We have to be careful about personal attacks. With patience I have maintained a clean block log, but I see other editors getting blocked for edit-warring.

Some editors try to insert "conspiracy theories" where they quote a biased author.

There are some editors who openly show bias towards their religion.With wikipedia's "liberal administrators", I have to remain cool. I know these editors are religious extremists, but I have to assume good faith and not WP:BITE the editor.

There is a policy about "verifiability not truth". This is something very controversial. I know about a terror attack in my country where the accused belongs to a particular religion. Editors from that religion will bring sources which is quotes very wrong information. It's difficult to accept these lies.

Some authors write books to make money, they don't care about victims of war,terrorism, conflicts.

https://conservapedia.com/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

At the bottom of the introduction, it says "Clinton is known for her racist remarks."

The source for that is a Slate article where she is being called out for backing the 1994 crime bill.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/bernie-sanders-calls-out-hillary-clinton-for-racist-language.html

Bernie Sanders is the one calling her out for backing the bill. According to their article on Sanders, he is a Commie bastard who shouldn't be trusted. Yet they cite him as a source.

Also, Clinton didn't even address Sanders calling her racist. She completely ignored it and never made a remark.

I recently saw this sick bastard on RationalWiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia#Proposed_addition_to_Homophobia_and_transphobia

http://archive.is/4H5cC

Midnight68 is actually TGComix, an incredibly depraved pervert with an obsession with little girl panties. I personally banned this sick bastard from BOTH forks of All The Tropes and made sure he was globally banned from Orain when Orain was still around because I knew this sick SOB could not be trusted.

I know, I looked this guy's history up, it's not hard to Google.

Even ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA IS TRYING TO WARN THEM!

(check FCP's userpage on ED to see what I mean)

I cannot explain in sufficient detail how glad I am that I'm no longer welcome on that fetid hovel of a wiki, especially since their standards have fallen so far they are buying this sicko's sob story and welcoming him with open arms.

Everyone must be problematic, for there is no "ONE". Combined we are a complex, separate we are non-existent. Destroy the sock puppet. The sock puppet must be destroyed. I will not allow the continuation of this corruption. One cannot criticise the person who sheds light on sock puppetry. One must challenge the master. It is the master who must be CHALLENGED. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Late last year, RGloucester was indefinitely blocked after choo-choo choosing to go on a page moving rampage over the name of a British rail company being changed from First Great Western.

In October 2015, RGloucester came back to apologize for his FIRSTGREATWESTERN freakout and was unblocked at the insistence of a single administrator despite many other administrators and Wikipedians arguing against it.

In December 2015, RGloucester's archenemy Dicklyon was unblocked. RGloucester proceeded to "retire." This lasted all of a week before he was back and fighting over France. When he wasn't getting the escargot he craved, RGloucester then requested himself to be blocked and claimed he had "retired" yet again. This 'retirement' lasted less than a week; he had returned to continue fighting over various French articles.

In January, Dicklyon welcomed back RGloucester after the two of them were on the same side of a Manual of Style-related battle against Darkfrog24.

Welcome back

... I guess. Unretired, like me, after indef block. Life is funny. Thanks for labeling the dark frog's essay as such. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Least said, soonest mended. I hope you are finding editing less stressful than it may have got to before. As for the essay, one must simply call a spade a spade. If anything, it is the equivalent of what we call a PoV fork in the article space. One doesn't get one's way on the main page, and so one goes off to hidden pages to shoehorn one's opinion in. You must've noted previously that I have a strong distaste for underhanded behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 06:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Dicklyon-RGloucester alliance was short lived as RGloucester's hatred for Dicklyon could not be contained and when Dicklyon let his guard down RGloucester launched a renewed offensive, hauling both Darkfrog and Dicklyon to Arbitration Enforcement. RGloucester was giddy at the thought of getting them both sanctioned and tried his best to twist the knife. This resulted in Darkfrog being topic banned from quotation marks and quotation styles and Dicklyon being told to voluntarily stay away from those as well.

Only on Wikipedia could someone be "topic-banned from quotation marks".

RGloucester felt so smug at getting his foes punished that he restored his user page that he had done away with back during his tantrums of 2015.

About a week after being topic banned, Darkfrog was hauled to AE again, this time by SMcCandlish, who had made an enemy for life out of Darkfrog and then tried to ally with RGloucester. As a result of this AE request Darkfrog's ban was extended to all of the Manual of Style.

With Darkfrog out of the way, RGloucester then laid siege on the MoS/Register page that he, Dicklyon, and Darkfrog had been dueling on previously. RGloucester's offensive was reinforced by his ally, SMcCandlish, but instead of the deletion they desired the page was moved to user space.

On February 4th, RGloucester launched a two-pronged offensive; he continued his onslaught against Darkfrog when she was asking questions at AE Talk, and he joined in on a battle over commas alongside an IP editor who had clashed with Beyond My Ken.

On February 12th, Darkfrog made some comments about her topic ban and sighed as she told SmokeyJoe to look at who was responsible for bringing her to AE in the first place. RGloucester saw this and grinned evilly before he hauled her to AE again. SmokeyJoe was appalled.

Is this a skirmish or a proxy battle in some great pathetic game? I am really wondering how the template fits the story. RG, you come across as very petty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to be abused by a topic-banned editor who has not respected the boundaries of the topic ban since it was imposed. Regardless, everyone is petty. To be human is petty. Even petty pebbles can become boulders, and I shan't allow this one to roll over me. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

At AE, some Wikipedians began to question the validity of RGloucester's "unfounded and vexatious", "petty" complaint. Admin Laser brain told RGloucester to find something else to do and stop monitoring Darkfrog. RGloucester was indignant and insisted he just happened to see her comments and definitely wasn't out to get her.

Ultimately, Darkfrog was blocked for a week. After she returned, she was justifiably upset with the way she had been RGloucester'd and began to try and figure out just 'why' she got banned in the first place. Thryduulf decided that Darkfrog had to be playing stupid and was trying to violate her ban and so he dragged her to AE to let some other admin punish her since he considered himself involved.

Laser brain suggested a two-week block, EdJohnston proposed a 1-year block, Coffee came in to support Ed, and finally Spartaz sprinted in and Stone Cold Stunnered Darkfrog with an indefinite block.

It appears that you intend to persist in relitigating your block and discussing other editors despite numerous editors telling this is a vio and disruptive. If you are genuinely incapable of understanding the ban than you cannot be allowed to edit. If, as I suspect, this is some kind of performance art, I would be willing to unblock you in a couple if weeks if you confirm that this tiresome behavior will cease. You have been blocked before and know the drill. For the sake of clarity, this is an arbitration enforcement block. Spartaz Humbug! 23:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The dejected Darkfrog has tried to make sense of the situation and can't understand why the admins she's dealt with made the choices they did against her. Spartaz has threatened to revoke her talk page access if she keeps it up.

With one of his foes destroyed, RGloucester rubbed his hands together and cackled as he talked about filing the "multi-editor AE request" against Dicklyon and Darkfrog.

The Arab-Israel conflict reignites on Wikipedia

Main Case (Talk)

The arbitration case was requested after administrator Malik Shabazz used administrator tools while blocked by Chillum for incivility during a conflict with Brad Dyer, mentioned earlier. Brad Dyer was blocked two days for incivility in the same case, extended to an indefinite block by Floquenbeam just 'cause. The case was straightforward: the admins wanted ArbCom to officially sign off on their desysoping of Shabazz.

Evidence (Talk)

The evidence page is about a different matter. Settleman and Igorp lj present evidence that reputable Israeli news organizations and think tanks are being rejected as not reliable while Wikipedia accepts activist blogs from known fabricators as long as they are anti-Israel. In response, Pluto2012 and Kingsindian present news articles about Jewish activist groups working on Wikipedia and say that they are only defending Wikipedia against armies of Jewish sockpuppets. This seems to be a common defense of popular Wikipedians when caught misbehaving. WarKosign pointed out news articles about anti-Israel activism on Wikipedia.

StevenJ81 complains that "Functionally, WP:Anyone can edit is already dead in this topic area", an opinion seconded by Ivanvector.

Huldra advises that Wikipedia abandon NPOV entirely and adhere strictly to "the International view on the Middle East" because it is so popular and the Jews are just a minority. Now, this is something that I have studied. The "International View" is a fabrication created by Russia in the late 1960s and spread by its agents in the early 1970s to justify the strategic support of atheist Russia for an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood that sought to establish Islamic law over all of Israel. While a small number of writers address this directly (Ion Pacepa, Jeane Kirkpatrick, David Meir-Levy, Roberta Goren), it is far more convincing to read a multitude of old sources from before 1970 and notice the complete absence of evidence for the International View. Huldra also complains about the "new Hebrew names" given to ancient cities, where these "new" names have been the English names for these same places ever since the Bible was translated into English.

Workshop (Talk)

The workshop page in progress has editors suggesting techniques to counteract persistent sockpuppetry. This has nothing to do with the bias in source selection noted by Settleman and Igorp lj. At the rate that the subject of the case is changing, the final decision might be about Gamergate.

Bonus: The Very Temporary Return of Mighty Morphin' Army Ranger

MMAR, mentioned in an earlier post, took up Brad Dyer's cause on Wikipediocracy, was banned there for denouncing Floquenbeam, and was subsequently indeffed from Wikipedia for soapboxing on his own talk page.

The Lightbreather case has been slowly moving forwards and some Proposed decisions have been made. (Fun fact! Arbitrator Thryduulf said they have received over 830 emails relating to the Lightbreather case.)

There's a boatload of drama related to this case so I'll try to focus on this recent flare up regarding part of the proposed principles section on dealing with harassment:

Responding to harassment

9) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are harassing them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Serious harassment (limitations)

10) Neither the community nor the committee is well-equipped to deal with threats to health and safety, whether made on- or off-wiki. On-wiki steps are usually limited to reverting, page protection, and blocking. The advice about denying trolls and vandals applies equally to harassers. Additionally, the Wikimedia Foundation have issued guidelines for responding to threats of harm. Editors can also notify their local law enforcement and consider lowering their profile until the threat is past.

These two proposed principles raised objections from arbitrators and, but of course, the peanut gallery on the Talk page.

Bosstopher made a comment that GorillaWarfare purged for a BLP violation, but she restored most of it upon request. After the restoration, he continued to criticize ArbCom for not taking a bolder, sterner approach to off-Wiki harassment. He was told the Top Men of Wikipedia had investigated, and was advised to read further up the page, where the issue had already been discussed. Fluffernutter said the Top Men were unable to reach a consensus, Thryduulf replied that ArbCom and the Top Men all agreed it was harassment, and GorillaWarfare confirmed no one could agree on the matter.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz decided to throw in a sardonic comment. He then began tossing out salted meat to bait the arbs, NativeForeigner tried to explain why Hulla's fear-mongering was invalid, and Thryduulf said that allegations of harassment/misconduct don't warrant outing a person.

EvergreenFir also weighed in on the two "harassment" principles, asking what should be done if an admin dismisses the harassment claims. LFaraone replied that they couldn't set policy and had requested the community to "create and maintain a page containing practical advice and guidance on dealing with serious harassment." EvergreenFir admitted he didn't even read down that far (obviously got too upset over the harassment sections), and wants them to make a new section "urging" admins to take allegations of harassment "extremely seriously," concluding with complaints that the "gendered nature" of the harassment had been "effectively removed" from the proposed decision. Thryduulf called him out for putting undue weight on sexual harassment compared to, say, racist harassment. GorillaWarfare chided Thryduulf for making that observation, and EvergreenFir spilled more salt about "gender disparity and conflict" on Wikipedia and that it was a "problem" that "gender is erased from this case."

Djembayz thinks they need to hire professional HR moderators if editors "must remain silent about charges of criminal behavior".

Chess guffawed that Lightbreather was complaining about off-wiki stuff when she tried to dox someone.

Barberio complained about the FBI's advice to go "low profile" being included in the principle, and Robert McClenon concurred, saying it would only encourage more harassment. Chillum testified that that was the case for him.

Mark "Reichstag" Bernstein, not content with caterwauling about the Gamergate terrorists, began crying about the Lightbreather case on Twitler, where he was soon joined by Protonk and Tarc, who couldn't resist throwing more salt about Masem. Reichstag decided to involve himself on-Wiki as well; he made sure his well-worn Spider-Man costume was properly fitted and headed to his position atop the Reichstag to spout his desire for the two harassment sections to be "immediately withdrawn," and threaten that if they should be allowed to remain it could "cause lasting harm" to Wikipedia.

Already at the top of the Reichstag from his asinine Gamergate behavior, Reichstag Bernstein began to build an improvised tower atop the historical building out of his used soapboxes. Roger Davies tried to coax Reichstag down, but instead Reichstag furiously climbed even higher on his teetering tower.

Davies once again tried to talk him down, but Reichstag continued to climb.

And do you not see how this explicitly privileges white cis male editors? That they’re free to edit on Wikipedia, while everyone else may be subjected to off-wiki harassment and, if that happens, it now becomes the victim’s responsibility to avoid confrontation and de-escalate? If they happen to have WikiCred, they must abandon it; if they have tools, they must lose them; if they have a content dispute, they must compromise or accede. And, as you know, some of my colleagues were literally driven underground by harassment, some of it from Wikipedia servers. I know about your cranes. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Davies calmly responded by saying 'white cis males' get harassed as well, and GorillaWarfare jumped in to say everyone may get harassed, but some get harassed more. Reichstag continued climbing like King Kong, with more fear-mongering, hand-wringing, and SJW rhetoric.

In response to the fatuous display by Mark, EvergreenFir started to climb, caterwauling about "identity harassment".

After spilling his spaghetti on Twitter, Protonk scooped it up and came to throw it around the Talk.

Horsefeathers!

Update: The salt is flowing! Reichstag and Protonk now badgering Molly/GorillaWarfare on Twitter. GorillaWarfare called out Reichstag for 'mansplaining' to her.