Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

BullRangifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. July 18, 2018 Personal Attack- Implies that I and another editor (user:Markbassett? it's not clear) are topic-banned when in fact, we are not.
2. July 18, 2018 Personal Attack- criticizes another editor for agreeing with me saying "Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe"
3. July 18, 2018 After being called out by user:PackMecEng for making a personal attack [1] he doubles down on the personal attack.
4. July 15, 2018- The above diffs weren't the first time he referred to two topic-banned editors, I don't know whether or not to interpret this as a threat

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Notified of sanctions on January 6, 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the diffs speak for themselves. Bullrangifer attacks editors he disagrees with as "fringe". In regards to the first diff about "topic banned editors", the only way that this makes sense is he is casting WP:ASPERSIONS that we are actually sockpuppets of topic-banned editors. Not surprising since he mentioned the possibility of me being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before [2] there he says he is NOT accusing me of being a sockpuppet, but why bring it up?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides Bullrangifer's response making no sense, he continues the personal attacks calling me a "fringe editor" yet again and now a "snowflake". Personal attacks like this are never justified.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Volunteer Marek:Typical WP:BATTLEGROUND response. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Your accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is ridiculous. Even though it involves the same editor, this is a separate issue. The ANI thread was not about a page under discretionary sanctions. And you have completely mischaracterized the discussion I had on Abeccedare's talk page. That discussion actually had nothing to do with BullRangifer, it was about another editor's conduct at ANI [3] As for [4] & [5], not everything on a talk page needs a source. Why don't you actually read the John Brennan & Bill Kristol articles? Because those facts are there. And it wasn't a "quality of source" issue, its an issue of WP:UNDUE--Rusf10 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Volunteer Marek:Oh I see, John Brennan voted for a communist is just something the far-right made up, right? Too bad that CNN reported on it [6], showing you do not know what you are talking about. And would you care to expand your comments on WP:DUCK, because that is about sockpuppets, are you now casting aspersions that I am a sockpuppet?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Volunteer Marek:- so you're saying that the CNN source that quotes Brennan is wrong?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Drmies:- Please recuse yourself from this discussion, you are WP:INVOLVED as per [7]--Rusf10 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Drmies:No, Drmies, you may have avoided a warning in that case, but your behavior was unacceptable there. And the fact that we were involved in a dispute with me makes you INVOLVED regardless of the outcome. If you do not strike your comments here and recuse yourself, you are engaging in admin abuse.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @MjolnirPants:Drmies belittled me multiple times [8] [9] [10] [11] But it doesn't even matter, since WP:INVOLVED is very broadly construed.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Regentspark: I think you and one or two other admins are missing the point of my filing. I did not just file this because BR attacked MelanieN, he also personally attacked me. And from his comments below and the discussion User talk:BullRangifer, I have trouble accepting his apology (even if Melanie did) because he was given multiple opportunists to retract or apologize earlier, but only chose to do so after an admin threatened to sanction him--Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

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.

More harassment? Why am I not surprised. This is just more of their abuse of drama boards. This fringe editor's actions lately border on harassment and they need to be topic banned from American politics, broadly construed, and an iBan installed to keep them away from me. The last time their revenge MfD lost by a snow keep. At the MfD, their revenge motivation for starting the MfD was pointed out, and they were roundly called out by numerous editors for being on the wrong side of what RS say on Trump-related subjects. Anyone can check their contribution history and a pattern becomes clear. They tend to use spurious arguments to keep anything negative about Trump out of articles, no matter how well-sourced. That happens to be part of the subject of my private essay which they sought to delete. The community gave them a good spanking for that attempt to push a fringe, pro-Trump, non-RS-based agenda against a mainstream editor who consistently bases his opinions and editing on very RS.

Let me respond to their spurious accusations:

1. They seem to be paranoid. I have never said or implied that they or Markbassett are topic-banned editors. As I don't wish to cause anymore irritation than necessary, I won't mention the editors I was referring to here, but I'll provide that info to any 'crat who contacts me by email. Their topic-banning has created a calmer atmosphere in the Trump arena. Both are topic-banned and one has an iBan to keep them away from me. Unfortunately some editors, like Rusf10, seem to be filling their shoes, so a topic ban boomerang should be considered.
2. My comment was misunderstood, so I immediately clarified it. I did not "double down" on it. That's a false accusation coming from an editor who likes to throw around accusations of "casting aspersions". (BTW, when arguments are not policy-based, it's legitimate to question them and alert the editor(s) to the problem. That's not a "personal attack", even though directed at a person. It will usually be unpleasant, but as editors we should be able to handle such criticism. Snowflakes need not apply here. )
3. That diff only refers to PackMecEng's comment. My clarification response is linked immediately above.
4. Yes, I have referred to those two topic-banned editors before, and my response above covers it.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He also uses this diff and babbles about me accusing them (Rusf10) of "being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before". WTF? I'm innocent and have no idea what that's about. More paranoia, and paranoia is a very poor reason for abusing dramaboards. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Refactored by striking to restore focus to the real points made. My rebuttals should be more clear now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have apologized on the article talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It has been recommended that I leave an explanation for my atypical use of the term "snowflake" above. The immediate context should make it plain that it was atypical use. It's completely unrelated to the normal political epithet one sees. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just saw comments about "partisanship". That's about a million miles off-base. My concerns (non-romantic affection) had zero to do with partisan issues. Will explain later...a patient is calling. See my talk for some/part of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More about my worries and concern.... If I didn't care about and respect MelanieN, I wouldn't have bothered, but I was seriously concerned about non-policy based reasons for deletion. I expect that from Rusf10 and some others, but not from admins. I was truly shaken. My comment had nothing to do with partisanship on my part (nor was there any partisanship in MelanieN's comment). When PAG are cited as the basis for deletion of extremely notable and properly sourced content, there can still be disagreements, but at least the arguments for deletion are within what is legitimate. MelanieN's comment had no fringe or partisan aspects, only personal feelings, unlike this following comment which contained personal feelings and fringe/partisan assertions, and that's what called forth my comment that none of those views are policy-based or legitimate reasons to delete content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:MONGO, that block was quickly lifted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Rusf10 filed a spurious request for deletion on one of BR's essays, in what very much looked like an act of revenge for comments BR made here (this concerned a discretionary sanction violation by Rusf10, which he however, self-reverted). The request for deletion was closed as a SNOW KEEP, highlighting the spurious nature of the request. This report seems to be part of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern by Rusf10. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just realized that this is an instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Rusf10. He brought essentially the same complaint to WP:AN [13], and the discussion there was closed by User: Abecedare with "No admin action needed yet". He then proceeded to harangue Abecedare about their close at their talk page, and was told, quote, "I am going to follow the advice I offered you all: drop the matter and concentrate on building the encyclpedia instead of wasting all this time watching each-other's edits and filing and responding to complaints". And furthermore, quote, "Please disengage and stop treating wikipedia as a battleground/schoolyard; none of you are coming across well in the process". Rusf10 has obviously failed to heed that advice as evidenced by this very request.

Together with the spurious MfD nom of BR's essay and Rusf10 persistent aggressive responses to BR [14], this is a pattern of badgering. It's actually no surprise that BR has finally responded in an exasperated way in this request to this badgering. And let's be clear - Sandstein's proposal for the topic ban is NOT based on any of the diffs presented by Rusf10, but rather, just on the frustrated response made here. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, User:Sandstein, how about you actually bother asking User:MelanieN how she viewed the comment? I'm sure she can speak for herself and doesn't need you grand standing for her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're here, in this WP:AE Rusf10 was "warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior".

As the comments by admin User:Abecedare above make clear, he's failed to take the second part of that warning seriously. As far as the first part goes, here we have Rusf10 cheerily disregarding that part as well:

• [15]
  • "not to mention how far-left (Brennan) is (he once voted for a communist)" - unsourced attack on a living person and an outright smear
  • " Bill Kristol (...) claimed to be a Republican for many years, he is also a "never-Trumper" " - another unsourced attack on a living person, implying that when somebody says they're a Republican they're lying ("claimed to be")
• [16]:
  • " Brennan is highly partisan" - another unsourced attack on a living person.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this whole Brennan thing is a current far-right talking point/concerted attack on the man [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] (needless to say, these are not reliable sources). Earlier, he was being accused of "being a Muslim" [22] and other ridiculous shit. So why is Rusf10 repeating this nonsense, even if it's just on talk pages (to which BLP still applies)? Gee, maybe the "fringe" label isn't a personal attack after all but rather WP:DUCK and maybe the comments directed at MelanieN should be seen in this light. But hey, go ahead, and enable and support this stuff on American Politics articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. All editors are asked not to use AE to continue interpersonal or content disputes, to avoid complicating this case. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a frivolous, vexatious, and unclean-hands report to me. Let's look at the diffs. This is not a personal attack and doesn't imply what the reporter says it does. While "Wikipedia is endangered by your attitude" wasn't worded very well, in the broader context of the dispute it obviously means "this kind of cavalier attitude about suppressing well-sourced information for PoV purposes, in favor of stuff sourced to fake news, endangers Wikipedia". No. 2 is also not a personal attack, though similarly unnecessarily personally worded. Criticizing an editor for holding a position that mimics that of a long-running PoV or fringe stance isn't an attack (either to that party or to the background party of the comparison), it's a criticism of viewpoint. Again, the broader context of the discussion makes it clear why that viewpoint is being criticized. Ditto with this one. What seems to be happening here is that Rusf10 is angry about being put in the WP:FRINGE box. If referring to it were an attack, we would not have that page. And it's an important page. The fourth diff is BullRangifer providing sound and civil advice, which Rusf10 did not heed, and the prediction in it is now likely to come true. I do think that BullRangifer would benefit from the first two sections at WP:HOTHEADS (basically, avoid "you" wording). One can make the same point without personalizing, and thus without providing incentive or ammo for WP:DRAMA like this AE time waste.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I don't think there's any rule against a good ole-fashioned WP:BOOMERANG at AE" – There certainly is not, as can attest anyone ever hit with one. Maybe the frequency with which they're employed has gone down, out of a desire to separate reports by username, but this is problematic for at least two reasons. It's basically a WP:PROCESSFORK away from ArbCom deciding it was a bad idea to name cases and other requests for the username of a party rather than the topic or other locus of dispute; AE seems to simply have not caught up to this procedural change. It's also a WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY problem; a new AE is now contemplated about Rusf10's behavior, when a) he was already teetering on the edge of long-term sanctions from the previous round, and b) more than enough evidence has already been provided herein, and will simply be repeated (plus some additions) in a new AE, which defeats the purpose of AE having rather strict concision limits and diff-pileup constraints. It's a "cut off your nose to spite your face" solution born of robotic but highly localized proceduralism. Neither other noticeboards nor ArbCom have any issue with the boomerang principle or with avoiding redundant process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the edits presented by the OP. (Correction: edits 2 and 3 are the same that I independently found objectionable. Still no comment on the other ones. — JFG ^talk 09:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

However I am very concerned by a recent comment by BullRangifer, telling a well-respected editor: MelanieN, you really need to examine your thinking,[23] simply because she happened to hold the same view as Rusf10 about inserting a particular piece of content (a tweet by John Brennan lambasting Trump). He was immediately called out by two editors PackMecEng and myself, but he persisted and refused to apologize: It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking.[24] See developing thread at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Side track on "wrongthink". — JFG ^talk 07:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Count me in to try and devise a damper on knee-jerk emotional headline-chasing. — JFG ^talk 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: You have grudgingly apologized following peer pressure, and stricken some inflammatory comments here; thanks for that. However your latest remarks show that you still don't get it. The edits in which you twice told MelanieN to "revise her thinking", only because she happened to estimate that a piece of content was undue and an editor you don't like happened to agree, are an unacceptable indictment of wrongthink. Talk pages are the place where editors can freely express what they think, as long as it's on-topic and geared towards improving the encyclopedia. Both Rusf10 and MelanieN were expressing their views on the appropriateness of quoting an opinion by Brennan in the article on the Trump presidency. No matter whether you agree, you should not be "concerned" or "shaken" by other editors' stances. When you write I expect that from Rusf10 and some others, but not from admins, you are again showing disdain for a group of editors based on their apparent political affiliations, an attitude that your questionable essay made abundantly clear. You've been editing long enough that you should know this attitude is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Despite your protestations of checking your admitted personal bias at the door, you tend to behave as a WP:POVFIGHTER, and that is probably going to land you in trouble again. Please take this as friendly criticism and hopefully helpful advice. — JFG ^talk 06:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if an admin is going to remove comments because they "continue a content dispute" (as here), perhaps they should ALSO remove the content-dispute stuff by Rusf10 that this is a rebuttal to? --Calton | Talk 08:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Calton: remove what that text was in response to or restore the text. Otherwise, this appears to be taking sides.

I agree with JFG that some of Bull's comments are probematic. But they're par for the course in AmPol, they're well out of character for Bull and the hounding Bull has been experiencing at Rusf's hands is ridiculous. An indef topic ban on Bull is ridiculously inappropriate (though lesser sanctions might not be. Hint: Try a one week topic ban and see if that helps), and Rusf should, at the very least, be one-way IBanned to cut down on the inevitable future drama.

@Masem: You and I have discussed some sort of restriction on how soon after a story hits the news cycles we can write about it. I think this is something that should be given some serious thought and discussion, though not here. I'll ping you on another page where we can discuss further. I'm also pinging @Awilley and NeilN: who have also been involved in trying to work out something to improve AmPol editing, just to ensure they're aware of this case as an example of how such a restriction might have cut off the drama before it got started. Sandstein, your input is always welcome (even though we don't always agree) so please leave me a message on my talk if you have anything to add to a topic-wide discussion about WP:RECENTISM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I don't think there's any rule against a good ole-fashioned WP:BOOMERANG at AE, when it is warranted. FWIW, I agree with you that a warning is probably enough. I've struck my bit about a 1 week T-ban, because I suspect Bull is going to take a break from politics on their own, and that's something I want for Bull's sake, not for the sake of the topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: watching this thread develop over the last hour or so, I think I'm going to have to differ with you about whether it's apropos in this case.

@Rusf10: just for the record, the fact that you previously antagonized and belittled an admin does not make that admin WP:INVOLVED. Note that you were warned against doing exactly what you're doing right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN and I might agree 20% of the time on content but if you want a model contributor to these problematic areas hers is that model to emulate and she has been an inspiration to me as well. Therefore calling out MelanieN on partisanship is really extreme, especially coming from someone that would be far more likely then I to have agreements with her. Rusf10 last diff indicates BullRangifer is extremely unlikely to be able to remain objective in these problematic areas. I saw the Mfd there and found it extremely partisan but avoided it since it was in userspace and BullRangifer said that is where it would stay. Rusf10 last diff above where BullRangifer states: [25] "Don't attack mainstream editors who depend on RS, especially if your POV is the pro-Trump, minority POV, which is not backed by RS. We protect the first, and scorn the latter around here." Scorn the latter? I am hoping when this was written he meant only those that use unreliable sources, but his userspace essay that was at Mfd clearly tries to state that Fox News is an unreliable source when Wikipedia itself has never declared that. In the userspace essay, Bullrangifer states [26]"...Trump/GOP/Putin-friendly sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, RT, Sputnik, etc.) say otherwise with their cover-up/distraction/conspiracy theories which fact checkers keep on debunking. Those are unreliable sources for political content, so don't use them, and frankly, don't even read them, except for research purposes ("What are the fringe wingnuts saying now?")". I think its a bit extreme to lump FoxNews in with the others in that recital but others may disagree.--MONGO (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell seems to think its only a personal attack if the recipient is offended? A novel attitude that I highly suspect would be not be tolerated with or without "bother to actually check in with Melanie to get her reaction to the situation" had the delivery been made by someone traditionally antagonistic to MelanieN's editing stance. The fact that these comments were directed at MelanieN who is much more likely to be in the same camp as BullRangifer and the way he said them (as if she was betraying the "cause") indicates an extremely partisan approach to editing on this topic by the reported party.--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not BullRangifer's first trip to the rodeo. They were blocked for a week this past January in this very same topic matter. [27]

I'm catching up with this situation a little late, having missed all the drama at the article talk page. I am being cited here as the target of some of BR’s negative comments. I will say that his comments were out of character and that he has never addressed me like that before, even though we frequent many of the same articles. He is a productive and valuable editor at those articles. From reading through this AE report I see that there is a significant backstory between BR and Rusf10. IMO that was the cause of his uncharacteristic overreaction when I took the same position on an issue that Rusf10 later took. BR has apologized to me on the article talk page and I have accepted his apology. I would suggest BR not be topic banned over this, but simply warned not to let his emotions carry him away like this in the future. And people may want to look into the behavior of Rusf10 to see if it constitutes harassment or deserves some form of interaction ban. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: It isn't the case that people "didn't bother to check in" with me. I was pinged to this discussion, and to the article's talk page, multiple times. I just didn't happen to be online while this discussion was developing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:OWB#37 strikes again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think MastCell's comments below are pretty much on point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MelanieN-related diffs have been discussed enough by earlier participants; I think a formal warning for BullRangifer is sufficient. (and an informal warning to both that at some point soon, an "at wit's end" TBAN may be in play)

I generally dislike comments like this one (#3 in original report), but it's not a personal attack. The encyclopedia is written based on facts and sources, not simply based on "interpretations of policy". But that certainly won't result in sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. How long until Rusf10 is blocked for this nonsense? --Tarage (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are pretty self-explanatory and damning. There's clearly a conduct issue here. BullRangifer is an experienced editor and should know better. The only question is what sort of sanction to apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments directed at MelanieN crossed the line, but I will attest that they are way out of character for Bullrangifer, who has done yeoman's work on these articles and who has been more collaborative than most. I suspect that his untoward comments are a symptom of the stresses of following the dispute resolution process in an atmosphere of heated discussion, entrenched viewpoints, and even some bad faith on the part of a few editors. To put it another way, some of the behavior described in WP:FRINGEPOLITICS has taken a toll of the psyches of editors who are trying their best to defend the integrity of Wikipedia. Because of our imperfect system, sometimes there is collateral damage. In this case, the damage is slight and not likely to continue, so a word to the wise should be sufficient.- MrX 🖋 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that edits AMPOL articles is a masochist. (I’m one in denial; but I’m not that valuable.) Bullfighter crossed the line, and then stepped back. Given the circumstances and recent history, his misstep is not surprising. The simple fact is that folks that edit these articles are dragged into the drama boards on a regular basis. We need to find a way to stop predictable flare-ups from demands for sanctions against, as Melanie put it, a “productive and valuable editor”. O3000 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on this request, but Drmies should not be commenting in the admin section. Drmies has edited the talk page in question as an editor, and has directly argued about content with Rusf10. WP:INVOLVED applies obviously. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think we need to take action against BullRangifer here. Even leaving the three reported diffs aside, their response to this request is wholly unacceptable, as it includes a number of personal attacks ("fringe editor", "paranoid", "snowflakes", "babbles"), and includes unacceptable aspersions, i.e., accusations of serious misconduct without evidence ("harassment", "their revenge motivation", "more of their abuse of drama boards"). Particularly, BullRangifer's assertion that "snowflakes need not apply here" is entirely at odds with Wikipedia's communal ethos as established in WP:5P4 ("Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility") and in the core policies linked to from there. Our community does expect and require that editors treat each other respectfully and collegially even if – especially if! – they strongly disagree about content. This statement reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that is incompatible with editing in the tension-filled American politics topic area. I therefore intend to topic-ban BullRangifer from modern American politics for three months to give them an opportunity to improve their interpersonal skills in other topic areas. Sandstein 06:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to the fact that at least for the first three diffs, there is nothing that I see in the immediate contributions in that talk page of anyone else using personal aspersions or similar uncivil behavior that often begets more uncivil behavior. BullRangifer's comments out of nowhere are definitely a problem and do suggest a topic ban is valid. --Masem (t) 06:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Given that BullRangifer has commented and apologized, as well as recognizing outside of the diffs the seemingly bad blood between parties here, I would now agree that this should be a warning on all sides. I'll still stand on my comment below there's a issue with how content is handle that leads to battleground behavior that makes it way to AEs here, something that still needs to be resolved separately. --Masem (t) 16:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MastCell: regardless of what other spats, even not by their own doing, an editor is involved in, the last thing you do is take that out on an editor not involved with that spat (focusing on the talk page in question). BullRangifer has apologized and struck comments, so I'd call this case one of a bad ill-tempered mistake, and warnings given with no further action (though do suggest that if there's a larger case towards Rusf10 in terms of harassing BullRangifer, then that should be presented as a separate AE. But it is important all editors editing in these contested areas to keep cool edits - step away from the keyboard and think for a moment before posting, for example. (I had to deal with that a lot during the whole GG situation, so I know it's very much doable). --Masem (t) 22:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with JFG that BullRangifer's comments regarding MelanieN in this discussion are of eminent concern. Telling MelanieN that "you really need to examine your thinking. When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe", and "When an editor like Rusf10 agrees with MelanieN, in a situation like this, it makes it appear that MelanieN is in fringe and partisan territory. She risks being judged by the company she keeps, except for this vital difference...she did not choose the company. It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking" is so unacceptable that I find it difficult to put it into words. This is genuine harassment and abuse of a sort even I have seldom seen on Wikipedia, and not even because of something MelanieN did, but because of somebody else agreed with her. It makes me inclined to impose a block and an indefinite topic ban on BullRangifer. Sandstein 07:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As a complete separate comment in re-reading the diffs in context, the whole discussion that these diffs find themselves in is absolutely why we have NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM: trying to cover the reaction of politicians and mass media for every little thing Trump does (in this case) is far too detailed and leads to far too much bickering with editors, particularly with the current regulars on these articles that have shown a clear preference on which side of the external partisan battle they agree with (which includes both pro- and anti-Trump positions) and keep headbutting to maintain their preferred position. AE obviously can't address the content issue, but its clear the content issue is creating behavioral issues, and it would significantly help stem behavioral issues across the board if editors were not fighting to include the level of detail and analysis in the short term. We have no idea if these will end up being of that much importance 5-10 years from now. These AP2 articles need to stick to facts and avoid trying to incorporate what opinions and reactions are out there unless those reactions shown the test of time. Can't expect any admin action due to this overall, but it would really really really really help stop all these AE reports. --Masem (t) 13:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• BullRangifer's comment toward Melanie warrant a warning. Perhaps they will consider retracting and apologizing--their "clarification" is patronizing, condescending. I'm also a bit bothered by what I can only call a (brief) diatribe here. I do not think (in the absence of more evidence) that this by itself is worthy of a topic ban, though had I seen the Melanie-comments when they happened I would certainly have given them an only warning for personal attacks. Blocking for that now is not something I would do. I'll hasten to add that we're here for BF, and not for Rusf10, but it should be clear that the latter's comments about Brennan are, as far as I'm concerned, BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had missed this edit--thank you, BullRangifer. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • MjolnirPants, sure you're right about boomerangs, and some of you know I have taken issue with Rusf10's editing before, from the point of view of WP:RS. I don't think this particular complaint is vexatious, though I myself do not believe it rises to ARE level--but Sandstein thinks it does, and their opinion means a lot to me. I do think that they seem to be adept at pushing buttons but we shouldn't be too hasty throwing boomerangs in a forum like this, which should go far beyond the kind of scrutiny we see at ANI, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rusf10, what I see there is "Rusf10 is warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and assuming bad faith in other editors." When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the edits and comments since, including BR's apology to Melanie, I think the only thing we need here is possibly an interaction ban between BR and Rusf10. I would strongly oppose a sanction against BR only. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's pretty bizarre that the people who were offended on MelanieN's behalf didn't bother to actually check in with Melanie to get her reaction to the situation. I appreciate her comments here, both because they help provide some context for the immediate situation and because she is generally a model editor in this topic area, as others have noted. BullRangifer's comments about MelanieN were inappropriate. Because he has recognized that and apologized, and because MelanieN has accepted his apology, I don't see any indication for AE action in that regard.

  Masem, if you truly believe that BR's comments were "out of nowhere", then all I can say is that I don't think you've looked very hard. Or at all. There is an obvious history between Rusf10 and BullRangifer which, as MelanieN has suggested, contains elements of harassment by Rusf10 against BullRangifer. Rusf10 was formally warned about his battleground attitude just a couple of weeks ago—and there was substantial support among admins at that time to topic-ban him based on his behavior. He got by with a warning/last chance, which was pretty lenient. He then nominated a userspace page of BullRangifer's for deletion three days ago; the result was a "snow keep", suggesting that the nomination showed poor judgement at best. He then filed a complaint against BR at AN/I three days ago, which was dismissed with a number of editors criticizing Rusf10's attitude. Now this.

  I think it's important for BullRangifer to understand that his behavior was inappropriate, which it appears he does. I'm strongly opposed to doing anything here which would reward Rusf10's behavior, which has been consistently substandard and which toes, if not crosses, the line of harassment. Frankly, based on his recent previous warning and the fact that he's since been doing exactly the sort of thing he was warned against (as MjolnirPants notes), I'd favor a topic-ban for Rusf10 from American politics. It was clear at his previous AE report that he was on very thin ice and had already nearly justified a topic-ban with his behavior; given the continuation of negative behavior and lack of positive change I think it's reasonable to follow through at this point. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• BullRangifer got overheated. I'm afraid I do regard this complaint as a vexatious attempt to take advantage of that fact by Rusf10, an editor who narrowly escaped a far more deserved topic ban on this board a couple of weeks ago, and who seems to have failed to profit from the warning they received instead.[28] I agree entirely with MelanieN that BR is a productive and valuable editor in American politics articles. @Sandstein: I disagree with your plans for topic banning BR. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• I appreciate BullRangifer's striking of their comments above and their apology. In view of this a sanction does appear less urgently needed. I'm still concerned, however, that their later statements do not reflect an understanding of why their comments were unacceptable, and are generally defensive in tone. I am therefore unconvinced that such conduct will not reoccur. However, in view of other admins' objections to sanctions I'll not impose any at this time and intend to close the request with a warning: BullRangifer, if I ever see anything like that from you again, you'll be permanently gone from this topic area. – As to Rusf10 it may well be that sanctions are warranted with respect to them, but I'd prefer it if any evidence to that effect was submitted as a separate request to allow for proper evaluation and processing. Sandstein 21:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really care what happens to BullRangifer or Rusf10 but I think we need to take a strong line here on AE. If editor X brings in a complaint that editor A is violating the terms of contact with editor B, and if editor B is an editor in good standing who is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, we should throw the complaint out forthwith. AE is becoming a "gotcha" venue and that's something we should actively discourage. In this case, MelanieN is perfectly capable of making AE reports on their own so why the heck are we paying attention to a third party? --regentspark (comment) 01:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @RegentsPark: My view is that discretionary sanctions exist to protect the entire project and the community of editors as a whole against disruption, not individual complainants. I will take AE action if I consider it likely that an editor will behave disruptively towards others in the future, even if there is no complaint by a previously affected user. Sandstein 06:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Kingsindian that Drmies has too much personal involvement in the talk page under discussion to avoid application of INVOLVED. I respectfully ask Drmies to move their comments out of the administrators' section. Otherwise I have no comments on the merits of this case. Zero^talk 03:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a warning as discussed above. Sandstein 19:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction :

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

1. 04:25, 20 July 2018 Revert of this edit by restoring the unsourced category, also possible BLP violation
2. 06:23, 20 July 2018 Second revert (of my edit) shortly after

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

BTW, my comment regarding presumptions (which he regarded as a "personal attack") was a response to this silly edit summary in a related article.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

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.

There was no notice on the talk page or the article that the article was under a 1RR restriction. I got a notification regarding the DS on Israeli-Palestinian topic area here but that didn't say anything about a 1RR restriction either. I don't know whether in this topic area - like Syria or US Politic - the 1RR restriction only applies to articles which are explicitly tagged as such, or in some broad manner, but if it's latter, I was not aware of it (and if it is the latter, there really needs to be a better job of alerting editors to it).

I would be perfectly willing to self revert, but User:Icewhiz (gee....) jumped in to revert as soon as he saw User:Calton bringing the possibility of a self-revert on my talk page [30], making it impossible for me to self revert. Note that Icewhiz didn't even wait 10 minutes for a response for me, which makes it seem like his purpose was to make a self-revert impossible, so that this AE report would have some legs. This also qualifies as WP:STALKING by Icewhiz.

As to the merits of the edit - this is a bit ridiculous. It's an article about the guy who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. The relevant category is "religious terrorism". Icewhiz and co. are arguing that this category is "unsourced". That's absurd and WP:GAME, what are they asking for, an inline citation to a category? Amir explicitly used a religious defense at his trial which means the "religious" part fits and this is sourced in the article [31]. The text says ""The attempt to grant RELIGIOUS authority to the murder..." is", yet Icewhiz stands there and argues there was no religious aspect to it!!!!! See also [32] Furthermore, there is the equally ridiculous assertion by Sir Joseph that "assassinations are not terrorism". Sources disagree [33] [34] [35] [36]. This is just WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And we have another frivolous invocation of WP:BLP by Icewhiz to try to WP:GAME content. Sources overhwelmingly describe this as religiously motivated (the guy freakin' said something like "God made me do it"!) And sources overwhelmingly describe it as terrorism (unlike JFK or whatever red herring people pull out of their thin air). It's hard to see how assertion to the contrary can be made in good faith. Indeed, if there's ANY article that belongs in the category of "Jewish Religious Terrorism", then this is it. If this doesn't belong in there, then the category itself shouldn't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: - take a look at the article Jewish Religious Terrorism where this is listed as the #1 example [37] and very well sourced. This designation is not controversial in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at removals of this category by Sir Joseph for other reasons (see the current ITN nominations), they also removed the category from Duma arson attack where the charged terrorists were members of a terrorist organisation whose goal is to overthrow democracy and replace it with a monarchy based on religious law. Likewise the removal at Yigal Amir was done with equally ridiculous edit summary 'assassination of a leader is not terrorism' - there is no possible way to describe that except amazingly ignorant. I was just about to put that back SirJoseph's removal at Duma when I saw this. Its also trivial (you might want to read the books mentioned in that article too) to source that Yigal Amir is within scope of Jewish religious terrorism. This is clearly POV white-washing by SirJoeseph at this point, and he needs to be restricted from editing any articles in the IP area. If you are going to sanction someone for breaching 1rr, you also need to address the ridiculous editing from POV-driven editors that is provoking it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise his removal of Jewish religious terrorism from the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre a clearly terrorist incident by someone who was a member of religiously motivated proscribed organisation, whose shrine was dismantled by the IDF after Israel banned monuments against terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, dont be ridiculous. LHO and JH were not described as terrorists because the concept of domestic terrorism barely existed when they comitted their crimes. Its only in much later analysis they are even mentioned in line with domestic terrorism (one of which is listed as further reading in JH's article btw) given the US lack of experience with domestic terrorism until relatively recently. Its also not a BLP issue to categorise articles related to Jewish religious terrorism even if the subjects have not been called terrorists directly (which Yigal certainly has anyway) if the act they commit is motivated by religious terrorism (which it was). Go read Jewish religious terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE @Dweller: the problem is, over a sustained period of time editors have (to a lesser or greater success) worked hard at removing any reference to 'terrorism' by Israel/Israeli's - of which this is just the latest iteration. Its not a new thing. I could put multiple mentions to terrorism in Yigal's article, reliably sourced, in less than 10 minutes, I could just copy across the (sourced) line from the Jewish religious terrorism article if I wanted just one. Would it be there in a week? Maybe. But it wouldnt make it a month. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE @Sandstein: : While Yigal claimed religious motivation, the religious motivation was that Yitzhak Rabin's invovement in the Oslo I Accords was a betrayal of that religion. Yigal (and other religious conservatives) considered it heresy. So its well-within scope of IP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE @MelanieN: : This sort of editing is brushed off too much as a 'content dispute'. Is it worth submitting an AE against Sir Joeseph for making these POV-laden category removals? Or would it be better to open up a case at AN (or Arbcom) to examine the (extensive) history of POV-editing in the topic area? I dont particularly want to start an IP3 arbcom case request, but this is really getting stupid now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Not a "silly edit summary" at all, since the category (Jewish religious terrorism} DOES exist for a reason: note the very first entry on that section. If you wanted to talk about a "silly edit summary", you could have gone with this one ("assasination [sic] of a leader is not terrorism". --Calton | Talk 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone and reversed the removals where I could find them. Yes, before you say it, content dispute, not handled here, blah blah blah. But there's a difference between "content dispute" and "you have got to be fucking kidding me". Cave of the Patriarchs massacre was NOT an example of Jewish religious terrorism? Assassinating a leader is not terrorism? --Calton | Talk 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Icewhiz's response below, I have to ask whether this a form of gaslighting or a WP:CIR issue, since the articles I'm looking at EXPLICITLY discuss the religious motivation AND have sources. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for @Dweller:: have a read of this. Notice any familiar names? --Calton | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for @Icewhiz:: a Jewish religious concept, eh? Used to justify an act of terror? Which somehow means it's NOT lumped under "Jewish religious terrorism"? THAT's an...interesting...approach. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious BLP assertion - that is presently unsourced in both articles - both the religious motivation (the nationalist motivation is clear - the religious one would seem to be secondary if it exists) as well as this being terrorism. If you want to label a BLP a "terrorist" (he's clearly an assassin and murderer - however we do not label Lee Harvey Oswald or John Hinckley Jr. as terrorists - this is not a manifestly clear label for the situation) - one should have a strong source doing so. In regards to Yigal Amir - the BLP situation is even more severe as this is a BLP of a living person. The article, currently, doesn't have "terror" in the text, and Amir himself was convicted for murder, conspiracy, and wounding a body guard - not for terrorism offenses.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

din rodef is a Jewish law justification - not a motivation - and in any regards - terrorism is not sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a Category labelled "terrorism" in an article that does not mention the word "terror" seems inappropriate to me, across the board, per BLP (in this case) and NPOV (for anyone long dead), regardless of ARBPIA. That's a comment on content alone. Edit-warring I'll leave to you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have a guideline WP:TERRORIST which limits our use of the word in Wikipedia's voice. That is why the articles on the Rabin assassination don't use the word despite many excellent sources which do. The way to fix the problem is to either source the description or get rid of all terrorist categories (not just some of them selectively). Secondly, I've been waiting for a chance to use the beautiful word "pettifoggery" on this board, and what better excuse than Icewhiz's "din rodef is a Jewish law justification - not a motivation" — and this for a deeply religious person who sought the approval of rabbis before committing his deed. Truly amazing. Zero^talk 15:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who adds a lot of content (incl. content on terrorism) from political science journals but who is not familiar with this specific content dispute, I just want to note that assassinations can undoubtedly be considered terrorism, and many assassinations have been categorized as terrorism. I'm not familiar with the history on this particular Wikipedia page, but my interactions with the filer of the complaint and Sir Joseph have been negative. In my experience, these editors have a tendency to remove reliably sourced content and add fringe and/or unsourced text and descriptions. Just my two cents. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge admins to consider issuing a warning to the filer. This is basically a SPA account active only in ARBPIA - some edits are productive but some that are clearly not (I would say borderline vandalism) such as this one with no edit summary [38] - I checked several (but not all) the cited sources and they did not support the changes. Making non-neutral changes that are unsupported by the sources is a problem behavior, not a content issue — this editor's talk page is full of various complaints from multiple editors about edit warring and other issues. At the very least a warning about filing frivolous AE complaints is in order - AE should be a last resort.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would take no action here. Yigal Amir, the article at issue, is not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and therefore the 1RR restriction does not apply. The person is notable for a murder that seems to have had religious or political reasons that the article does not describe as related to the conflict. As to the contested category, it is indeed a content dispute and therefore not handled at AE. To the extent it is possibly a WP:BLP violation, it is at any rate not a sufficiently severe or obvious one as to warrant sanctions. Sandstein 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I second what Sandstein said. This report seems to me to be without merit. 1) There is no ARBPIA tag on the article. Unless there is an unspoken application of ARBPIA to everything related to Israel whether or not it is tagged, and everyone is just supposed to know it, the only Arbitration sanctions that seem to apply are those for a BLP. There is no explicit 1RR tag anywhere. 2) The OP filed this report immediately without giving VM any explanation or chance to self-revert. On getting the notification, VM indicated a willingness to self-revert but was pre-empted by someone else. 3) Most of the discussion here is about whether the category under dispute was or was not appropriate for that article. That is a content dispute and inappropriate for this board. IMO this complaint has literally no basis and should be dismissed. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with both Sandstein and MelanieN; this does not fall under ARBPIA and thus 1RR doesn't apply. There are valid BLP concerns here but that's a content dispute. --Masem (t) 17:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed accordingly. Sandstein 19:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :

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

1. 25 July 2018 Claiming that being placed in "limbo" on a GRG list is sufficient to remove someone from a living list; and stating that the GRG trumps other RS contradicting the consensus for this article.
2. 20 July 2018 Claiming that the consensus for inclusion, in place for at least 10 years in this article, is merely a guideline and also claiming that the prior error of inclusion negates that consensus.
3. 20 July 2018 and 20 July 2018 and 20 July Claiming that an earlier error invalidates the application of consensus. Then reverting an attempt to apply consensus and consistency between linked articles. Then edit-warring without waiting for consensus on the talk page.
4. 4 July 2018 Removal of an addition which is not supported by the GRG on the spurious/deceptive claim that an age template wasn't used (they were more than capable of making the appropriate edit as I did subsequently).
5. 8 June 2018 Claiming that the GRG and other longevity "experts" know better than Reliable Sources, again contradicting consensus (on the source article for this article).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Result_concerning_TFBCT1 Previous enforcement result: "Closed without action following assurances that the user will respect consensus."

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

• Previous DS enforcement as above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Prior to Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_14#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede? this RFC List of oldest living people differentiated between those validated by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and others that were reliably sourced, with anyone not validated by the age of 113 removed. The consensus of the RFC was that the GRG not have any precedence over other RS. Given there was some confusion as to how this consensus should be applied I clarified this here. User:TFBCT1 failed to comment on this at the time and subsequently repudiated the original consensus, claimed that the clarification was not the latest consensus, when in fact it was, and repeatedly claimed that old consensus was still current on numerous longevity articles when in fact many had been updated to bring them inline with the above consensus. There are numerous other instances of this user editing by pushing the "GRG trumps other RS" line despite me pointing out repeatedly that such editing has resulted in a topic ban. Note the comment by the closing admin: "Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is." This user has previously been blocked for edit warring, and has been warned as recently as 20 July 2018. Their typical modus operandi is frequently to edit-war without contributing to talk page discussion. Their current editing across multiple longevity articles could also be considered as perpetuating an edit war.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

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.

There is a long history between myself and the accusing editor not getting along. He has continually threatened to take action against me with no just cause. His first (3) points have no cause. My statement 07/25/2018 regarding the GRG and "limbo cases" was a direct result of his reverting other editors who had attempted to remove an individual placed by the GRG in "limbo." Even though he is aware that this concurs no confirmation of life, he attempted to reinstate an individual placed in "limbo." DerbycountyNZ has a strong anti-GRG bias and a general disdain for the topic of longevity and it is very difficult to have a productive conversation with him or collaborate. His (2) points from 07/20/2018 are an attempt to be inflammatory with an issue that has already been resolved with another editor. Each of us made notice to the edit warring board against one another. The issue is resolved amicably on the talk page with me siding with the opposing argument and the case being closed without cause. The 06/8/2018 argument is skewed and misleading and presented erroneously. It had to do with cases in excess of 115, not 113 as incorrectly presented, that had been previously defined as "longevity claims, " not pure longevity cases. DerbycountyNZ continually stated that he had no such knowledge of this prior definition, which is hard to believe. That situation was resolved once again with me capitulating and there has been no incidence since.

Most importantly, I do not have a modus operandi of edit warring without using the talk page. This is a blatant distortion of my character. I have a spirit of compromise and am always willing to take opposing views to the talk page. I have been updating the tables of the longevity pages every night @ 7:00/8:00pmEST/EDT for 12 years. This is quite a contribution to wikipedia and takes some dedication. I am thanked weekly by other editors for this commitment. It is disheartening to be constantly harassed by one disagreeable editor.TFBCT1 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I have also never been blocked for "edit warring". This is pure fiction on the part of DerbyCountyNZ. And a further attempt to disparage my character.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• These are all content disputes and therefore not actionable here, except the edit-warring on List of oldest living people. TFBCT1, please focus your response on that issue. Sandstein 08:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrary to what TFBCT1 writes, TFBCT1 was in fact once blocked for edit-warring, per their block log. In this case, TFBCT1 edit-warred on List of oldest living people on 20 July ([40], [41], [42], [43]). TFBCT1's response does not address this misconduct. A block is therefore required to prevent further misconduct. TFBCT1 is blocked for a week. Sandstein 15:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]