Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:31, 22 October 2014 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,530 editsm fmt← Previous edit Revision as of 20:31, 22 October 2014 edit undoMarciulionisHOF (talk | contribs)586 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 145: Line 145:
:The statement by Franek K. confirms my impression that they are here to use Misplaced Pages as an ethno-nationalist battleground. We can't write a neutral, collaborative encyclopedia with this mindset. Franek K. is indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) and topic-banned from everything related to Silesia and Silesians. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC) :The statement by Franek K. confirms my impression that they are here to use Misplaced Pages as an ethno-nationalist battleground. We can't write a neutral, collaborative encyclopedia with this mindset. Franek K. is indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) and topic-banned from everything related to Silesia and Silesians. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}

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

===Request concerning Nishidani===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MarciulionisHOF}} 20:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Nishidani}}<p>{{ds/log|Nishidani}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
* ]
* ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
#
## Hypebole and misrepresenting Israelis ("genocide"), -- note: three editors make note of this to him (keep reading).
## furtherance of conflict ("large list"),
## polemical allusions on Israel ("crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim"),
## uncivil use of Yiddish.
## I approached him:
### {{U|MarciulionisHOF}} "Weissglass's words were taken out of context. Here's the discussion with Minister of Transportation", "could you please remove the offensive text"
#
## comparing ("undereported") disputed content from the Arab-Isareli conflict with "challenge Vad yashem accounts of the Holocaust".
#
## Hyperbole repeated ("Genocide"),
## source for "crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim" allusion on Israelis is ,
## irrelevant material, furtherance of conflict ("massacre of ]"),
#
## Incivility ("pull the wool"),
## half-quoting and misrepresenting Israeli notables:
### Nishidani's quote: )
### The source continues: ''but a spokesman for Vilnai said the deputy defense minister used the word in the sense of "disaster," saying "he did not mean to make any allusion to the genocide." ''.
### Three editors explain the misrepresentation further:
#### {{U|MarciulionisHOF}} (The Hebrew meaning of 'shoah' (not 'The Shoah') is disaster, not 'genocide'), (<Itamar Shapira> was indeed fired. Isn't that a big enough clue?)
#### {{U|Ykantor}} "Usually, people refer to the Holocaust the use the term "Hashoa" ( The Holaucaust)"
#### {{U|Ravpapa}} <Yair Lapid>: "What is happening in Israel now is no less than a ''shoa''' - people have to work three jobs just to pay rent.",
## Presents knowledge of real interpretation but rejects this ("use the word 'apple'"),
### NOTE: the logic is backwards. The fruit (original meaning) does not automatically illicit allusions to ].
## furtherance of conflict (Itamar Shapira, a self described "former-Jew"(see Tuvia Tenenbom's book) fired for : "He would make an excellent wikipedian editor").
# Ignoring multiple users' input and use of lengthy soapboxing with several off-mainstream examples (e.g. "Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in Atlanta") which "justify" earlier soapboxing. ("Many sources say you are both wrong.")

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Nishidani: "is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely.";
#Amended by motion 8 to 0,
## Statement by Johnuniq: WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise.
## Statement by Ynhockey: the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors.
## "should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply."

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously topic banned as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict. Also see the block log linked to above.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
Trailing an AE post I noticed these two from ''after'' his topic ban was lifted:
* "everything I read on Israel's occupation reminds me of what I used to read over decades of what happened to Jews in Germany, 1930-39"
* "Just as the Nazi final assault"
The Anti-Defamation League's view of : ''Israel is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, directly or by allusion", "The Anti-Defamation League considers such comparisons to be anti-Semitic.''
* '''Summary of issues:'''
# As of 2014, Nishidani presents knowledge that comparisons to the holocaust are a sensitive matter ("A curator of the museum who happened to mention this fact was sacked.") but still ignores input on this matter.
# A single purpose mind about "genocide", rejecting the input of sources ("Minister of Transportation", "spokesman for Vilnai"="That Vilnai backtracked") and native speakers ("Many sources say you are both wrong."), is another noteworthy problem.

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

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Nishidani===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Nishidani====

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Nishidani===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>

Revision as of 20:31, 22 October 2014

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    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}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Wlglunight93

    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 Wlglunight93

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Wlglunight93 (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:ARBPIA : 1RR violation
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 07:17, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 628418226 by 183.171.175.71"
    2. 07:36, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 630205026 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
    3. 05:23, 19 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 630195365 by 150.203.246.127"
    4. 07:33, 19 October 2014‎ Edit summary: "Undid revision 630204742 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
    5. 03:03, 18 October 2014 Reversion of this edit by Nomoskedasticity
    6. 03:11, 19 October 2014‎ Repeated reversion (after 24 hours and 8 minutes)
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 14:44, 6 October 2014 48 hour block for breach of 1RR
    2. 15:39, 10 October 2014 One week block for breach of 1RR
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Fresh back from a second block for repeated edit-warring in the topic area, this editor has returned immediately to the same behaviour, reverting scores of edits by many editors on many articles, including those on which their previous edits led to sanctions.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Wlglunight93

    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 Wlglunight93

    Statement by AcidSnow

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Wlglunight93

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

    I should note that I'm in discussion with Wlglunight93 by email, so perhaps we can suspend discussion of a topic band pending the outcome of that discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    Franek K.

    Franek K. is indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) and topic-banned from everything related to Silesia and Silesians.  Sandstein  07:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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 Franek K.

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Franek K. (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:ARBEE. Request topic ban from anything to do with Poles and Silesians (possibly Germans too)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Personal attacks, insults, battleground mentality, etc.

    1. 10/21/2014 "Polish shits and propaganda". Self explanatory. Ethnically based insults and personal attacks.
    2. 10/20/2014 I'll just quote it (it's meant to be insulting I think): "Please, teach a little - Misplaced Pages:Competence is required"
    3. 10/20/2014 Basically claims that any Polish or German sources are "propaganda shits".
    4. 10/19/2014 "I know, Polish education has a lower level than in Mongolia (...) but Polish circus please leave at home". Ethnically based insults and personal attacks. I'm guessing he just wants to insult Poles, but manages to insult Mongolians as well.
    5. 10/17/2014 Baseless accusations of "trolling".
    6. 10/17/2014 Baseless accusations of "POV pushing"
    7. 10/21/2014 Claims any source written by Czechs, Germans, or Poles ("occupiers") is unreliable. Evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, unwillingness to follow Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources.

    Claims "consensus", when they are the only person supporting a particular position. Against numerous users:

    1. 9/28/2014
    2. 10/17/2014 This is same diff as #5 above, but in addition to calling people trolls, once again Franek K. claims he has "consensus" (it's just him)
    3. 10/20/2014
    4. 10/17/2014


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 1/24/2014 Blocked for 72 hours for pretty much the same thing on a related but different article.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.:
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 1/31/2014 by Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months. See above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Franek K. is a WP:SPA who's active on articles related to Silesia and Silesians. Aside from the constant barrage of insults, personal attacks and accusations, discussions with this user always end up fruitless because of their habit of claiming that they have "consensus", even in situations where they are the only person supporting a particular edit, and multiple other editors disagree with them. This invocation of "you must get consensus" (to disagree with me) is a classic way of trying to WP:GAME Misplaced Pages policy by preventing anyone who Franek K disagrees with from editing articles related to Silesians.

    There's also a slew of diffs I could supply from the discussions at Silesian language, where it's more of the same - insults, personal attacks, accusations of trolling and POV, and of course, that he has "consensus" (despite the fact nobody agreed with him). It's sort of old stuff though, from Jan-March of this year. That incident led to Franek K. being blocked for 72 hrs by User:Kevin Gorman for "(editwarring and tendentious editing after multiple warnings)". It also led to a discretionary sanctions notification and a comment from Kevin which can be read to say that anyone receiving the notification is on a 1RR restriction on any article relating to Silesians or Silesian language. Of course Franek K. has failed to observed this restriction.

    It's quite possible that Franek K. is a sockpuppet of this indef banned user LUCPOL as they share the same obsession with Silesian separatism and also the same insult filled approach and insistence that any sources written by Poles or Germans cannot be used. However, that account is stale so SPI/checkuser would be useless.


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Diff

    Discussion concerning Franek K.

    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 Franek K.

    I know that the matter concerns me, however, user Volunteer Marek this constant bickering, very many edit-wars (dozens) against dozens of other users, very many controversial editions in many articles concerning Polish, German, Silesia and related and against dozens of other users, also had many blocks. This is not case: Franek is bad and Marek is prude. I should wear a lawsuit against his actions, but...

    Returning to the case. My terms of "Polish propaganda" and other similar are not personal attacks. I live in Poland, I am Pole and a teacher at school and I know - most of informations by POlish authors about Silesians and Kashubians is propaganda. You did not even realize the gravity of the situation. Marek also live/lived in Poland and bases its knowledge on propaganda. For typical Poles, Silesia in Polish region (completely in Poland, which is inconsistent with reality), Silesians are Poles (despite the fact that half of Silesians live in Germany and does not even know the Polish language and in Czech Republic and a lot of Silesians declared Silesian nationality) and Silesian language is "gwara" (even not dialect, this is sub-dialect, Polish gwara miejska = English urban sub-dialect). Polish sources are meaningless, mostly based on an works from the communist era (1945-1990), and often against sources by authors from other countries or Silesians. I would like to even recalled that formerly in Wikimedia Meta-Wiki existed page of "How to deal with Poles", officially as humour but there is much evidences that the Poles were taught incorrect information, see also hundreds of edit-wars with Poles in the historical articles. I would like to point out that I also dealing with the Kashubians. I advocate a neutral point of view. User Volunteer Marek push only Polish version, for example: Silesians are Poles and dot. I support neutral version on based on Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, for example: according to Polish side, Silesians are Poles, according to Germans, Silesians are Germans, according to many Silesians, Silesians is separate nation. Case of Silesians, Kashubians, Moravians is disputed, Misplaced Pages must show more reviews, not only Polish.

    Please see situation, for example Template:Slavic ethnic groups. For a long time there was a version of the article (commonly called a "stable version"). This is not my version, this version was before my coming, see history of changes. One day Volunteer Marek come and change template: very controversial change, changes Silesians in the Poles. Other users - in this case, I - reverted this very controversial change according to the Misplaced Pages:BRD and Volunteer Marek begin edit-war. Also user Tutelary reverted version by Volunteer Marek. This is only one example. What do I do? Franek K. (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

    @Sandstein: this is not battleground, see above. Poles, Germans, Czechs, Silesians, Kashubians and Moravians are parties to the conflict. User Volunteer Marek push only Polish version, for example: Silesians are Poles and dot. I support neutral version on based on NPOV, for example: according to Polish side, Silesians are Poles, according to Germans, Silesians are Germans, according to many Silesians, Silesians is separate nation. Case of Silesians, Kashubians, Moravians is disputed, Misplaced Pages must show more reviews, not only Polish. Franek K. (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Franek K.

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

    Based on the ethnicity-based battleground conduct, I think an indefinite block (as a normal admin action) and a topic ban is in order.  Sandstein  21:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

    The statement by Franek K. confirms my impression that they are here to use Misplaced Pages as an ethno-nationalist battleground. We can't write a neutral, collaborative encyclopedia with this mindset. Franek K. is indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) and topic-banned from everything related to Silesia and Silesians.  Sandstein  07:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

    Nishidani

    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 Nishidani

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    MarciulionisHOF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Nishidani (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
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 13:35, 21 October 2014
      1. Hypebole and misrepresenting Israelis ("genocide"), -- note: three editors make note of this to him (keep reading).
      2. furtherance of conflict ("large list"),
      3. polemical allusions on Israel ("crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim"),
      4. uncivil use of Yiddish.
      5. I approached him:
        1. MarciulionisHOF "Weissglass's words were taken out of context. Here's the discussion with Minister of Transportation", "could you please remove the offensive text"19:30, 21 October 2014
    2. 16:35, 21 October 2014
      1. comparing ("undereported") disputed content from the Arab-Isareli conflict with "challenge Vad yashem accounts of the Holocaust".
    3. 10:50, 22 October 2014
      1. Hyperbole repeated ("Genocide"),
      2. source for "crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim" allusion on Israelis is Historians of the Jews and the Holocaust,,
      3. irrelevant material, furtherance of conflict ("massacre of Deir Yassin"),
    4. 13:47, 22 October 2014
      1. Incivility ("pull the wool"),
      2. half-quoting and misrepresenting Israeli notables:
        1. Nishidani's quote: 'Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai went as far as threatening a "shoah,"the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster. The word is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust,')
        2. The source continues: but a spokesman for Vilnai said the deputy defense minister used the word in the sense of "disaster," saying "he did not mean to make any allusion to the genocide." .
        3. Three editors explain the misrepresentation further:
          1. MarciulionisHOF (The Hebrew meaning of 'shoah' (not 'The Shoah') is disaster, not 'genocide'), (<Itamar Shapira> was indeed fired. Isn't that a big enough clue?)12:41, 22 October 2014
          2. Ykantor "Usually, people refer to the Holocaust the use the term "Hashoa" ( The Holaucaust)"14:13, 22 October 2014
          3. Ravpapa <Yair Lapid>: "What is happening in Israel now is no less than a shoa' - people have to work three jobs just to pay rent."14:40, 22 October 2014,
      3. Presents knowledge of real interpretation but rejects this ("use the word 'apple'"),
        1. NOTE: the logic is backwards. The fruit (original meaning) does not automatically illicit allusions to The Big Apple.
      4. furtherance of conflict (Itamar Shapira, a self described "former-Jew"(see Tuvia Tenenbom's book) fired for inappropriate comparison: "He would make an excellent wikipedian editor").
    5. 15:56, 22 October 2014 Ignoring multiple users' input and use of lengthy soapboxing with several off-mainstream examples (e.g. "Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in Atlanta") which "justify" earlier soapboxing. ("Many sources say you are both wrong.")
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 15:40, 12 May 2009 Nishidani: "is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely.";
    2. Amended by motion 8 to 0, 17:28, 21 July 2011
      1. Statement by Johnuniq: WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise.
      2. Statement by Ynhockey: the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors.
      3. "should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply."
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Previously topic banned as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict. Also see the block log linked to above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Trailing an AE post I noticed these two from after his topic ban was lifted:

    • 26 December 2012 "everything I read on Israel's occupation reminds me of what I used to read over decades of what happened to Jews in Germany, 1930-39"
    • 17:52, 21 November 2012 "Just as the Nazi final assault"

    The Anti-Defamation League's view of Comparisons with Nazi Germany: Israel is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, directly or by allusion", "The Anti-Defamation League considers such comparisons to be anti-Semitic.

    • Summary of issues:
    1. As of 2014, Nishidani presents knowledge that comparisons to the holocaust are a sensitive matter ("A curator of the museum who happened to mention this fact was sacked."10:50, 22 October 2014) but still ignores input on this matter.
    2. A single purpose mind about "genocide", rejecting the input of sources ("Minister of Transportation"19:30, 21 October 2014, "spokesman for Vilnai"="That Vilnai backtracked"13:47, 22 October 2014) and native speakers ("Many sources say you are both wrong."15:56, 22 October 2014), is another noteworthy problem.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified: 20:29, 22 October 2014

    Discussion concerning Nishidani

    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 Nishidani

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Nishidani

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