Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

• request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
• request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
• request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
• appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Amendments :

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

1. December 18, 2017 Page was created by RAN as redirect
2. February 3, 2018 Page was converted from a redirect to an article in violation of RAN's topic ban on article creation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. September 26, 2013 added link to external website where he contributed, resulted in two week ban
2. March 10, 2014- created article in violation of ban, resulting in one month ban.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see above diffs.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Richard Arthur Norton (1958-) (RAN) creates scores of redirects everyday. While it is not clear that creating a redirect would be a violation of his ban on article creation since a redirect technically is not an article, what he did today was clearly a violation. About two months ago he created the page Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey as a redirect. Today he converted that redirect into an article. No other user edited the article between these two revisions.

@Awilley:That is an accurate summary of events, nothing is left out. RAN's explanation is extremely misleading. When he split the information out of the other article it was information exclusively authored by him. Only a minor edit was made by another user. So basically he's trying to sidestep his ban by writing an article within another article and then spinning it out. According to him, that's not creating a new article, I think it clearly is.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:- Thank you for providing those diffs. They prove that this is not an isolated incident and RAN knew exactly what he was doing. RAN is clearly gaming the system and going forward he should be banned from creating redirects too.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lankiveil:I object to only a one month block, due to the fact that RAN clearly knew what he was doing and was gaming the system. It's not like this was an isolated incident,Mendaliv provided evidence that he did this multiple times. This is his MO, he's always pushing the boundaries. Just like he tried to do with replacing deleted articles with wikidata entries, see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Linking to wikidata I support a longer block as per User:Sandstein, User:Timotheus Canens, & User:Seraphimblade.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lankiveil:, okay I see what you're saying and I trust you and User:GoldenRing will use good judgement, but I just want to see if the other admins agree with the length of the block or not. Another question, will any of these three pages RAN created be deleted? As per the arbitration case "The article or draft article may be speedily deleted under criterion G5 by any administrator." Or do I need to take them to AfD?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken, JFG, Lankiveil, and SoWhy:- I think its okay to return the articles to a redirect, however the previous revisions still should be deleted. I can envision RAN coming back after his block and just reverting the pages again to his preferred version and then saying I didn't create an article, I just reverted. I say delete the articles and if another user wants them, they can request the deleted version and recreate it themselves with the understanding that they will take full responsibility for its content.--Rusf10 (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:Wow! I wasn't even aware of this discussion . The exact thing RAN did here was discussed, this is even more proof he knew exactly what he was doing. His behavior is inexcusable. A ban beyond one month is definitely called for here, I like Sandstein's suggestion of six months too.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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 Norton

I made a valid redirect to the larger article. I created content in an existing article. Another editor trimmed the large block. I split the information from an existing article into a redirect in one edit, so not undue. No new article was created with new content, information was migrated to the list from an existing article in a valid article split. --RAN (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

In his statement, just above, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) appears to want to have things both ways. He is forbidden by his sanctions to create articles, but he creates redirects on the theory -- which I believe is justified -- that a redirect is not an article. However, he also wants to be allowed to convert those redirects into articles under the theory that in doing so he is not creating an article, simply adding information to an existing article (the redirect). Well, it can't be both things at the same time. Either the redirect is or isn't an article. If a redirect is an article, then RAN routinely violates his sanctions when he creates redirects (i.e. articles). If it isn't an article, then making it into an article is creating an article where none existed before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Concerning DHeyward's complaint: it is not the job of admins at AE to alter or overrule editorial sanctions applied by ArbCom, but instead their purpose is to adjudicate any reported violations of those sanctions, which -- at least in my analysis --this one clearly is. Thus, determining that RAN's action did or did not harm Misplaced Pages is outside the proper purview of AE, and DHeyward's "which actions hurt the project" is something of a strawman -- although one can say with some certainty that editors not following their sanctions inherently harms the project by undermining the authority of ArbCom to place sanctions, by encouraging other editors to decide that they, too, do not have to follow their sanctions, and by devaluing the work of those who edit without being sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Question to Awilley - Just to clear up an ambiguity, does your query "Am I missing anything" means "Do I have all the facts on this matter?", or does it mean "What am I missing here that qualifies this as a violation of a sanction?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that RAN has a history of gaming and violating his sanctions:

• 25 September 2013 - Violation, result: 2 week block
• 10 March 2014 - Creation of new article, result: 1 month block
• 20 August 2014 - Moving article directly into mainsspace, result: closed without action
• 8 November 2015 - Converted a redirect to an article, AE report referred to ArbCom
• 9 November 2015 - ARCA: Is converting an redirect into an article the creation of an article? result: ArbCom consensus is "yes"
• 6 January 2016 - Editing external site he contributed to, result: closed without action

RAN is no innocent, he's well aware of his sanctions and what they mean, having participated in most of the discussions about them. There's no possibility that the current incidents were slip-ups, mere mistake, a misunderstanding or anything other then deliberate attempts to slip under the radar to do what he knows he's not supposed to do.The 1 month ban already imposed on RAN is the minimum required by his sanctions, but I agree with Sandstein that the clearly deliberate nature of the violations requires more than that. The six months suggested by Sandstein would seem appropriate, if an indef block for an editor who has been problematic for many years now - even more then is indicated above, back to 2008, at least - isn't under consideration, which I suggest it should be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

No complaint has merit on process alone. Per NOtBURO, which actions hurt the project? I see no diffs presented that hurt the project and without them, sanctions of any kind are unwarranted. --DHeyward (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

BMK has it right here:

• The page "Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey" was created as a redirect by RAN.
• The page "Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey" ceased to be a redirect when RAN next edited it.
• The page "Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey" was an article at the time of the second edit, and no other editors edited it in the meantime.

If creating redirects is fine, then replacing a redirect with content is creating an article. If replacing redirects with content is fine, then creating a redirect is creating an article. Thus, RAN created an article, though we can't say for certain whether it was at the first or second edit.

As to the comment by DHeyward, I believe the reviewing admins have no discretion not to block RAN once it's determined he's created an article.

The TL;DR is that even if the result is that whether to block or how much to block is per the reviewing admins' discretion, it doesn't mean they need a compelling reason for that decision. Just that they can't abuse their discretion when making that decision. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: On a hunch, I ran a search of RAN's contribs with the tag filter, mw-removed-redirect, which displays all contribs where he removed a redirect from a page. There were six instances of this tag in total. While there were some innocuous cases, there were also ones that were probably violations of the remedy in the same way as Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey:

• Mayor of Chatham, New Jersey: created 2 Jan as a redir, redir removed 3 Jan (there were a great many subsequent edits adding more content).
• Sáenz: created 8 Dec as a redir, redir removed two minutes later (!!!). In particular, I note that the unreadable content appear to be copied-and-pasted blurbs from the ledes of numerous Misplaced Pages articles, without proper attribution to those articles. While the "article" created is a dab page, I think this, more than any of the others, is a violation given the original case had to do with copyright issues.

I don't think we're in "this was a one-time error of judgment" territory anymore. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Bishonen and Dennis Brown: I won't say I'm not sympathetic; I think, in general, admins carrying out actions should have some discretion to consider something to be inconsequential. Part of the problem is the way the remedy is written (and as Thryduulf has made abundantly clear, this was intentional and designed such that enforcement would be nondiscretionary). I understand that normally AE is where we deal with requests for applying DS, and as such the practices here are such that reviewing admins will try to come up with creative ways of preventing further disruption. But this isn't one of those cases, and as such the procedure is different. With regard to the ambiguity concern I noted above, had there been any actual grumbling about whether the inconsistent phrasing was intentional or a scrivener's error, I would have suggested that this be referred to ARCA on something similar to a "certified question" process; that is, someone would open an ARCA asking only whether blocking under the remedy was mandatory if there was a consensus that there was a violation.Again, I'm not unsympathetic. As I grumbled quite vocally yesterday at AC/N in regards to a community-imposed restriction that would supposedly automatically kick in were the editor in question unblocked, I believe that prospective/conditional sanctions are generally a bad idea and should be considered suggestions. However, when the sanction is crafted by the Committee after deliberation and is voted on by a quorum of arbitrators, I believe the usual concerns I have regarding such "consensus preempting" are significantly less than with an AN/ANI discussion. My suggestion would be, if RAN believes the mandatory nature of the block is unfair along these lines, he should immediately open an ARCA asking for the Committee to reconsider. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SN54129

Mendaliv's diffs are pretty convclusive on what the curent affair hinges on, viz. whether RAN's actions were accidental and isolated, or deliberate and ubiquitous. For the future, it might be worth considering the extension of the current topic-ban (or a re-definition) to include the creation of redirects as well as articles. If nothing else, it would remove the temptation to then expand the redirect into an article, which, it would seem, is so strong. >SerialNumber54129 13:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

This is the first time I have heard of a provision that says a user must be blocked for a violation. Such a provision makes a mockery of "discretionary sanctions", which are supposed to be, um, discretionary.

Here's what happened here. There was an edge case which was used (or abused, depending on one's POV) by RAN. His last violation was 4 years ago. There was no attempt to discuss this matter with RAN prior to coming here. No damage happened to the encyclopedia.

Instead of draconian months-long sentences, it would be better to warn them that this loophole cannot be exploited in the future, and let it go. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: My mistake about the DS part, however that just shifts the question elsewhere. Why did ArbCom phrase its motion as "must be blocked", which is highly unusual, to say the least? The original remedy uses a standard language of a topic ban. Violating a topic ban does not result in a "must be blocked no matter what" situation. In the discussion, I see no Arb even commenting on this very unusual provision.

The whole situation is absurd. I have enough experience with ArbCom to know that they're capable of writing remedies which nobody understands, not even they. I call for IAR and NOTBURO here, and a swift change in the absurd wording. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Let us separate out two things. First: what must be done, and second: what, in your opinion, should be done. You wrote the very unusual remedy saying that the block must be instituted. I don't think that was wise, but that's beside the point. I realize that Arbs can do whatever they want, but I leave it to any normal person to decide if a violation 4 years after the last sanction should result in an unconditional 1 month block. I think it is self-evidently absurd, but I won't argue the point.

As for the "spirit" of the motion, the motion said that unless RAN cleans up their mess, their topic ban won't be lifted. They haven't, and it hasn't. Besides that, you can't really control what any editor does on Misplaced Pages (except banning them completely). If the motion's intention was to force RAN to do nothing except clean up their mess, then it should have been written directly. I think that we can conclude that many years after the fact, the desired behavior will not happen. This situation should be accepted, rather than harassing RAN over unrelated things into doing something he clearly doesn't want to do. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

Irrespective of the circumstances leading to creation of those pages by a user who was supposed not to, the articles are well-sourced and inherently encyclopedic. They would surely survive AfD, hence should not be deleted for administrative reasons (WP:CSD#G5 was suggested). We are not a bureaucracy. — JFG 04:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Francis

• Re. Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey:
  1. I reverted the article to a redirect, that is a redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs.
  2. I kept Category:Sheriffs of Monmouth County, New Jersey as a category on the redirect, moving all other content to the Monmouth County, New Jersey article.
  3. In that article I placed a {{Split portions}} tag under the Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs section header, suggesting to split portions of that section to Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey. The Split portions tag contains a "discuss" link to Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey if the proposed split needs further discussion.

Reasoning: G5 delete is not mandated, but returning to a redirect seems best (per SoWhy and others). Per the original RAN case, any editor may assume responsibility for content created by RAN: I did so by placing it in the Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey article, where I expect it to be edited (especially trimmed) mercilessly and/or to be split out again (e.g. to Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey). I leave that responsibility to others (e.g. JFG feel free to adopt the content created by RAN, by undoing all my edits to both Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey and Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey – I'd keep a somewhat longer "summary" of the Sheriff article at the Sheriff section in the Monmouth County article though, than the merely two sentences that used to be there) while the content intricacies are a bit far out of my league. It is also possible to revert this edit by RAN where he decimated the Sheriff section in the Monmouth County article, replacing the bulk of its content by a {{See}} link to their newly created article (e.g. Rusf10, if you'd feel the extended content I now placed there is too extended it is perfectly possible to return the content of that section to the state before RAN messed with it). AFAICS none of these actions, nor the ones I did on these two articles, nor the ones I proposed or suggested, need admin (and even less AE) intervention: regular editing processes can take over from here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Re. "I can envision RAN coming back after his block and just reverting the pages again to his preferred version ... " – I understand. Reasonably, RAN could support the split by saying so at Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey (if nobody performed the split before they come out of their block). The scenario you portray may:

1. happen before anyone else converted the redirect to an article: in that case RAN is up for an incremental block I suppose.
2. happen after someone else converted the redirect to an article: nothing to be done at AE I suppose (unless RAN fell short of any other remedies of their ArbCom case in the process). As for the extent of the Sheriff-related content in both articles, use normal methods to come to an agreement. If you need help arranging, trimming or extending content, just ask me or, preferably, someone more versed in this type of content. If needed, after trying other routes, escalate to ArbCom.

In other words, I suppose I understand that admins don't want to overreach in this AE procedure. Whether or not the current redirect is deleted makes little difference IMHO, anyone could pick the content up from the (revision history) of the article where I moved it. Also taking the current redirect to WP:RfD would be possible: I suppose, however, that most admins would consider a delete merely as a result of this AE procedure (i.e. without taking other steps) as inactionable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Justlettersandnumbers

I'm not familiar with the history here, and this may not be the right place to raise this anyway. At a very quick first glance, what I see is:

• A large open contributor copyright investigation, more than six years old
• Unattributed copying of Misplaced Pages content in the original diff supplied by Rusf10
• Unattributed copying of Misplaced Pages content, as noted by Mendaliv, at Sáenz
• Full, detailed and patient explanation of the need for attribution on RAN's talk-page in 2011 – e.g., here
• Unattributed copy-pasting from a Public Domain source with this edit.

That's in a few minutes of looking. Those three problems are all quite easily fixed, but they raise serious concerns that all of RAN's edits since the CCI was opened in 2011 (of which there seem to be around 60000) may also need to be scrutinised. It looks as if admins should consider whether he should be blocked indefinitely to prevent the possibility of any further damage to the project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

• The request has merit. Creating a redirect and then making this redirect into an article is creating an article. I would impose a two-month block, doubling the previous block duration. Sandstein 06:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Based on Mendaliv's evidence, I'm now considering imposing a six-month block. The evidence shows that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has repeatedly violated his restriction, and particularly in the case of Sáenz his conduct reflects some of the reasons why the restriction was imposed: this is the state he left the article he created in, which is not only a copyvio for copypasting Misplaced Pages content without attribution, but is also badly formatted and contains weird timestamps. Sandstein 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. RAN creates a redirect on December 18, 2017 . On February 2, 2018 he adds a new section to the target article and makes many edits to it. On February 3 another user makes some minor formatting changes to the section. 13 hours later RAN cuts the new section out of the article and pastes it to populate the redirect. Am I missing anything? ~Awilley (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on the research by Mendaliv above and the clarifications by Thryduulf below I think the one-month block is the best path forward, although I agree with Bish about mandated sanctions. I oppose a ban on the creation of redirects as they are harmless and have nothing to do with the copyvios that got RAN here in the first place. I think the block will be sufficient warinng that gaming the system by turning redirects into articles is inappropriate and will result in further blocks. ~Awilley (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: it was the former. ~Awilley (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• This looks an obvious violation and, per Mendaliv, the remedy appears to require a one month block. My gut feeling is to say, "don't do it again," but is the option open to us? GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Sandstein that Mendaliv's evidence shows RAN obviously circumventing his restriction. A long block is in order. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is an obvious violation. A block would be justified, but I am wondering if we need to do a two week block plus a editing ban for creating redirects, since that is what got us here. I think this is within our authority and doesn't require ARCA. This would effectively prevent him from creating any page in main space and would be easy to enforce and addresses the long term problem more effectively. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• What would be the authority for a ban on creating redirects? Also, as noted by Mendaliv above, it appears we are required to impose at least a one-moth block. Sandstein 15:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• And even if it were authorized, a redirect ban would be the wrong choice. Creating redirects, as such, is not the problem here. Creating articles is. And that is already banned. Sandstein 15:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• The authority is that AE gives us the freedom to choose a sanction that best prevents disruption, so by my estimation, we are absolutely authorized to use that as a sanction. A ban on redirects could have been done at ANI for that matter. I get why there might be some resistance, but my goal is to prevent the restrictions from being gamed, which looks to be the case here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• That is not strictly true. Please read the Enforcement provision of the applicable case. That is what applies to arbitration enforcement related to this restriction. ~ Rob₁₃ 20:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Reading it strictly, I see what you mean. It does seem that Arb has hamstrung us into only using blocks as a sanction, which is a pity as I don't feel that is the best solution and I'm not alone in this. This is obviously a situation that Arb did not foresee, and yet here we are. That said, there is an obvious violation, and Sandstein's suggestion of a two month block, twice the previous, would be the only available sanction. Or we could dismiss it, but we don't really have any other options. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOTPUNITIVE, I'm in favour of just an indefinite ban from creating redirects, plus a warning to the user that any further attempt to game any of his bans will result in a long block. But if that's not viewed favorably, I'll support Dennis's suggestion as my second option. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC).

GoldenRing has now imposed a one-month block. We may end up there, but it should preferably not be done while we're still talking, and I particularly don't think it should be done per Thryduulf's reasoning. The ArbCom of 2015, as voiced by Thryduulf, wrote in this motion that "Any article or draft article created contrary to this restriction will result in a block" (my italics), and I see Kingsindian protesting above against this unusual wording. It's not just unusual, it also goes beyond ArbCom's remit, if it's intended the way it sounds, i. e. if it's intended to order admins to perform such a block. ArbCom can't tell admins what to do, they have to ask nicely. The fact that no other arb protested, as Thryduulf mentions below, doesn't make the motion the Stone Tablets, and it's not correct that we (=uninvolved admins here, or indeed any other admins) have 'no alternative but to impose a 1 month block'. Admins always have an alternative. They can do nothing, for instance, or they can impose a milder sanction. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC).

Thryduulf, you don't seem to be answering my main point, which was that ArbCom don't have the power to tell admins what to do. (I did use the word "unusual", but that was by way of introduction, linking my own point with Kingsindian's.) In that regard, it doesn't matter how the motion was worded; if it attempts to direct (or, as Sandstein puts it, attempts to "require") admins to perform this or that action, it's void, because ArbCom can't do that. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC).

• As one of the people on the Arbitration Committee when the October 2015 amendment was passed, my recollection of the intention was:
  • A first violation of the restriction would result in a 1 month block.
  • Subsequent violations would proceed onwards from that with blocks increasing in duration from the 1 month starting point.

  From memory, it is well established that a redirect is not an article and that a prohibition on creating articles does not equal a prohibition on creating articles (or vice versa) unless explicitly noted otherwise. Again from memory, it is equally the case that changing a redirect into an article is creating an article. Moving text from one Misplaced Pages article to a new page, even if that is over a redirect, is creating a new article.

  Whether a disambiguation page is an article or not is a much greyer area, and one that we definitely did not consider when drafting this restriction.

  Given these I do not see any alternative but to impose a 1 month block, even though we did not foresee the restriction being gamed in this way.

  I do not think that AE has the authority to impose a ban on redirect creation, that would need to come from either AN/I or ARCA (and any restriction placed at the former that is similar to or interacts with restrictions placed by arbcom should be noted on the talk page of his case so it's clear if/when arbcom next looks at the case). FWIW though I don't see a need to ban him from redirect creation unless there is a problem with them as redirects. He is already banned from creating articles, and changing a redirect to an article is creating an article. I can see value in clarifying whether a disambiguation page and/or set index is an article for the purposes of the restriction (I don't have a firm opinion at the moment when it either does or should), which unless anyone knows of clear precedent will have to come from ARCA. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Kingsindian: Discretionary sanctions are indeed supposed to be discretionary, but these are not discretionary sanctions. These are specific restrictions placed on a specific user directly by the arbitration committee, discretionary sanctions are an authorisation for administrators to place restrictions, at their discretion, in relation to a specified topic area - neither the nature of the restriction nor the user(s) they are applied to are specified by the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Kingsindian: Looking back at my emails from the time, it seems I was the one to draft the remedy and I explicitly flagged it up to other arbitators in a message to the arbcom mailing list at the time of proposing the motion: "I've noted the enforcement of the two slightly differently, as (draft) article creation is always a deliberate act and so there should be no discretion about whether to block or not, the minimum duration is the length of his most recent one. It is however possible to accidentally move something to the wrong namespace, so I have deliberately left violations of that as "may" not "will" be blocked." There were following emails in the email thread I quote from but there was no comment about this, there was also no comment about it on-wiki from anybody. Yes it's unusual but entire point of the amendment was to force RAN to actually abide by the restrictions placed on him, or as Seraphimblade put it "The spirit (if not the letter) of the original ruling was that RAN was to help clean up the mess, that being, substantially work on the CCI, before returning to such activity, and that it would be wise for him to stay well clear of the line when it comes to copyright and nonfree material, not try to dance right along it." Yet here were are again 2½ years later and he still hasn't got the point - regardless of whether it's bureaucracy or not I think a 1 month block is entirely justified on the merits of his actions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Kingsindian: The key point is that RAN was prohibited from creating new articles with no exceptions, unless and until his mess was cleared up, because by creating new articles he is making more mess. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the "must" nature of the restriction was put in place for the reasons I quoted - it was not thought possible to accidentally breach them (and I still don't think it is possible). For that reason I think that just because it has been 2½ years (not 4) since then is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: yes the "must" is unusual, but I've explained the reasons for it and it wasn't just arbs that didn't object, nobody objected despite plenty of opportunity at the time to do so. I also think that even if it wasn't phrased as a "must" that a 1-month block is justified for what is clearly an intentional gaming of the restrictions. Nothing in the wording permits creating any sort of article by any means. Also, AE does not have the remit to impose a ban from creating redirects in this case, and I don't think one would be justified even if it were. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: arbcom has the power to say how things should be enforced (blocks, ibans, G5, etc, etc), admins have the power to choose whether a sanction needs enforcing or not. In this case the sanction clearly says it is to be enforced with blocks starting at 1 month - i.e. if it is a violation then the enforcement for that violation is a block of 1 month or longer. The 1 month was not arbitrarily chosen - it's based on the length of his preceding block. There is no authority being exceeded here. And as I've said before, a 1 month block for this egregious violation is clearly warrented regardless of whether arbcom or AE chose that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think we have the authority here to impose or modify a topic ban as nothing here is covered by discretionary sanctions. The language of the remedy is very clear and I find Thryduulf's reasoning above persuasive. I have therefore blocked Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for one month. GoldenRing (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I object. Please keep this section open for a bit longer, as I'd like to respond to Thryduulf. We should try to form a consensus here. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC).

• By all means discuss further. I'll be a bit on-and-off this evening UTC but will try to check in every now and then. GoldenRing (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've posted in my own section above. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC).

• This is an interesting case. It does seem like gaming (creating a redirect, then making the same redirect into an article is functionally the same as creating an article, even if the text of the new article is drawn mostly from other articles). But this was not clearly spelled out. I agree with Bishonen that an indefinite ban from creating redirects, plus a warning to RAN that doing the same thing in the future will result in blocks, is sufficient. Neutrality 17:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• The one-month block was the minimum required by the remedy. If anything, it should have been longer, given the repeated misconduct and the user's response here. This is not discretionary sanctions, so we do not have discretion to invent any other sanction. Sandstein 19:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I still agree with Sandstein on process here. What usually "gives us the freedom to choose a sanction that best prevents disruption" at AE is discretionary sanctions; no DS are authorised here. Any ban imposed here would be immediately appealable as lacking authority. Only the community (at AN/ANI) or the committee (likely at ARCA) can impose a new ban or modify the ban here. And, per Thryduulf and Mendaliv's evidence, RAN has clearly been gaming the restriction in trivial ways. The block is richly merited. Because of the brazenness of it, I sort of agree with Sandstein that it should have been longer, but the month is what the committee mandated in the remedy. And though there is a history of breaking the restriction logged at the case page, that history is from before the amendment that mandates the one month block - so I think one month is the right duration here. GoldenRing (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• On the meta question: per WP:ARBAE#Common sense in enforcement, a consensus of uninvolved administrators have the authority to close a report with no action on the ground that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate. That said, I do not perceive any such exceptional circumstance in this case.

  The motion at issue provides that the initial block is to be for "at least one month" with no cap. I agree with Sandstein that this kind of obvious gaming should result in a longer block duration. AE doesn't have the authority to impose a redirect ban directly, but it might be imposable as an unblock condition; however, I don't see that as useful. The problem is RAN turning redirects into articles. Whether those redirects were created by him or by others is immaterial. T. Canens (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• As to content inserted by RAN in violation of the restriction, given the reason for the sanction my view is that it should be assumed to contain copyright violations (and hence subject to deletion) unless another editor in good standing is willing to take responsibility for it (including any potential sanctions if the content is, in fact, found to contain a copyright violation). T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would agree that the spirit of the sanction imposed was that RAN may not create articles. At least to my view, that would not include redirects, but would include anything more substantial than a redirect, including disambiguation pages and the like. However, I also agree on "having it both ways". If we're agreeing that redirects are not counted as articles, then changing a redirect into something more is creating an article. There's no exception based on where the material came from, the restriction wasn't "may not create articles unless the material used comes from another article". So far as length, I would agree that admins can always decide a block isn't warranted, and can't be forced to act. However, if blocked under the remedy as an AE action, the block must be at least the minimum length. Of course, an admin can block on their own accord for a shorter period of time, it just wouldn't count as an AE block in that case but rather as a normal block. In this case, though, I agree that a month is actually lenient, given the clear gaming. This was not some accidental or hypertechnical violation, it was a clear and deliberate one, and it's not the first one. Seraphimblade 21:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• This is an open and shut violation, and no amount of semantic gymnastics are going to change that. Extending the prohibition on article creation to also encompass redirects might be one solution, but I don't think we have the authority to do that here. We could also use our discretion here to turn a blind eye and close this with no further action, but given RAN's rather colourful history I'm not sure that the exceptional circumstances exist to do that. Support a block of between one to two months, and will close this discussion on that basis next few hours per the emerging consensus above if nobody objects before then. Lankiveil 02:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

@Rusf10: I take your point, but on the other hand it is the first violation for a long time. I'd probably have hit harder with the blockhammer as well, but I don't see any compelling reason to pile on the pain beyond what my fellow admin User:Goldenring has already done (I won't object if GR feels it necessary to extend the block a little though). I should note that I intend with the closure to come up with some wording to block off this particular "loophole" for the avoidance of any future doubt. Lankiveil 03:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

@Rusf10: You can try nominating themselves for CSD G5 if you like. It might pay to put an explanation in the tag pointing towards the case and to this discussion to assist the admin who assesses them. I'm not in a space right now where I can look at them myself. Lankiveil 04:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

Apologies, I got distracted last night and wasn't able to do it. I'll fix it up on my lunch break if nobody else has by then. Lankiveil 23:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC).

• 1) I agree with the block, the sanction was clear not to create articles, in any way. Saying "but they were redirects before" does not change the fact that there is an article there now where there was none before. 2) @Rusf10 and Lankiveil: I object to G5 being used to handle these articles. The redirects were not in violation of the sanction, so there is no "ban" to allow admins to delete the whole articles. Just revert them to the redirects they were before, which also serves our readers. While I am sympathetic with JFG's argument of WP:NOTBURO, keeping the articles would send the message that violations of sanctions will be tolerated if the content is good enough (of course, articles with significant edits by others are already exempt to G5 and thus also such a revert). Regards SoWhy 06:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Rusf10: I don't see that problem. If RAN returns and does that, I'm pretty sure he will be blocked again almost instantly because again, the spirit of the sanction is what's relevant, not the wording. Reverting a redirect back to the article he created is the same as creating the article anew. But if someone else wants to use that content and take responsibility, like Francis said above, they should be able to do so per WP:PRESERVE. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is a fairly straightforward one month block. Creating a redirect and then converting it to an article is, effectively, creating an article - it doesn't matter how it's achieved. It would probably be useful to enact a topic ban on creating redirects so we don't end up here again. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: see discussion above - AE cannot impose a topic ban (of any sort) in this case, as this is not discretionary sanctions and topic bans were not authorised by arbcom. Also such a topic ban is not needed as the redirects are not problematic as redirects, RAN is already banned from creating articles and the consensus here is clearly that converting a redirect to an article is creating an article - if he does it again he'll be blocked again for longer than a month. Thryduulf (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TheTimesAreAChanging (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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

1. 26 January 2018 DS on TheTimesAreAChanging "Please be aware that you are now under probation (supervised editing) in the American politics post-1932 topic area, broadly construed until further notice. If you do not adhere to the standards of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS this sanction will be escalated.
2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Edit_warring "Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring."
3. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Behavioral_standards "Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited."
4. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Consensus "Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion" "editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views"

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

The following diffs show TheTimesAreAChanging failing to "adhere to the standards of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS" per his Jan 2018 sanction. Only after his second revert did he go to the talk page, on which there was no consensus for his view, which he continued to edit into the article. See these diffs:

4. .

Diffs giving evidence of incivility or personal attacks, violating ARBAP2 are in the "Additional Comments" section below.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26 January 2018 ARBAP2 probation, observe BRD & Consensus
2. 12 January 2017 Indefinite TBAN from American Politics
3. 15 January 2017 Socking/TBAN evasion
4. 16 January 2017 Block violation. Talk page access revoked

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12 January 2017 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 28 January 2018 by Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Notified concerning the current violation on 6 February 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user had a rough time during his 2017 TBAN, having been blocked for socking to evade the ban and continuing his abrasive interpersonal relations, e.g. on 14 April 2017. He successfully appealed his earlier TBAN via email to Sandstein here . His promise not to resume his disruptive behavior (whether or not in good faith) has clearly not been fulfilled. Within a couple of weeks, he filed this groundless ANI complaint against me: . That's after promising not to resume his lengthy screeds. He then resumed the pointless and poisonous personal remarks on various article talk pages that resulted in his TBAN. Here are some examples with respect to @Casprings: who had filed the AE complaint that resulted in his TBAN, but also with respect to many others, including but not limited to @Volunteer Marek: , me , @MelanieN: and , and @MjolnirPants: .

I think this is pretty straightforward and that the need for a renewed TBAN of some duration is evident.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

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 made three reverts, not in 24 hours, to an article not under DS. With regard to the underlying content dispute:

SPECIFICO repeatedly and falsely claimed that in a January 31, 2018 statement, Twitter informed 1.4 million Americans that #ReleaseTheMemo is "Russian disinformation." Twitter's actual January 31, 2018 statement—titled "Update on Twitter's Review of the 2016 U.S. Election"—clearly states that Twitter actually notified 1.4 million Americans that they interacted with Russian disinformation "during the election period" and says nothing about the January 2018 #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag. In fact, the very source cited by SPECIFICO states: "Twitter said in its response that a 'preliminary analysis of available geographical data for Tweets with the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo ... has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to tweets posting original content to this hashtag.'" Although in my talk page comments I was careful to assume that this was a good faith mistake, at this point SPECIFICO's tripling down on a plainly inaccurate claim after it has been explained to her seems like deliberate source falsification—if not an outright attempt to bait me—which should be sanctionable. SPECIFICO claims that there is "consensus" for her edits, but the talk page and edit history tell another story: Even editors that originally agreed with her, such as Mr. X ("OK, let's just take it out.") and My very best wishes ("I do not think this is a an obvious misrepresentation, but yes, one can argue this should be excluded from the lead") changed their minds in response to evidence that she was mistaken. (So did BullRangifer, who thanked me for correcting him with my second revert.)

In addition to me, My very best wishes and Sarek of Vulcan also reverted this content in the lead. Under those circumstances, I am not sure why SPECIFICO or anyone else would feel justified in restoring it without consensus, or why my repeatedly reverting it would be the sole problem: The BURDEN is not on those who oppose it to achieve consensus that the content doesn't belong, but rather the opposite. SPECIFICO may argue that Nunes memo should be under DS and that I should therefore voluntarily restrict myself to 1RR. However, if the article was under DS, then SPECIFICO would not have been able to reinstate challenged content without consensus, as she did.

Finally, this edit—in which SPECIFICO confronts me on my own talk page to request sanctions against me (pinging Coffee)—appears to be a violation of SPECIFICO's AE sanction: "You are restricted to only using WP:AE or an uninvolved administrator's talk page to request discretionary sanctions be levied against another editor."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, Nunes memo (the article this dispute is about) has no DS logged or templated. The edit history shows continuous edit warring by multiple parties, and SPECIFICO reinstated challenged content without consensus. There is no objective criteria by which you could single out my reverts, alone, as sanctionable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I tried to explain that SPECIFICO's claim was false as politely as I could (and all of you can easily confirm its falsehood), but if my responses were excessively uncourteous, then how was SPECIFICO never sanctioned for suggesting that JFG is a "Russian troll"? That's literally the most egregious aspersion I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

While I do not concede that I, rather than SPECIFICO, am primarily at fault in this case, I will point out the essential reasonableness of My very best wishes's proposal below: Since no-one has produced any diffs to allege that I have caused any "disruption" at any article unrelated to Donald Trump or Russia, it would seem clearly punitive to ban me from any topics unrelated to Donald Trump or Russia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

If a topic ban should be issued here, my suggestion would be to limit the ban only by the most recent US history and politics, for example by a couple of last years or starting from US elections in 2016. I do not think editing older subjects by TTAAC would warrant a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging

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

• There are indeed matters of concern here. The reported diffs by TheTimesAreAChanging regarding Twitter are prima facie evidence of edit-warring. Whether this material was correctly sourced or not is a content dispute, as TheTimesAreAChanging acknowledges, but since AE disregards content disputes, it is not helpful that almost all of TheTimesAreAChanging's response is about that content dispute. What's also very concerning are the diffs of personal attacks against other editors, which TheTimesAreAChanging does not address in their response. Editors are at all times, and particularly in discretionary sanctions topic areas, required to discuss content, not fellow editors. Repeatedly casting aspersions against the motives, competence, etc. of others, as TheTimesAreAChanging did in the reported diffs, is unacceptable.

  TheTimesAreAChanging is also mistaken in assuming that the article at issue, including Nunes memo, Trump–Russia dossier, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration and others, are not "under DS". They are all about current US politics and are therefore within the scope of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBAPDS.

  Taking into consideration that this conduct occurred after I lifted a previous indefinite American politics topic ban, I intend to reimpose that ban because it appears to be necessary again. I'm leaving this open for a bit to allow others to comment. Sandstein 20:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Of course the article falls squarely under post-1932 American politics and so is subject to DS, but I think what he means is that there are no page restrictions imposed and so the article was not subject to 1rr or consensus required - and that is quite true. 4 reverts in a day and a bit is still edit-warring, but it does seem the action was a bit more general than just TTAAC-against-the-world. As for the civility/PA diffs, I think they are all from before the probation was enacted, so probably not fair to sanction on that basis (sorry, I'm on mobile so it's a bit faffy to check - they at least go back some months). You'll know better than me, but I'd be reluctant to impose an indefinite tban on this basis. GoldenRing (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The "probation" is immaterial, apart from having been a silly idea in the first place. Everybody who edits DS topics is under probation. And I agree that these edits wouldn't have warranted an indefinite topic ban by themselves, but they do warrant the restoration of one that was lifted with the expectation of improved behavior. As to any misconduct by others, that would need to be examined in a separate report. Sandstein 23:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with TTAAC that this edit is requesting sanctions using a TP, while carefully avoiding the words "request sanctions". While SPECIFICO's restriction was lifted, I'd be grateful if @NeilN: could take a look into whether this is a current problem. GoldenRing (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: The restriction was put in place because article talk pages were being turned into mini-AE noticeboards. Notification is fine, and while pinging is nibbling on the edge, I wouldn't look twice if another editor did it. I'm not minded to warn or do anything else as I've already said to SPECIFICO that I don't expect calls for sanctions to be made in "unusual places". --NeilN 23:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I know we're not supposed to look at content disputes but I have a hard time just closing my eyes to content and blindly counting reverts. My gut instinct upon inspecting the sentence was that TTAAC was repeatedly removing a sourced statement of fact for POV purposes. However when reading that sentence in the context of the entire paragraph I found it to be a pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH (juxtaposing multiple correct statements to imply something incorrect or not supported in sources). That makes me a bit hesitant to impose a complete topic ban, leaning instead for something like WP:1RR for American Politics. However the overly personal remarks in some of the diffs provided push me back toward a topic ban. ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• We don't intervene in genuine content disputes, but blatant violations of our content policies is a conduct problem that we can and should look at. Having examined the sentence in context and the cited sources, I'm having difficulty understanding how any reasonable editor could find the removed sentence not to be a case of OR by synthesis. I would either dismiss this request on the ground of unclean hands, or sanction both parties. T. Canens (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I have taken into account the comments above. The conduct by TheTimesAreAChanging here is very similar to the conduct that triggered my initial indefinite topic ban, namely, as I put it then, "a generally confrontative rather than collegial approach to editing, in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND". Accordingly, the topic ban is reimposed. Because the problems at issue appear to be reflective of flaws of character, rather than specific content disagreements about Donald Trump and the Russia affair, I do not limit the ban to these subtopics.

  I do not exclude that there may have been misconduct by others, including with respect to the Twitter content dispute as noted by T. Canens above, but I don't think that any such misconduct has been adequately documented here with diffs and explanations. A separate complaint about this matter can be made (by anybody who is not topic-banned). Sandstein 11:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)