discussed on the talk page; please make your case there before changing Trump's descriptors again
 * 6)  Reinserted non-consensus descriptors in lead sentence, violating DS despite prior warnings and reverts


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

User was blocked several times in the past for disruptive editing and socking.


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


 * , mentioning specifically the Donald Trump page


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Donald Trump, started on 1 December, about how to describe Donald Trump in the lead sentence. posted his suggested wording there on 4 December (unsigned) but didn't gain consensus. He then proceeded to change the lead sentence again despite having been warned about discretionary sanctions on his talk page and enjoined in edit summaries to gain consensus before applying his suggested descriptors.

User talk:YahwehSaves
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning YahwehSaves
''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 YahwehSaves
I believe JPG is not acting in good faith but is exaggerating himself in this matter: he has had some of his own edits in the introduction removed and deleted. I don't see anything wrong with my edits-editing in this situation, many editors have sought to "improve" the article lede as such and were reverted.

The talk page subject (only involves a few editors opinions: real concensus cannot be reached on this and is too time consuming in this matter - its common knowledge Trump is a "business Magnate, TV personality, and author" rather then just a "businessman" and "politician" (so called politician: does not hold and never has held, a government office). YahwehSaves (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dennis Brown: If you don't mind being cordial and not indifferent and referring to me as a they ("didn't they"): I'm not the problem or the person causing the problem, the problem is no one is allowed (many have tried in "good faith") to change the lede sentence(s); Trump is more than a businessman and "politician" when Barack Obama (is referred to in talk as part of the Titles For Trump section for a so called consensus) does not have - is a "politician" in his lede opening sentence. Also, opening lede sentence saying Trump is the President-elect when he is the apparent President-elect (presidential electors vote on 12/19/16 to finalize and Congress declares (certifies) publicly on 1/6/17 the President-elect). Are talk pages voting pages for "support or oppose" something-or someone as it is in this article? (in info boxes (Donald Trump's state of birth ("Born")) is excluded) certain MLB players including Hall of Famers (eg Hank Borowy, Hal Newhouser) are given MLB All-Star credit for 1945 when there was no official MLB All-star selection (or game played) in 1945 (because of WWII))... an editor will definitely get his/her corrections deleted and may get maltreated, blocked. YahwehSaves (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
Agree that these:   are disruptive and go against the model used for virtually all other person articles on this site. Sagecandor (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
Diffs #1, #4 and #6 are different minor modifications of intro made during a period of 8 days. These modifications are justifiable and minor. Other diffs are actually edits by other contributors or not a matter of concern. The user took part in discussions on article talk page. However, #4 + #6 are a 1RR violation, exactly as Dennis said below. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning YahwehSaves

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


 * The first five are non issues. He was bold, he was reverted, he took it to the talk page, no one argued against it so a week later he inserted, then he was reverted. That is pretty much cookie cutter WP:BRD.  The last edit is a problem, although it was 14 hours after the first instead of 24.  This doesn't mean  acted proper, they didn't and clearly admin have the authority to block or topic ban here.  What bothers me most is YahwekSaves's reaction to all this.  Let me be clear: You can't revert more than once in 24 hours.  You can't keep reverting every few days.  You can't use "too time consuming" as a defense, nor can you use the argument that you think those titles were obvious.  This is an Arb protected class of article, meaning the rope given editors is quite short.  If your attitude was more conciliatory, it would have been easy to recommend a strong warning but you have forced my hand and instead I feel that a 30 day topic ban is what is needed here.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dennis Brown, most of this isn't sanctionable. However, there are two clear 1RR violations. I see that Yahweh Saves has deleted one of their retorts, but I still see the need for a short-term sanction so the message gets across clearly. I'd support a fairly narrow one month topic ban on articles related to Donald Trump, broadly construed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above admins, and will place a one-month ban from the topic of Donald Trump in a moment. Yahweh, please note that no discourtesy is intended by referring to you as "they". Your username isn't gender specific, and it's common practice on Wikipedia to use the singular they to refer to an editor when their gender isn't known. This practice is more polite, in my opinion, than to call everybody "he", considering some of us are women. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Addendum after close


 * Violated seven hours later with 21:31, 11 December 2016. Sagecandor (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did YahwehSaves understand that "all things Donald Trump" means everything anywhere, not just article editing? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strike that, I see Bishonen has explained its scope clearly in that editor's talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging
''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 TheTimesAreAChanging

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2


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


 * 1) Nov. 21 Added a sentence to the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
 * 2) Nov. 23, 00:14 Re-added the sentence after it was deleted as controversial. They quickly reverted themselves, but then
 * 3) Nov. 23 00:16 added it back, describing the removal as "vandalism". This violated the prohibition against restoring controversial material.
 * 4) Nov 21 removed longstanding material from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as a "hoax"; not supposed to remove longstanding material without consensus.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Oct. 17


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

See their talk page for recent previous incidents/warnings:
 * User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging from Nov. 5-7
 * User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging (which refers to this edit of Nov. 22)

Reply to User:Soham321: You argue that it is better to warn a person than to threaten sanctions, and that a warning can allow the situation to be "easily resolved". I agree, and that is what I do, for a first offense. See the link just above in this section, where I did just that. The reason for this report is that the problematic behavior recurred after that warning. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Soham321, I hadn't noticed previously your "clarification" of items #1-3, which you seem to feel exonerates TheTimes. It was not necessary to cite here, although it may have been necessary at the time to clear things up for BullRangifer. Your explanation of what happened tallies exactly with mine. #1, he added something to the article: good faith, no violation. #2, he re-added it but immediately self-reverted, so again, no violation. #3, he then re-added it knowing it was controversial, and for good measure he described the previous removal of it as "vandalism", even though there had been a content-based edit summary with the deletion. Restoring content which had been challenged was a violation; arguably so was calling the removal "vandalism". Only after restoring the material (Nov 23, 00:16) did he start a talk-page discussion (Nov. 23, 00:55). (That discussion in itself is a piece of work, misquoting/distorting the edit summary that had been given for the deletion, and adding that the whole article would not exist "If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society." ) --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: I deliberately kept my report here focused on technical violations of the DS by TheTimes, and so far I have not explicitly commented on the very strong partisan bias in his editing. But that bias is affecting his whole outlook toward Wikipedia. I bring this up because I just noticed a comment by TheTimes on Hidden Tempo's talk page. In expounding on his theory that AE sanctions are enforced in a discriminatory and partisan manner (or to use his words, "the exercise of administrative power in the area of American Politics is likely to be extraordinarily arbitrary and capricious"), TheTimes asserted that "Mighty close to 100% of the admins that voted almost certainly voted for Clinton." Another user then pointed out that most of the involved admins are not American, but TheTimes did not retract his characterization of the admins and their motivation, or his conclusion that "the fix is in for both of us." It appears that TheTimes is still interpreting everything through a partisan filter, even when that approach has no basis in fact. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A minor correction, but since you have now brought this up twice: You say "did you notice that TTAAC had indeed started a section on the talkpage, as you suggested he should have done?" As I noted above, TheTimes actually started that talk page discussion only AFTER they restored the controversial content. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging
''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 TheTimesAreAChanging
I will respond to Melanie's statements in reverse. The child rape lawsuit against a living person was indeed a hoax and dropped prior to the election, hence why it was largely ignored by the media and not currently included (for lack of consensus) in the main Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. Clearly, the mention of that lawsuit in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (which is already far too long and COATRACKY) reflected no "longstanding" consensus, but was merely an oversight. With regard to the "contentious" material I twice added to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations: If it had lasted longer than one day before being removed, would it then have gained the presumption of "consensus"? At least with regard to the "Miss Teen USA" content, it is quite clear that SPECIFICO and BullRangifer are gaming the system: Every single source on the topic notes that of the fifteen girls to comment on the matter, eleven—the clear majority—"were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy" because, e.g., they were surrounded by chaperones at all times. By declaring it uncontroversial to quote the four girls that accused Trump, but "contentious" to mention the other eleven from the same source, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, and now Melanie are in effect arguing that Wikipedia policy actually requires us to intentionally misrepresent our own sources and mislead readers. That is an absurd and untenable position: If "consensus" dictates that the former recollections are within the scope of the article, by definition the same must be true of the latter. Moreover, if that is not the case—if there is no reasonable limit to obstructionism—then why can't I simply refuse to assent to the very existence of an article on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, per WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS/ect.—or blanket delete the "Miss Teen USA" subsection, given that no sources describe Trump's alleged actions as "sexual misconduct" and the whole paragraph thus contravenes WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK? (If I were to do so, would the WP:ONUS then switch to my opponents, or would I be immediately reverted?) In sum, if a source or claim is included in an article, then I don't see how it could possibly violate the spirit of any Wikipedia policy to accurately quote the source and disclose all of the viewpoints it deems credible; in fact, that is exactly what WP:NPOV demands.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior to her latest collection of accusations, SPECIFICO reported me directly to two admins and filed this ANI report urging that I be topic banned (which failed to gain any traction with the community because it was obviously retaliation for an ANI report I filed against one of her comrades, since indeffed): She should really stop forum shopping. SPECIFICO purports to monitor and police every aspect of my behavior, including the ideas I express on my userpage, but she still tends to leap to conclusions unsupported by the diffs in question. For example, the "battle cry" in which I supposedly "boasted" about "besting" my "opponents" actually read: "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents." In the same way, Doug Weller warned me not to refer to another editor as a "Nazi," but when I pointed out that the editor in question was an actual unironic Nazi with a userpage devoted to Holocaust denial, he conceded: "Ok, I see why but there were better options that would have led to attention paid to that editor's userpage." Ect. Ect. Ect. Of special interest is SPECIFICO's version of the Dinesh D'Souza conflict documented in the ANI report: "He tries to enlist @Oshwah to assist him in continuing his edit war ... supposedly because 'his' version was 'stable'." (Why is "his" in quotes?) The notion that I advocated restoration to "my" version is simply an absurd caricature of my request; in fact, I urged Oshwah to consider reverting back to a version predating any edits by yours truly! SPECIFICO should be very careful before she accuses anyone of "straw man arguments" or "misrepresentation of other editors."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that my penchant for colorful, even vituperative language has gone too far and gotten me into trouble on occasion. Sometimes I have treated Wikipedia talk pages more like an online forum; now and then, I have even apologized. I have always tried to draw a sharp distinction between talk page rhetoric (or edit summaries, or my userpage—which SPECIFICO has mined for oppo-research) and edits to actual articles—hence the "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously" message SPECIFICO cites as evidence of the opposite—but I can see how my combative persona can be more of a liability than an asset, particularly when editing articles related to American Politics (where, I have now learned, content disputes are usually resolved by gaming and drama boards rather than substantive discussion). As a character witness, I point to the following comment by Guccisamsclub—an editor with politics well to the Left of my own, and whose opinion of me has fluctuated over time and may well continue to fluctuate, but with whom I have been able to collaborate constructively despite our disagreements: "You might want to stop throwing around terms like 'far-left', 'activist' and 'communist' ... it makes you sound like a shrill regular from Free Republic, Little Green Footballs or worse. Now I've had enough contact with you to know that's not true, but you could easily give the wrong impression to someone else and thus derail the conversation. You had me fooled for some time." (In my defense, Pol Pot considered Elizabeth Becker sufficiently Left-wing to invite her on a guided tour of Democratic Kampuchea, so referring to her as a "far-Left author" on my talk page—while poor form—is not much worse than SPECIFICO's recent attempts to smear Stefan Molyneux as a Nazi, possibly in violation of her Mises Institute topic ban.) Edit summaries are necessarily snappy and may not include room for nuanced discussion. See here for my detailed thoughts on the "Founder of ISIS" soundbite: "To be fair to the peoples of the Middle East, there have been many real conspiracies by Western powers in that part of the world (see, e.g., 1953 Iranian coup d'état), and there is obviously some element of truth underlying even the more outlandish allegations (such as the claim that Baghdadi is secretly an Israeli actor named Simon Elliot). Israel, after all, has a well-known policy of providing medical aid to any Syrian rebels that request it, in return for quiet along the Syria-Israel border; there may also be some military assistance and intelligence-sharing—and there is no doubt jihadists have benefited from Israeli largess. Meanwhile, there is far more evidence that "moderate" rebels backed by the United States and its partners tolerated the rise of Islamic State than there is to support the theory that Assad is somehow to blame for the Syrian uprising turning Islamist. When we include ridiculous claims such as John Kerry's assertion that Assad "purposely ced[ed] some territory to them [ISIL] in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow the protector against them," it's worth considering that the Western press may be more sophisticated than the Arab press but both can be guilty of propaganda." Why did I allude to Trump's inflammatory quote? Because, despite all of the "fact checkers" that tow the government line with one voice, nothing I wrote above is controversial to experts on Syria: I urge those laughing at Trump's crude rhetoric (or all the "backward Arabs" that think ISIS is a CIA-Mossad conspiracy) to consider first whether the official U.S. government position they are defending has any more factual merit.

I never suggested SPECIFICO is "a paid Democratic party shill"—don't put words in my mouth. I have profound problems with the way SPECIFICO conducted herself during a recent edit war at Dinesh D'Souza, and my description of her as a "hack" cannot be divorced from conduct such as the following: Case in point: SPECIFICO's "good faith" ally User:Oneshotofwhiskey leaves comments such as "Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda" and "You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations"; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write "Oneshotofwhiskey's blatant vandalism continues. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Arbitration is now necessary, and probably a topic ban to end the disruption"—and SPECIFICO partially redacts it as a "personal attack." Can you say double standard? This should tell you two things: 1. I don't attack editors because I am "angry," but because when I am attacked I have found it expedient to hit back twice as hard. (Given that that's no longer true with SPECIFICO stalking my contributions, I promise to cut it out.) 2. SPECIFICO is not a neutral arbiter. More importantly, SPECIFICO already brought these same diffs to another forum in a failed effort to topic ban me from Dinesh D'Souza; this thread has devolved from analyzing a specific DS violation that caused minor disruption into a witchhunt and personal attack on me, based on every unpopular idea I so much as expressed on my userpage. (Of course, my userpage also makes clear that I would be considered Left-of-center on issues like gay marriage, abortion, ect., but that's neither here nor there.) No editor would hold up perfectly under such scrutiny by a dedicated stalker and forum shopper.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm absolutely floored by SPECIFICO's behavior, to the point where I have no idea how to respond. As documented above, SPECIFICO brought her list of diffs directly to two admins before trying her luck at ANI and now AE—yet she accuses me of "stalking" her? It's simply surreal! I made a mistake and called her a "hack" because she wouldn't leave me alone on my own talk page, mostly out of frustration because I don't know how to deal with such an unpleasant editor. I wish I could take it back, but compare that to her vicious personal attacks just here at AE: In full view of the community, SPECIFICO has accused me of "lack(ing) ... emotional maturity," "mansplaining," promoting "paranoid conspiracy theories" (over an SPI, of all things!) and "being obsessed with animus and revenge." (She has made far worse personal attacks elsewhere, such as accusing me of "grotesque OR" ... (for) the insinuation that it's OK to punch a woman in the face"—of course, I never suggested "that it's OK to punch a woman in the face," and am deeply offended that SPECIFICO would portray me in such terms!) Combined with the BLP violations and threats against other editors noted by Soham321, I submit that while I am guilty of violating DS one time with the revert mentioned by Melanie, SPECIFICO's conduct here should WP:BOOMERANG. I now realize just what an enormous mistake it was to allow her to bait me with a seemingly never-ending series of drama boards and personal attacks, and will do my best to avoid her.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO recently tried to walk back her "paranoid conspiracy theories" personal attack; rather than admitting error, she added a link to this conversation in which she claims I admitted to being "paranoid," as if that makes me an open target for abuse. Of course, this is very misleading: User:Oneshotofwhiskey was indeffed as a result of the socking I exposed, so it obviously wasn't a figment of my imagination. The conversation in question involved me pointing out a suspicious IP to an admin, then deciding based on the evidence that it wasn't another Oneshot sock: If SPECIFICO wishes to imply that I file SPIs lightly, this is actually very strong evidence of the reverse. Finally, my self-deprecating comment "All the socking has made me paranoid" was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, nor did I admit to promulgating "conspiracies theories." (Does one person abusing multiple accounts even constitute a "conspiracy"?) Context matters; SPECIFICO's personal attacks are uncalled for.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * And BTW, for the record: Did none of you notice that, in the the very next edit following my now-infamous "vandalism" quote, I was reverted by BullRangifer, who in turn implied I was guilty of vandalism?: "Whatever games are being played, just stop it." It's not exactly unheard of to refer to large deletions of content with vague edit summaries as "vandalism," though the term should be reserved for the clear-cut cases. But is that really more serious than SPECIFICO baselessly accusing Soham321 of violating DS, then refusing to explain how Soham had done so and moving on to "the butler's bias and apparent senility" when she failed to elicit the desired self-revert by means of threats alone?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If the innumerable personal attacks above aren't bad enough, SPECIFICO's assertion that I am "canvassing" merely because I responded to anonymous allegations against me here is way over the line. WP:CANVAS has a specific meaning; accusing someone of "canvassing" is accusing them of a serious violation of WP policy—it's not just an insult to throw around indiscriminately at editors you personally dislike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just been informed that unlike ANI, there is no rule saying you must notify someone of an SPI. In fact, "it is often counterproductive to give such notices." I thought it was courteous to give those accused a chance to defend themselves, but if an admin feels it is "counterproductive," who am I to argue?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We've clearly gone beyond the realm of legitimate criticism into blatant misrepresentation. There are technical reasons why CU could not be performed. In the SPI, however, DoRD confirmed that the IPs "are also likely this user (i.e., Oneshot)." So I was right! Maybe you've never filed an SPI before, but this was no "battleground taunt" (in fact, I have no reason to suspect Oneshot ever saw it): If you file an SPI against a user, you must notify them on their talk page. I've provided similar notifications to everyone I've ever accused of socking, and no-one has ever suggested it was somehow inappropriate until now. Moreover, I would not have bothered commenting on the talk page of an indeffed user who would likely never see the message if it were not for the fact that I was required to do so. Between this and your continued insistence that "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents" should be read as a POV battle cry, it is apparent that you are not honestly representing my edits. Maybe you should take a step back and ask why that is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Later in the same userpage, I refer to "Guccisamsclub—a Leftie that not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges." Allow me to break that down, so I'm not misrepresented again: While I do call Gucci a "Leftie," there is no implication that I'm "obsessed with animus and revenge" against him; to the contrary, I acknowledge areas where he has corrected me, noting that he "not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges." Sorry—that's just how I talk! (Although not how I write articles.) Now, I can fully understand how an editor digging through my userpage for dirt with which to indiscriminately attack me might latch onto that and say it is "uncivil" to call another editor a "Leftie." To that I ask: Have we lost our collective mind?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Before I persuaded SPECIFICO to create an account, she edited as an IP. One of her first edits was to ask me "TIMES: What is your relationship to Schiff?" because I disagreed with an edit she made to Peter Schiff. That was a bad first impression; I am terribly disappointed that after four years editing under a named account, she is still resorting to these kinds of personal attacks—only on a much larger scale, as documented above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up, even if you didn't quite do my argument justice. I do suspect that the vast majority of admins supported Clinton rather than Trump, although I have no way of proving this. Crucially, if American Politics is being policed primarily by non-Americans that is unlikely to reduce the problem of bias; to the contrary, I would speculate that a more "international" (or—let's be honest here—Eurocentric) perspective on Trump would be more Left-leaning and negative, perhaps seeing Trump as the ultimate distillation of every "Ugly American" stereotype. (As an example, you're an American, and yet—despite our differences!—I consider you to be easily the fairest and most level-headed admin I've encountered in the area. Maybe it's in part because you are upfront about any biases you might have.) Idle speculation aside, the data compiled by James J. Lambden doesn't lie: Not only are editors perceived as "pro-Trump" more likely to be reported to AE than editors perceived as "pro-Clinton" (by a factor of 3:1), but there is also a very different rate of conviction. By my count, 100% of "pro-Clinton" editors avoided any form of sanction, whereas 94% (17 of 18, not counting Anythingyouwant twice) of pro-Trump editors were sanctioned (only Marteau narrowly avoided punishment). If you believe this is because admins are infallible and "pro-Trump" editors are just vastly more disruptive, then I would have to ask why there is such a disparity between the admin comments and the comments of regular users both in the request against me (5:1 regular users against sanctions; 3:0 admins leaning towards sanctions) and Hidden Tempo's appeal (regular users split 5:4 against topic ban; admins supporting it 3:1)—and why no admin overruled Boing! said Zebedee's ridiculous decision to block Hidden Tempo for accurately describing Hilary Clinton's "trustworthiness" numbers as "feeble" (Cf. Merriam-Webster: "Business is suffering because of the feeble economy"). As for "the fix is in": To me, that 94% is a sobering harbinger of things to come.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I did respond to Bishonen; you can see my full response above. In brief: Two of the three diffs concerned uncivil edit summaries I made in reference to SPECIFICO. I previously documented a much longer list of personal attacks SPECIFICO levied against me, but obviously two wrongs don't make a right, so I can't defend those remarks. The fact that SPECIFICO and I strongly dislike one another might be reason for an IBAN—although I am not advocating for that solution since I believe it would only cause more drama—but the edits in question were on my own talk page and only tangentially related to American Politics. With regard to my misappropriate of the President-elect's "Founder of ISIS" soundbite, that was just supposed to be a snappy edit summary. Of course I don't literally think Obama founded ISIS, but—as I explained—U.S. policy towards Syria may have inadvertently helped created the power vacuum that allowed the terror group to expand in size and influence. The source I cited, Seymour Hersh, may be controversial but he's notable and certainly not WP:FRINGE; indeed, he's previously been considered a hero to the American Left for his role exposing, e.g., the My Lai Massacre.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying I should be topic banned for one revert without consensus? No-one here was suggesting anything like a topic ban until SPECIFICO—who has been following me around with a dogged persistence—attempted to caricature me as a POV warrior with a long series of diffs that largely failed to support her highly creative interpretation (as TParis noted). In particular, an edit summary in which I sarcastically referenced Trump's "Founder of ISIS" meme with full quotation marks is considered so shocking and inflammatory that TParis recommends a formal apology in addition to my repeated statements clarifying my intent—as well as a request that the edit summary itself be stricken from the record—in the hope that this might spare me. If this is just about the one revert—where I have admitted making a mistake and would have self-reverted had it not been quickly undone—then I would like to know why a full topic ban is a proportionate response to the disruption that one revert caused.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlexEng
I am entirely uninvolved in this matter, but I am the author of the Friendly Reminder banner on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page. I just want to be clear that this was in fact a friendly reminder and not an indictment of the user's behavior. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:50%;">( TALK ) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I don't see why this is at AE. There's little or no disruption and plainly looks like a content dispute.

FWIW, I think TTAAC is making a good case here and on the talkpage for their edits. However, "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: good-faith but wrong-headed edits aren't vandalism - so the term should be avoided. "Hoax" is also imprecisely used; there are questions about the case, but it has not been definitely ruled a hoax AFAIK. We all have opinions about political matters, but it's usually best to make arguments and keep the normative opinions out of discussions. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am rather surprised by the reaction in the admin section. The focus should be on disruption; apparently, one revert is now considered sufficiently disruptive to take action now? If such standards were applied uniformly, I wonder how many of the people working in politics areas will remain? I only give the example of another case on this very page, concerning My very best wishes (here). Please tell me what would have been the result if one re-insertion before clear consensus means that admins should take action. I know this: I certainly won't be able to work in the I/P area using these standards. There has been no refusal to discuss the matter on the talkpage by the parties, so why are the admins getting involved? Are we now children that we can't work out such minor things among ourselves and need to go running to mommy? For the record, I have yet to find a single edit which I have agreed on with TTAAC in my time here, or with MvBW. So this is not about content; it is about using common sense and fair standards. A tight leash is sometimes appropriate, but Wikipedia has a thousand policies and a million ways of running afoul of them. The election is over; most of the disputes have already, or will cool down significantly. I reiterate my solution above. TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms. No other action should be taken. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 's latest comment is about TTAAC's general conduct, not the points raised in the OP (which is fine, if one is looking to establish a broad pattern). I will try to disentangle the valid from the invalid points. I suggest that the focus be firmly on disruption. Bishonen gives three diffs and says that they demonstrate an unwillingness to collaborate, a battleground mentality and attacks upon other users. Of these, only the third diff is to an article. As far as I can see, the third diff displays no attacks on any editor. It cites an article by Seymour Hersh in London Review of Books for the content. (I don't like the thesis advanced by Hersh, but it is definitely a notable viewpoint.) The edit summary is not helpful, to put it mildly, but the edit itself is defensible. The other two diffs are from TTAAC's own talkpage. It is clear that TTAAC does not like SPECIFICO. Now I will evaluate the diffs and people can decide whether my evaluation makes sense. Spend some time in any political topic on Wikipedia and you will encounter editors who you think are fools or worse. I certainly do not like many editors here and probably the sentiment is reciprocated. But one does not need to broadcast one's thoughts to the world; nobody cares whether you like editor X or not. In the same vein, keep your brilliant insight about Obama and ISIS to yourself. Again, nobody cares; just make the edit and give a reasonable edit summary. So, as I said before, TTAAC should avoid this behaviour. However, and this is the main point, I do not see any evidence of disruption, either on article pages, or on talk pages. To the contrary, I see reasonable arguments made in defence of reasonable edits, mixed together with some heat which should not be present but commonly is present all over political topics in Wikipedia. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You wrote: The appropriate thing to do at that point was to take it to talk, not revert and call it vandalism as cover. Did you see this section on the talkpage started by TTAAC? If you did not, does it change your evaluation? And if you did, do you think a single revert is disruptive enough to entail sanctions? I have already said that the edit should not have been called "vandalism", but I fail to see how this kind of standard can be enforced in any political area. Why was this matter not thrashed out on the talkpage before bringing it to AE? I am opposed to this kind of intrusive enforcement which is untenable both in practice and in theory. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have misunderstood, but there is no WP:1RR violation alleged in the complaint, because it didn't happen. TTAAC reverted themselves once (I'm guessing, to redo the edit with an edit summary -- which is ironic since the edit summary seems to have gotten him into trouble). Also, as I asked in my last comment, did you notice that TTAAC had indeed started a section on the talkpage, as you suggested he should have done? If you did not notice this fact earlier, does it change your view of the incident? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the sequence of events; I thought it was clear from my statement, but if it was not, I accept your clarification. TTAAC opened a section on the talkpage less than half an hour after the edit on the article. There were no intervening edits to either the talkpage or the article page by anyone else. As I said, the revert was not ideal (nor was the edit summary) - but I do not see this as disruptive, but rather in the spirit of WP:BRD. My own routine practice is to make an edit and simultaneously post on the talkpage. See the edit I recently made on the page as an example of what I typically do. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions by My very best wishes
This subject area is going to be very difficult, and for a good reason. I have two practical suggestions.
 * 1) Please cancel editing restriction about "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". That restriction has been heavily misused by some contributors to unilaterally remove well-sourced materials they do not like, which goes against consensus. If someone edit war against consensus or without talking, this is sanctionable per se. One does not need additional editing restrictions.
 * 2) Please enforce guidelines on article talk pages. If anyone is talking not about improvement of the corresponding article on these pages, this is already a violation, and especially if one is talking about another contributor (request just above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I interacted with TTAAC on a few occasions including disagreements. I think he does good content work on pages related to US history and politics. As about his overall editing behavior, I think he is just as "difficult" as all other typical long-term contributors to political subjects. Based on that, I would suggest no action, and certainly no topic ban in the wide area of US politics. Maybe a 3-month topic ban from anything related to US elections 2016 at most. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Soham321
Agree completely with Kingsindian. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Specifically, with respect to Melanie's four points, i see nothing wrong in the first edit of. With respect to the second and third points of Melanie, i have offered a clarification here: diff. TheTimesAreAChanging has agreed that my assessment about his edits was correct. With respect to the fourth point of Melanie, note that there is an ongoing RfC about the Jane Doe allegations taking place at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations and any material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations is not being permitted to be inserted into the main article. I see nothing wrong in removing material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations from a different WP page pertaining to Trump until this RfC has been resolved. Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

it is inevitable that some 'heat' will be generated when editing contentious WP pages. The way to deal with this, almost always, is to tolerate it rather than to seek sanctions on editors one has content disputes with. At the top of the page it says that if you post a comment here then your own behavior can also be scrutinized. So let me scrutinize 's behavior for edits pertaining to the same Trump page from which Melanie has given three out of her four diffs. SPECIFICO warns me on my talk page (TP) and again on the TP of the main article that i am liable to face Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions (DS). What had i done? I had only added a sentence to the butler's testimony from a reference already present in the main article, and given another reference which was corroborating what the reference already present said. Diffs of her 'threats': diff1 and diff2. When i tell her on the TP that i do not believe i am in violation of Arbcom sanctions she responds by claiming the butler is 'biased' and liable to be senile: diff3. Since the butler is still alive i believe this is a violation of WP:BLP and i point it out to her. And giving frivolous threats to another editor about facing Arbcom sanctions is disruptive behavior, plain and simple. I am mentioning all this not because i seek sanctions against SPECIFICO but because i believe the threshold for giving sanctions has to be considerably higher than some of us seem to imagine. Soham321 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion taking place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo (be sure to check the edit history of the page to see a recent edit of Melanie that has been reverted by ). The relevance of this discussion is that this is again stemming from a content dispute related to the 2016 US Elections which can easily be resolved by giving a warning to the editor to tone down their language; instead we are seeing the editor being threatened with sanctions. Soham321 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen the two links you gave to the previous warnings. The one where he called the editor who had introduced an edit in the lead of the Ronald Reagan page, from a self-published blog, an 'idiot' is mitigated by two things. First, removing that edit from the lead of the Reagan page contributed to improving the quality of the article. Second, when he called the person 'idiot' he did not name anyone and it seemed he did not even know who the person who introduced this edit was (probably the edit had not been introduced recently) and this makes his comment less inflammatory than it would otherwise have been. Still he appropriately received a warning about using the word 'idiot'. The person who gave this warning has clarified in this discussion that this was only a friendly warning, not an indictment of the user's behavior. He did not protest against being given the warning, and we have to give him the benefit of doubt and accept that he agreed he had made a mistake by using the word 'idiot'.

With respect to the first link you gave, he explained he introduced the disputed edit back into the main article on the basis of a 4-2 consensus, since he had seen disputed edits placed back in main articles on even weaker consensus. Of course, he is wrong and Bull rightly pointed out to him on his talk page why he is wrong. But i don't see him protesting when Bull tells him he is wrong meaning, again giving him the benefit of doubt, that he agrees with Bull.

Nothing here deserves sanctions. Not his previous edits, because of which he was warned, and not his more recent edits because of which sanctions have been sought against him. This much said, i think we can ask him to tone down his language, specifically in edit summaries. I agree with Kingsindian's suggestion: "TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms." The problematic words used by, in my opinion, were 'idiot', 'hoax', and 'vandalism'. TTAAC, do you agree with the assessment of Kingsindian and myself? Do you agree to do what we are suggesting? Soham321 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN's comment and request  to strike out the comment Melanie has referred to immediately. I will note that I was the "another user" Melanie refers to and by not arguing with me on what I was saying he, to give him the benefit of doubt, expressed agreement with what I said. Nevertheless I urge TTAAC to strike out the problematic comment immediately as an act of good faith to everyone here.Soham321 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am disappointed with 's decision to retract his comments in this discussion. I thought they were very appropriate. Soham321 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

's objection seems to be to a single edit of in which the edit summary "rv vandalism..." was used. This edit, which was a revert, resulted in the insertion of some text in the main article. That text is still currently present in the main article which vindicates TTAAC's editorial judgement although I agree that the word 'vandalism' should not have been used in the edit summary by TTAAC. The other point is that TTAAC violated the 1RR restriction through this edit but given that TTAAC's editorial judgement pertaining to this edit has been vindicated, and TTAAC has expressed regret for violating the 1RR restriction on several occasions, does it really deserve a lengthy T-ban from all articles pertaining to US politics? I have one other concern. Given that this is an AE appeal pertaining to US politics, with several underlying content disputes, as is evident by reading the now retracted comment of, I was disturbed to read Peacemaker67's comment in the 'Result' section of this discussion that "American politics in general is something that is just unfathomable to me." Soham321 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(KI) has now deleted the material had re-inserted into the main article in which TTAAC had used the edit summary "rv vandalism...".KI explains on the article talk page for why he is removing this material. Nevertheless, my point about TTAAC having essentially sound editorial judgement still stands because this material was only removed a short while back (on December 7) while TTAAC's re-insertion took place on November 23 and there have been six other editors who made intervening edits to that article (after TTAAC's re-insertion, and KI's removal of the material). The material was removed in the intervening period by on the basis of what seems to have been a misunderstanding, and re-inserted by. I am leaving a message on the talk page of one of these two editors about this AE discussion since I am not able to ping him properly to this discussion (because they don't have a user page); I have pinged the other editor. Soham321 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

's new argument is that TTAAC called a journalist "insane" and this makes it a BLP violation which contributes to justifying a topic ban. The edit in which the "insane" word was used pertained to this comment: "According to Ben Tarnoff, writing in The Guardian, a key element of Trumpism is that it holds "the notion that people of color and women are less than fully human", and does so explicitly, unlike other elements in the Republican Party." (TTAAC removed the views of Tarnoff from the Trumpism article; the 'insane' word was used in the edit summary when he removed Tarnoff's comments.)

Of course the word "insane" should not have been used. And in fact the edit summary in which this word was used has been revdeled. But can the usage of this word in that specific context justify a topic ban or even justify any kind of sanctions. Let's consider the relevant jurisprudence: diff1 and diff2 Soham321 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (SPECIFICO)
-- Most Arbcom violations arise from "content disputes". The issue here is whether this user violated ARBAP2 Sanctions that have been put in place to ensure orderly and respectful discussions and resolutions of those content disputes. TheTimesTheyAreAChanging had been editing disruptively on politics-related articles for some time now. He narrowly avoided a block at a recent AN3. Instead of discussion, he launches into straw man arguments, equivocation, misrepresentation of other editors, and personal attacks. Until recently, His user page read like a battle cry, starting with boast that he bests his "opponents" which he removed after I referred to it at his AN3 thread. His entire user page is a bizarre political rant of the sort I've not seen on any other user's page. This user seems to work constructively on articles relating to video games and other innocuous topics, but he lacks the emotional maturity to work on these difficult politics-related articles. I recommend a topic ban from American Politics. Let's see whether this user can refrain from yet another round of personal attacks on me here. SPECIFICO talk  20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Starting to collect some diffs on this editor: Here is a long talk page thread in which he launches into repeated personal attacks on editor ' Some of the many battleground edit comments -- and these are just from the past few weeks! etc. etc. SPECIFICO  talk  21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Here he removed a DS notice from his talk page with the edit comment "not interested, pal" He subsequently denied that he edits articles related to American Politics! He's been warned repeatedly by various users,and recently by Admins: here. Then, here, he tries to enlist to assist him in continuing his edit war after Oshwah protected a page on which TheTimesAreAChanging was edit warring, supposedly because "his" version was "stable." warned him here and the attacks and disruption have only gotten worse. SPECIFICO talk  22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi  Sorry, I forgot the link. It's here and  observes that TheTimesAreAChanging has violated 3RR here that he's received the DS notice, and that he will be blocked for further edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk  00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope that y'all are reading all the comments and links before commenting. 4 Admins warned this user. Other editors politely asked him to stop edit warring on numerous American Politics articles (the ones he claims, in one of the links that he does not edit). Ad hominems, mansplaining, personal attacks and disparagement should not be OK in any article. Under DS users should know that such behavior will surely lead to a block. Actions have consequences. SPECIFICO talk  17:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I just happened to notice this gratuitous smear of me as a co-conspirator of one of TTAAC's "opponents." I had posted on this user's talk page before he was banned, so TTAAC's message came up on my watchlist. I also had TTAAC's talk page on my watchlist for the same reason, and I saw him straightforwardly tell an editor that he's had a feud with me from 2012 -- a mind-boggling statement, considering that when I checked I found two articles on which we'd both edited that year. On one, Paul Ryan he was page-banned for disruption. On the other he was edit warring unsourced content into an article with typical disparaging and accusatory edit comments and talk page notes. Of the thousands of editors with whom I've shared various pages over the years, I cannot imagine being obsessed with animus and revenge like that. I would like to request, in addition to a TBAN from American Politics, that the Admins also impose a one-way interaction ban so that TTAAC will stop stalking and harassing me. SPECIFICO talk  01:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Here, TTAAC is tendentiously canvassing Admin about another piece of TTAAC's paranoid conspiracy theories about one of his "opponents." Then, another battleground taunt on the target's talk page is removed (see edit comment) by Admin  here after a TTAAC's second Checkuser request against his "opponent" was declined at the SPI he launched. Then, here, he goes to DoRD's talk page to misrepresent the taunt as a "notification." Another example of hostile misrepresentation is found here: Here, he casually refers to "SPECIFICO's forum-shopping" -- which apparently refers to my having commented on this AE and on his AN3 thread, neither of which I initiated, and which related to two distinct infractions. SPECIFICO talk  01:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be ample evidence for enforcement here, so this thread may be ripe for closure. Sadly, however, there's a fresh post on another AE thread at this page here that shows TTAAC first denying the evidence here, saying that his own linked contributions have been "used to caricature me as some sort of POV warrior, which couldn't be further from the truth". This is followed by yet more of his political soapboxing, in this case about "Wikipedia's predominant liberal thesis" and lack of "pro-Trump Admins". This was accoompanied by some window dressing to his user page so that the current version contains somewhat less of the battleground and soapbox stuff railing against Wikipedia's mainstream representation of history. See here. I hope this editor grows out of his behavioral issues, but at this time, it's clear that a substantial TBAN from American Politics is called for, to prevent ongoing drag that poisons the efforts of the vast majority of editors who are trying to stick to NPOV, engage in rational discussion of editing and policy application, and are dedicated to observing the restrictions of ARBAP2 for the good of the Encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk  17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

New violation -- A jaw-dropper, given TTAAC's having appeared to control himself for the duration of this AE thread: See the edit comment on a Trump related article here -- a violation not only of ARBAP2 but also a violation of ARBBLP. TTAAC states matter-of-factly that a respected living author and political commentator is "insane". That kind of BLP smear is beyond the pale. A short-term block or TBAN is not going to change TTAC's behavior. The remedy must address the scope of the problem. SPECIFICO talk  14:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem with TTAAC's behavior on WP. WP:Competence is required. Mature collaborative editors do not have "opponents" -- we have discussions and occasionally we have disagreements, and we follow behavioral norms and proven process to resolve them. Where would TTAAC get his view that SPECIFICO "doesn't like" him. I never said anything of the sort, so where does he get the impulse to feel everything personally and to project that attitude onto others? I have no opinion at all about him or 99% of the other editors here, because we're all strangers trying to work together on this Project. I have never personally attacked Mr. TTAAC, but he's apparently unabile to understand that, to understand the meaning of "vandalism" here, or even to keep his opinions under his hat when they're off-topic and inflammatory. These are among the behaviors that make it impossible for TTAAC to edit without dragging the project down. After his BLP-smear edit comment on the Trumpism article, I posted the standard BLP DS template on his talk page. He immediately deleted it with this edit comment. The reason I have devoted time to this thread is not that I "don't like" this person TTAAC whom I've never met and know little about. I'm here because disruptive editing is a huge drain on the resources of this Project and on all of our time and effort. It's the one thing that's worth the little extra time and distraction needed to quash it. There's a reason for ARBCOM sanctions. A brightline violation such as the one MelanieN documented, coming after so many prior warnings, has clear consequences. It's not something to be argued away with theories and charts of "left" and "right" editors and Admins. That is the kind of relativism that undermines a policy-based collaborative system such as WP. If we ignore violations, the result will be that the thousands of other editors who are trying to work constructively and respectfully will continue to suffer the deadweight loss of this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk  01:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by shrike
I never edited this topic area (as far as I can remember) and I don't see here anything beyond content dispute.--Shrike (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount
Hi. Uninvolved editor here. A suggestion: kick the entire topic area to ArbCom. The constant ructions been a constant thorn in the side of AE for months. It is too much of a battleground now for something not to be done. None of the current editors have clean hands, and a mass cross-partisan topic-banning of most of the current editors may well be in order. Only ArbCom has the will to do that.

Some observations from clicking through the random diffs supplied in this case:
 * Poor behavior like that TTAAC is accused seems to be universal editing practice among editors in the topic area.
 * This "must-get-consensus-first" discretionary sanction is being exploited in bad faith by anti-Trump editors to retain potentially BLP-violating material aginst Donald Trump.
 * The article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is ripe for BLP violations of the WMF-gets-sued variety. I see that certain anti-Trump editors have attempted to remove material that casts doubt on several of the allegations, leaving potentially false allegations undiluted.
 * It is not enough that this material is "sourced": it must be accurate. Donald Trump has expressed a willingness to sue those who have made unfounded allegations against him, and this is of no help whatsoever to WMF's legal team if WMF is named as a defendant alongside the New York Times, Huffington Post, etc. A look through the talk page makes it clear that much of this is not a "good faith" reporting of mainstream news sources; several of the editors clearly have it in for Donald Trump. Kick this to ArbCom. Kick this to ArbCom. Kick this to ArbCom!

Administrators: It is quite clear that many of you favored Hillary Clinton for president over Donald Trump. And it is clear to me that several of you are partial against those editors whose editing has favored Trump over those whose editing has been against Trump. I am quite certain that if TTAAC had been an anti-Trump editor you'd be looking for excuses to WP:BOOMERANG the reporting editor. I am not going to point fingers, but I am of a similar mind to that expressed by User:TParis elsewhere on this page. I have no confidence in your collective impartiality. Retain some dignity for AE, and kick this to ArbCom! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging

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


 * This does look like inappropriate behaviour to me. TheTimesAreAChanging added some content which was removed by another editor who didn't think it was appropriate. At that point the issue should have been taken to the talk page, both per usual practice and more importantly the active sanction requiring that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Instead TheTimesAreAChanging chose to put it back calling the removal "vandalism" (which it clearly isn't). This is a pretty clear breach of the active sanction.  Hut 8.5  12:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * you really aren't doing yourself any favours with your responses here. If you do have a "combative persona", perceive other editors as "attacking" you and try to "hit back twice as hard" then you really shouldn't be editing in this topic area. Wikipedia is not a battleground and you should be working together with other editors rather than spending your time here fighting with them. This is particularly important in articles involving very divisive issues some editors care deeply about, such as this one. I can see how this style of conduct would explain your behaviour in regards to the edits which prompted this request - when one of your edits was reverted you perceived that as an attack and retaliated by reverting again, disparaging the earlier revert as "vandalism" and leaving this rather aggressive talk page comment. If that is the kind of thing you do habitually when editing articles about recent American politics then I suggest you try editing somewhere else.  Hut 8.5  20:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This looks like a straightforward violation of the discretionary page restrictions on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. A few weeks ago, Melanie specifically pointed out on the user's page that they needed to be careful about editing U.S. politics articles under page restrictions. This was in regard to TheTimes' reinstating challenged edits on another article (Political positions of Donald Trump), but you'd think they'd be able to keep the general, and specifically Trump-related, warning in mind. Also I think it's pretty egregious for an experienced editor to play the tired "vandalism" card here in order to justify their revert. New users can be excused for claiming anything they disagree with is vandalism, as they often do, but it won't fly in this case. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Adding note: SPECIFICO, do you have a link to the ANI discussion you mention, where you say TheTimesAreAChanging narrowly avoided a block? (Minor point: you refer to him as "TheTimesTheyAreAChanging", but that isn't his name. It could be argued that it ought to be — that your version does more justice to Bob Dylan, and to rhythm — but that's the user's business.) Bishonen &#124; talk 00:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC).
 * More: Thank you, SPECIFICO. (That's an AN3 thread, not ANI; you may want to change that in your post). I was aware before in a general way of TheTimesAreAChanging being embattled on Am Pol pages, and I had even looked at his userpage — it reminded me of User:EEng's, mutatis mutandis and without the wit. But I hesitated to act, even to warn, simply because there's so much unpleasantness on those article talkpages overall that it takes much study to be sure one person sinks below the general level. Anyway, I'm interested in your diffs, and note from them especially TheTimesAreAChanging's tendency to put personal attacks and BLP violations in edit summaries. Examples:
 * 13 Oct 2016: "RV patronizing warning from hack editor. I have every right--indeed, obligation--to rollback a sockpuppet attack on a BLP; SPECIFICO has yet to engage the issues on talk, instead lecturing me about "edit wars." Come off it!" Not sure what a "hack editor" is. In the context, perhaps a paid Democratic party shill?
 * 27 Oct 2016: "Under no obligation to make these archives easily accessible for oppo-research by SPECIFICO or others." That's like taking every opportunity for a battleground stance, even for something as anodyne as removing his own archive links from his own page.
 * 19 Nov 2016: "Classic NYT propaganda. Flynn was forced out for warning Obama—the "Founder of ISIS"—to stop!)" Calling Obama the "Founder of ISIS". It has quotes round it, and yes, we all know it's a quote and from where, but why is it there at all?


 * If TheTimesAreAChanging has some explanation of these edit summaries that will make them sound remotely decent, collaborative, etc, I'll be interested to hear it. If he doesn't, I'm not sure he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry. I see him editing computer games and related pages in a pleasant and constructive manner (AFAICS); stick to that, perhaps? Bishonen &#124; talk 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Having had a good look through this report and the diffs, I agree with Bishonen. Given an apparent ability to edit in other areas without exhibiting this type of behaviour, a topic ban on American politics seems the most effective remedy at this point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Defending oneself to a character assassination is not a indicative of a "combative persona".--v/r - TP 00:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the LENGTHY section written here, whew, and I really can only conclude that my predecessors here could not have read TheTimeAreAChanging's section to come to the conclusion that they have. Perhaps I am biased.  I believe in the last years, I've made it known that I hold the perception that Wikipedians lean left and that is exemplified in the execution of AE complaints.  However, I find SPECIFICO's latest example, here, concerns the removal of an opinion blog calling Trump racist and sexist.  I know a lot of people here, and in the world, consider that to be unambiguous truth and I may be inclined to believe it.  But I question whether that kind of opinion piece would be acceptable on HRC's article.  But, that's getting too deeply into the politics of it all. I've seen mudslinging coming from all sides on this issue.  Specifico characterized this as a "gross smear".  Specifico claims that in this diff, TTAAC claims to "best" his opponents.  What the diff actually says is that he believes he does a better job adhering to a NPOV.  Specifico's portrayal of that is misguided...at best.  Specifico claims that TTAAC is making a paranoid conspiracy theory in this edit which is actually TTAAC saying that the proven socking has left them paranoid about more socking. The other respondents in this AE report all say this is a content dispute.  How the other admins in this thread come to "action needed" is beyond me.--v/r - TP 00:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bishon's comments are more convincing than Specifico's. I'd like to see TTAAC's response to that.--v/r - TP 00:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with the atmosphere of this project is that its nearly impossible to express a dissenting opinion on these topics without appearing to be allowing personal politics to influence an opinion. Meanwhile, those that hold a certain persuasion can speak their mind unafraid of being called partisan.  Call it an unintentional chilling effect caused by either the real or my perceived leaning of my fellow sysops.  I'd rather not comment than leave someone with the impression that I am trying to influence the discussion to go my way.  I admit this is self-censorship and no one's fault, but I've reread my comments and I just don't feel comfortable with, nor have faith in, how others may read them.--v/r - TP 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This complaint is not about TTAAC's political views or original research about alleged political bias among admins. As an Australian, I couldn't care less about TTAAC's political views as American politics in general is something that is just unfathomable to me. I am about as uninvolved as one could be with this situation. What is relevant to this discussion is whether TTAAC breached the consensus requirement that they were clearly aware of with this edit using the edit summary "rv vandalism...". It clearly wasn't vandalism, and the use of the term was obviously intended to try to get around complying with the consensus requirement, because reversion of vandalism is allowed under the sanctions regime. The appropriate thing to do at that point was to take it to talk, not revert and call it vandalism as cover. I am more familiar with ARBMAC than this area, but it seems possible that enforcement hasn't been very consistent in the American politics space. We have sanctions for a reason, so that people comply and disputes are managed appropriately. If we don't enforce them, why have them? TTAAC didn't comply with the consensus requirement, and to ensure they do in future, I stand by my view that action is required. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already sticken my comment, what made you feel compelled to retort?--v/r - TP 03:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a retort, and has little to do with your stricken remarks, so perhaps I shouldn't have threaded it off yours. Sorry about that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my hostility, then. It appears to have been a misunderstanding.--v/r - TP 05:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about poor editing behaviour, not American politics. An understanding of the latter isn't necessary to accurately identify the former. I'll add that the BLP violation by TTAAC about a certain journalist being "insane" (noted by SPECIFICO) adds fuel to this, demonstrating failure to abide by community rules (even while TTAAC's editing is being subjected to greater than usual scrutiny). In conjunction with the 1RR violation and using the "rv vandalism" edit summary, it gives the impression that TTAAC doesn't think the rules apply to them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are making too much of this, which may explain why it has dragged on so long with no action, with no admin willing to pull the trigger. I empathize with 's frustration above. As a community, it appears (to some) that we are more aggressive in policing one side of politics more than the other, which is not surprising given the nature of the project.  Unquestionably, TTAAC screwed up but the type of mistakes beg the question whether or not this requires we use the heavy tools granted to us by Arb here at AE.  From my perspective, the problems seem rather run of the mill and not really what AE was set up for.  Calling someone insane is indeed a BLP violation, for example, but we seldom act on it other than to warn.  Reverting good faith edits with the summary "vandalism" is certainly wrong, but it happens at least at least once per minute somewhere at Wikipedia.  All of this is a big stale.  All of this happened in a topic area that still has people carrying signs in the street.  I don't want to excuse bad behavior but I don't see where taking action here is going to actually improve the encyclopedia.  Much of this is content dispute, much of it has already settled itself.  I would rather see a strong warning given to TTAAC and move on.  Anything more may be seen as punitive at this point, and it wouldn't be preventative and he seems to have been right on some of the facts in question, even if he was too aggressive in the way he edited.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with Dennis — I'm not sure we need to use power tools here. Compare my comment above, with emphasis added to the hesitations: "I'm not sure he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry... stick to [computer games], perhaps?" How about we close with some advice? Together with a request that he show some respect for the newest recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature and for melody, and change his username to TheTimesTheyAreAChanging, or even AChangin'? (The name part is not serious, I don't think we should request it. It does get on my, though.) It's not like TTAAC looks like a hopeless case, is it — surely the comments here will have some effect. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC).