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 14:09, 15 June 2018 editBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,245 edits →Result concerning Calton: five edits for one sentence. You can tell it's my day off.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:18, 16 June 2018 edit undoיניב הורון (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,309 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1,003: Line 1,003:
* *
{{hab}} {{hab}}

==Talatastan==
<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 Talatastan===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|יניב הורון}} 22:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Talatastan}}<p>{{ds/log|Talatastan}}
<!--- 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 You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#
#

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
User doesn't care about ARBPIA restrictions. As soon as the sanction expires, he comes back to edit the same articles. An indefinite block might be necessary.--] (]) 22:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Talatastan===
<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 Talatastan====

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

===Result concerning Talatastan===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*

Revision as of 22:18, 16 June 2018

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP: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
    341342343344345346347

    François Robere

    More editing restrictions on the article applied. Editors need to adhere to all of them CLOSELY as the next step will be topic bans or blocks. Future reports need not delve into past history. Diffs and a clear statement for admins on how the edits violated a restriction will suffice. Essentially, editors should be very hesitant to make unilateral edits to the article if they suspect their edits will be opposed. --NeilN 17:08, 12 June 2018 (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 François Robere

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    François Robere (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
    Article under "consensus-required" sanctions for any changes: Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Change in editing restrictions - please read
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 14:53, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
    2. 14:55, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
    3. 15:47, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. —12:03, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
    2. — 12:21, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
    3. —17:58, April 23, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
    4. — 09:38, May 13, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User François Robere has made these three changes, even though the article is under strict consensus-required prior to any changes sanctions. This follows a pattern of editing by François Robere, where he continues to BLANK-OUT entire sections of text even though many of the statements have been agreed to on the talk page, such as this example here: Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG, yet user François Robere goes in and blanks the text as in this edit listed above , or REMOVES text, which was restored after he removed it previously, several days back. In short, these three edits were made without gaining a CONSENSUS on the talk page first, as required by the discretionary sanctions, and follow an pattern of disruptive editing.

    Extended content
    • One quick note in response to user Icewhiz's comments below regarding me — the talk page comments Icewhiz listed in his statement below, have NOTHING to do with the edits made by François Robere on 2 June 2018, and are simply a red herring. They do not pertain to the same text and are UNRELATED, so I'm a bit perplexed as to why user Icewhiz is bringing them up. Also, it is not breaking the rule to revert edit which was made without consensus, pls see here: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. and Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. --E-960 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • A second note regarding Ealdgyth statement, it is NOT TRUE that the article statement in question contains "self-published and non-mainstream" references as she states, and most certainly not the text that user François Robere REMOVED in the three edits above, as a matter of fact here (below) are the two sources which backed up the statement that François Robere REMOVED , this statement was also agreed on in a discussion Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG:

    Winstone, Martin (2014). The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi rule in Poland under the General Government. London: Tauris. pp. 181–186. ISBN 978-1-78076-477-1 and Winson, Chu (24 July 2015). "Review of M. Winstone: The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe". H-Soz-Kult. Retrieved 2 June 2018

    So, if this statement had RELIABLE SOURCES, why did François Robere just REMOVE it, without initiating a discussion on the talk page first, and without gaining a consensus. The comment by Ealdgyth, is a red herring, because it distracts from the fact that user François Robere just BLANKS-OUT text without initiating a DISCUSSION and gaining CONSENSUS as the article discretionary sanctions now require. --E-960 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Note to Slatersteven, there is only ONE editor who BLANKS-OUT text and it is François Robere, the discretionary sanctions are clear you DO NOT remove text unless you initiate a discussion and get CONSENSUS. So, to argue that this AE is only singling out one editor is an unfair statement, because it is François Robere, who continues to remove text without getting consensus.--E-960 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    User François Robere was notified of the AE here:

    Discussion concerning François Robere

    Statement by François Robere

    Few points:

    1. Several days ago User:E-960 reverted a series of edits of mine en masse . The edit summary made a false claim about removed material, which leads me to believe that, once more, the user reverted someone's changes without actually reading them.
    2. I started a discussion about the reversal . The user made no policy-backed claims, and at some point stopped replying. Now, eleven days later, they file this AE request.
    3. Change #1 was never out of consensus. It looks like someone's linguistic mistake, and a petty, petty thing to bring here.
    4. Change #3 isn't something I changed before, as I just today finished reading the relevant material. Again a false claim, which suggests the user is more preoccupied with making a claim than with its accuracy - WP:BATTLEGROUND.
    5. Change #2 isn't a new edit, it's a reversal to an old revision that was not challenged, as much as "cheated away" by a third user (This goes all the way back to March, where the same user changed quotes of sources to suit their POV . Note the edit summaries).
    6. I'm not sure what the user is citing under "relevant sanctions". It's not "sanctions", and it's all from before the page policy was changed.
    7. We're left with one edit that supposedly violates the policy. If it does - my apology. I would RFC more of these changes, but there are already 2 RFCs open on the page.
    8. An important question on the application of this policy is whether an editor is allowed to refuse consensus by performing a mass reversal, or whether they must reverse specific revisions? If an editor reverses multiple changes in one go, then there's no way to tell which change/s they object and which just got "caught up" with the others; the policy seems to require the reversals to be self-explanatory.

    @GizzyCatBella: First of all, drop the lingo. This isn't a trial. Second, since May 13th the page went through 150~ revisions. Am I supposed to keep up with a minor linguistic change? François Robere (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    Apparently Bella thinks restoring an RS to an article and correcting a source quote she changed is a "massive assault" mandating a retaliation . WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? François Robere (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Ealdgyth, @Beyond My Ken: I would very much appreciate more administerial involvement on that topic, and I said and asked as much in several ANI/AE cases. That topic is toxic, and Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to have a solution. And no - a global block that will indiscriminately punish editors, and leave dozens of articles damaged, is not the way to do it. We have over 500 active admins - surely there's one who's willing to take that up? François Robere (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    On sourcing (I'm not collecting {{diff}}s, so these should suffice):

    • The Winstone book User:E-960 is referring to above seems to have been included based on a reading of a review . The reasons I removed are explained in this thread, where the user twice accuses me of "forum shopping" because I opened the thread.
    • Point #5 above refers to a blatant distortion of a source, performed by User:GizzyCatBella several times .
    • Here's a list of sources brought to one discussion, where I marked the sentences that were quoted by the editor along with their surrounding text, to demonstrate "cherry-picking" (in some cases in blatant contradiction to what the source actually says). It's followed by some short notes on misattribution and unreliability of sources follow.
    • Here's a discussion on whether Facebook posts by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland are RS on WWII history.
    • Here's a discussion on a source that's so bad, it has only two reviews on Google Books: from the subject's children, urging readers not to believe it.

    Just a few recent examples (plus one not so recent, but major). How many hours have we spent on these discussions? François Robere (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    @NeilN: Two questions:

    1. What's considered "consensus" for the purpose of this restriction? I would usually think a discussion is enough, but you previously expressed the position that a formal procedure like an RfC is required. If that's the case, then we'll be seeing a lot of RfCs - which can itself result in a "disruptive editing" complaint.
    2. Would massive reverts count for this purpose? In other words - if I make a series of small changes and someone reverts all of them at once, do I have to assume they object all of them? I suggest requiring editors who perform a mass reversal to explain their reasoning on the TP in addition to the edit summary.

    One final note: This is not a common restriction on Misplaced Pages, so I suggest making clear that editors new to the page are to be warned before having sanctions imposed on them. François Robere (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by GizzyCatBella

    I would like to clarify - “3 Change #1" FR is using as an excuse. In that past I did dispute the word “fighters" replacing it with word "soldiers" that had been reverted today by FR. here It is not a “linguistic mistake,” but a fundamental change and accused is well aware of that. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    In response to Icewhiz comment below --->

    This:

    • “Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don’t make the edit."

    Does NOT say:

    • “Consensus required: all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits made after May 26 that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don’t make the edit."

    So no, your line of defending FR is wrong.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    @François Robere We have to stick to the new rule, so what makes you unique? And also, it just "happened" that you used the exact word "fighters" again? Having the alternatives such as combatants for example or partisans or even belligerents/warriors? No, it seems to me that you knew precisely what you are doing.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    @NeilN:,@Ealdgyth,@Sandstein: please take your time to read this, it may help you correctly assess the situation and help to understand what VM meant by saying "blatant misrepresentation and manipulation". I'll stick to very latest interactions with Icewhiz but comparable circumstances go back 2-3 months.

    A quick background first: In occupied Poland, the Nazis imposed a death penalty for every Pole helping Jews, including the family of the helper. This information is universally acknowledged by anyone familiar with Polish WW2 history and easily referenced. Data about the death penalty imposed on Poles in the article about Nobel peace prize nominee Irena Sendler was there for years and read like this:

    • "This work was done at huge risk (helping Jews), —since October 1941—giving any kind of assistance to Jews in German-occupied Poland was punishable by death, not just for the person who was providing the help but also for their entire family or household"

    On June 3rd, I noticed a tag requesting reference for that statement so I went ahead and inserted the citations trying to match the exact wording. ,, (I have read one of these books) So what happened next? Icewhiz removed not only the sources I supplied but also the entire information with edit this summary:

    • "POV pushing. SYNTH - coverage not on Sendler. First source is cited twice (duplicate) and doesn't mention Sendler in this context. The second source is about the death penalty for printing newspapers, not helping Jews."

    Icewhiz then commented on talk page :

    • "Misuse of sources - In what appears as a POVish hagiography, the following was entered into the article, the google-books search term rather betraying the intent. The first source, cited twice for some reason, is not about Sendler - so it is WP:SYNTH. The second source mentions the death penalty for printing newspapers, not for helping Jews, and is thus not connected to the sentence at all."

    Well, so I restored the information and attached 5 further references ,,,, plus an image of an actual German poster from 1941 announcing such policy. All in English, all published books by historians, clearly backing the information.



    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Icewhiz

    As presented, not a violation, as the prior diffs presented (some over a month ago) were prior to the "consensus required" provision being added. FR's edits were not challenged by reversion since the consensus required provision was enacted on 26 May following an edit warring report filed against E-960.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

    Further note, following being challenged by reversion, FR took it to talk.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    I will also note, that E-960 has -
    1. Supported content (Revision as of 15:18, 25 May 2018) about Jewish actions against Poles sourced to a blog by Jan Bodakowski - a fellow who has "interesting" views on feminism and who has received some coverage in research literature in regards to a blog post on "Jewish Nazism" Uprzedzenia w Polsce (Prejudice in Poland).
    2. Revision as of 09:48, 2 June 2018 - suggests inserting content based on a WP:QS WP:SPS (described as propagating a myth and anti-Jewish tract in RSes who mentioned this briefly) - of an example of " Jewish agent provocateurs, and simple snitches" - based on the words of a Polish policeman, who collaborated with the Nazis, who was convicted for murder - and who attempted to justify his act murder with this claim regarding the victim prior to being convicted.
    Repeatedly suggesting/promoting such sources raises serious NPOV/CIR questions.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    In regards to GCB stmt above - if FR broke the consensus required provision on material that was apparently disputed between the two of them over a month ago (prior to this provision being enacted) - then E-960 broke the consensus required provision when he reverted FR today - Revision as of 16:12, 2 June 2018 and Latest revision as of 16:16, 2 June 2018 - as the content was challenged by reversion by FR.Icewhiz (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    Some examples of the use of WP:SPS / blogs / questionable sources by GizzyCatBella:
    1. - opinion piece or blog on defunct web site (but is available on personal website of author) - connecting a BLP to Russian agents, and communist secret police collaborators. No engagement on Talk:Peter Vogel (banker).Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    2. - letter published on Glaukopis website after History refused to publish it. Challenged as BLPSOURCES, and reverted. See subsequent BLP/n discussion.
    3. - Use of self-published documents by Mark Paul. See RSN on Kurek and Paul, and subsequent RfC opened on this matter.
    4. - iUniverse book by Ewa Kurek. See RSN on Kurek and Paul. The statement (Poland being the only country with...), incidentally, is false and has been demonstrated (refutation by examples from other sources) as such in discussions with GCB going back to April at least - discussion in Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland, in the RSN discussion linked, in Talk:The_Holocaust_in_Poland, following attempts to insert this on Revision as of 05:57, 11 May 2018, Revision as of 16:15, 11 May 2018 - the same content (more or less), the same false claim - was inserted into three different articles (The Holocaust in Poland, Collaboration in German-occupied Poland‎, and Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust). over a space of a month - each time necessitating a new discussion on why the sources weren't appropriate (self published, or other reasons) and a refutation of the content itself.
    5. - restoring references to personal website of Anna Poray. See BLP/n discussion (for Zegota), and Fringe noticeboard discussion for the article on Poray herself that was up for AfD.
    6. revdelled 22 May 08:10 (so no link) - restored copy-pasted content from Mark Paul's WP:SPS.
    7. - use of "Haf Books" - a young company founded in 2017 that doesn't seem to have done much else. The book itself is very heavy on graphics and illustrations.
    Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Beyond My Ken

    Is anyone keeping count of the AE actions brought related to Germany and Poland in WWII, generally with the same cast of characters? And this is despite the fact that there are already discretionary sanctions in place which cover this subject area (i.e. ARBEE). Is it possible that the number of AE complaints would be lessened if administrators started to take advantage of the additional powers they have under discretionary sanctions to help quell disruption? I am in general a supporter of the work done by our admins, but I think that they need to step up their games in this area, and do so quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Ealdgyth

    Unfortunately, I'm too involved in the area to take admin action (even though my editing has been very minor), but I'd like to note that there is a lot of usage of self-published and non-mainstream sources that definitely needs looking into. There is also quite a lot of personalizing of disputes and casting aspersions against other editors. While it probably isn't yet to the point of "ban them all" ... it's rapidly approaching that point. Certainly, there is little incentive for non-involved editors or admins to wade into this to give opinions, because the tone of editing by those most heavily involved is so poor. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    E-960 - my statement was in general across the entire editing area, in response to Beyond My Ken's statement above. And, as an aside, I'm a she. I'll just note that this sort of instant-accusation/jump on the other editor is an excellent illustration of why third party uninvolved editors and admins are likely avoiding the area of German, Polish, and Jewish interactions in World War II. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    @NeilN: - I'd prefer not to say "sides", but rather there are some users definitely using too many SPSs and they do tend to edit from one viewpoint at times. But, not all of the editors from that viewpoint necessarily are trying to use SPSs, but all sides tend to be doing entirely too much "editing by google search", if you know what I mean. There's also a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH happening, where one incident in history is being used to generalize about an entire aspect of history, without actually having sources that make that generalization. There's a lot of hyperbole, a lot of aspersions, and, yes, it's toxic. The whole topic is complex and subject to a lot of real world angst, so it behooves us to be especially careful and discuss from the best sources, rather than internet web sites, self-published sources, and sources that are generally not in the mainstream of academic thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    I'll point out I don't read Polish so I've stayed out of evaluating Polish language web sources - no matter who has brought them to the table. Yeah, I can use Google Translate, but too much nuance is lost so I've stayed away from those sources ... which all editors seem to use a bit too much instead of academic sources. We really should be avoiding news reports in any language as a source in this area - there is so much academic writing on the topic that it's hard enough to master that. And I'll reiterate - the ideal method of editing should be to ... read the foundational academic sources. Even a Google Scholar search is no substitute for reading entire sources, so that the background isn't lost. I'm afraid that too many folks editing in this area do not appear to be even trying to do that background reading. (And I'll freely admit I'm still working on it... just got in several more books on the subject area ... am trying to get through them in my copious free time.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by slatersteven

    As an involved ed I agree with the above. It is becoming very toxic over there. It is not just one ed or one side, and I feel at this state that any action that singles out one ed it what is a content dispute will be unfair. I think therefore (I cannot remember where it was said to be take last time AE I thunk) this needs to be looked as a general issue now. It is getting to the stage where it is hard to tell what is being argued over, and DS have not really solved the problem.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Volunteer Marek

    To answer NeilN's question: the issue is not the use of questionable sources, as it is blatant misrepresentation and manipulation of sources. The source may be reliable. But Icewhiz in particular, just keeps claiming that they say what they don't say.

    Here's one example, which is straight up, serious BLP violation. This is on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz:

    In this edit March 21, 2018, Icewhiz added the text:

    In 2018, Chodakiewicz warned that the 50 year anniversary of March 1968 events would be used by American Jews to "launch another anti-Polish campaign of hatred".

    He provided four sources: , , and .

    Two of these sources are right/far-right publications (fronda.pl and prawy.pl). I don't know what the other two are. This is strange, since Icewhiz keeps insisting that he only wants to remove "fringe" and "far right" and "nationalist" sources. Yet here he is ADDING exactly these kinds of sources. To a BLP. Why? Because he wants to make the BLP subject look bad, so he's got no qualms about using obviously non-RS, ideologically suspect sources that he claims to abhor.

    Two of these sources (fronda.pl and tysol.pl) are really the same text, an article written by Chodakiewicz. The third (pch24.pl) is mostly also a reprint of this article.

    NONE of these sources say ANYTHING about "American Jews". I expect AE admis don't read Polish, but this can be verified by searching the articles for "Ameri" or "USA". It doesn't appear. What Chodakiewicz says is that "western media run by neo-Stalinists" and Polish "post-communists" will launch this campaign. Yeah, Chodakiewicz is right wing, and thinks western and Polish leftists unfairly attack Poland. But that's a far cry from saying that "American Jews will attack Poland", which is what Icewhiz put into the article.

    This claim does appear in the fourth source, prawy.pl in the headline. But this is a far-right, anti-semitic, publication which misuses Chodakiewicz's article for its own ends. Why is Icewhiz using a far-right, anti-semitic, clearly unreliable source - while at the same time claiming hypocritically in other places that his goal is only to remove such sources - in a BLP?????? Because it helps him push his POV and attack this particular living person.

    So we have a combination of the use of blatantly unreliable sources by Icewhiz, with a misrepresentation of sources. To be perfectly clear, I have no love for Chodakiewicz, he's a right wing Trump supporter and ideologically very far from myself. But just the sheer obnoxiousness, dishonesty and hypocrisy, not to mention the violation of Misplaced Pages policies, with which Icewhiz approaches this subject pisses me off and gets my Misplaced Pages panties in a twist. Nobody who thinks that these kinds of tricks and stunts are ok should be editing Misplaced Pages, and certainly not a controversial topic such as this one.

    This is an obnoxious BLP violation and the fact that Icewhiz calls it a "mild form of OR" (cuz you know, falsely accusing someone of anti-semitism is just "mild OR"!) aggravates the violation of policies.

    500 words, I know I know. But this has been sitting here for week+ and hasn't been addressed. In particular I really want admins to look at Icewhiz's behavior that I describe above. It's a gross BLP violation on an article under discretionary sanctions. Icewhiz misrepresented sources to falsely accuse a subject of a BLP of anti-semitism, (by changing "western neostalinists and Polish post-communists" to "American Jews"). He also tried to use a blatantly anti-semitic, far-right source to bolster that claim, despite his claims elsewhere that his purpose is to remove such sources. When he was called out on it here, he described it as "a mild form of OR". Because apparently lying with sources to smear a living person as an anti-semitism is just "mild form of OR". This shows he does not see his actions as problematic and has no intention to act differently in the future.

    He's also going around now and claiming Polish sources should be removed per WP:NOENG but he had no qualms using Polish sources as a way of attacking a BLP . It's pure hypocrisy and cynicism. After I posted this here, he chilled out for a couple of days, but once it started to look like the admins here were not going to do anything he resumed his attacks on BLPs of historians that disagree with his extremist views. Gunnar S. Paulsson (and ), Norman Davies, and also Ewa Kurek. Now some of his edits on these articles may be justifiable. But there are plenty that aren't and taken as a whole it's one obvious attack by Icewhiz on multiple mainstream scholars (Polish, Swedish, British) whom he decided should be attacked because what they wrote doesn't let him push his POV.

    At the very least we need a topic ban from BLPs related to this topic for Icewhiz, or this is just going to get worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by K.e.coffman

    I've been involved in these disputes, specifically around the use of works by Mark Paul, whose academic credentials are unknown. He seems to be exclusively published by "KPK - Toronto", which is the Polish Educational Foundation in Canada, an advocacy group. There was an RSN discussion about Paul (RSN:Paul & Kurek), but certain editors, such as GizzyCatBella and Tatzref were not convinced. To the point that

    • I inquired with Tatzref about his affiliation with KPK, to which he did not respond: KPK Toronto.
    • I asked GCB to elaborate on the credentials and views of Mark Paul. The response to the first question was not convincing ("Some think he is a monk") & there was no answer to the second question.

    My conclusion is that Paul's views are borderline fringe, yet his works are aggressively promoted throughout Misplaced Pages. I support the suggestion by NeilN here. For example, some of the disputes have been around Zegota, the Polish underground organisation to aid Jews. There's an English-language source available, by Gunnar S. Paulsson, Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945, which mentions Zegota 30+ times. And that's just from a cursory search.

    In addition, the works of many Polish scholars have been translated into English by this point, such as The Warsaw Ghetto: A Guide to the Perished City, Yale University Press, 2009 by Barbara Engelking and Jacek Leociak (800 pages). The bottom line is that many high-quality sources on these topics are available. Why not use them, instead of arguing about questionable, self-published and / or fringe sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Tatzref

    Since Tatzref's name has been invoked, one must look carefully at and assess the activities of the invokers. There appears to be concerted, in tandem, ideologically driven enforcement activity going on involving the issue of Polish-Jewish relations. For example, the “Bielski partisans” article, where Icewhiz, K.e.coffman and Pinkbeast keep removing an acclaimed book by Bogdan Musial, a professional historian with academic credentials, yet retain books by journalists (Duffy) and freelance historians (Levine). Why? According to Icewhiz Musial's book is a “fringe work”. According to Pinkbeast, "it's part of the same POV-pushing exercise”. The impugned book is Sowjetische Partisanen 1941–1941: Mythos und Wirklichkeit published by Ferdinand Schöningh (2009), a highly regarded German publishing house. According to Yehuda Bauer, Musial's book is “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia. (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). Dutch historian Karel Berkhoff stated that the book will likely remain a comprehensive description of partisan warfare in Belarus due to its large source base. This is “fringe”? Similar deletions of references to information found in Marek Chodakiewicz's The Massacre in Jedwabne, of primary sources, and of an authorized statement by prosecutor Radoslaw Ignatiew occurred in the Jedwabne pogrom article. Chodakiewicz's book is one of a very few (of very many publications on the topic) that was mentioned by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his 2010 book Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press). In the article Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944-1946, text referring to the findings of a pioneering recent study property reclaiming under the 1945 law on abandoned property, Klucze i Kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950, published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and edited by Jan Grabowski and Dariusz Libionka, was also removed. Do such comments and activities have any validity or credibility? Are they supposed to dictate the content of Misplaced Pages? What is the affiliation of these users? How are they connected? They appear to be pushing the same agenda. As Misplaced Pages points out: "Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own."Tatzref (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    Result concerning François Robere

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Just noting that I am not reading the "Additional comments" by the filer because the combination of an aggressive tone with ALL-CAPS SCREAMING and a wall of text gives me a headache. The request is borderline disruptive. Sandstein 18:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Taking into considerations recent submissions I am of the view that the whole complex of issues involving POV and sourcing in Poland-related articles is too complicated to address at the editor level here. This seems to be a mixture of good-faith content disputes and possible conduct problems on the part of several editors. I'd support a page-level restriction as outlined by NeilN below. Sandstein 07:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Before I read Ealdgyth's latest post on the subject I was mulling over adding restrictions analagous to WP:MEDRS. That is, requiring the use of higher quality sources. This and related articles document decades-old past history. There's no reason why editors need to go to glorified blog posts or questionable partisan publications. I'm aware of François Robere's sometimes problematic editing in this area but as seen from past AE reports, they're not alone. So, two proposed restrictions:
    • Only the highest quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers.
    Independent of this:
    • Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans.
    --NeilN 18:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree and would consider limiting this to English-language academic sources. A recurring problem in this topic area seems to be a reliance on fringe sources. Sandstein 18:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC) – To be clear, I don't think that Polish-language sources are inherently unreliable, but they can't be evaluated by most admins here, including me. That impedes arbitration enforcement insofar as source reliability is concerned. Sandstein 18:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sandstein: I am sympathetic to your sentiments and share them, along with the concern that source misrepresentations will try to be passed off as "differences in translations". However I won't personally impose a restriction that supersedes a policy, guideline, or BRD (as opposed the strengthening them) without prior evidence that it's needed and I don't think we're there yet. I think we should just reiterate WP:NOENG ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance") and stipulate that we will go to Google Translate if we really have to if source misrepresentation is alleged. --NeilN 20:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've cut down all the statements to the allowed maximum of 500 words because this is not the forum in which to address all the possible sourcing and conduct problems in this topic area. That would probably need a full ArbCom case. Limited to the specific conduct at issue, I myself would take no action but leave it to NeilN whether he considers his restriction violated and wants to take action, and whether he wants to impose an additional sourcing restriction such as the one proposed above. Sandstein 12:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    @François Robere, E-960, GizzyCatBella, and Icewhiz: and other editors: Is there anything about this you find unclear? That is, an edit (new addition, removal of long-standing material, change to existing material) can be done once and if it's challenged, no one can make the same or similar edit without gaining consensus? Also, you understand the more extensive your edit, the greater the likelihood someone will take issue with part of it and revert the whole thing? --NeilN 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Icewhiz Per my note, if anyone adds something then anyone else can challenge it before four to six weeks are up and require consensus for the addition. After that time period, if anyone removes it then anyone else can challenge it and require consensus for the deletion. Yes, this places an extra burden on editors but it also prevents tag team edit wars and promotes article stability and discussion.
    • François Robere 1) A formal RFC is not always required but two editors agreeing and one editor disagreeing in a conversation spanning two hours isn't going to be accepted as consensus either. Listen to each other and I suggest you find an editor most of you trust to be neutral (MelanieN seems to play that part on Trump articles) that can help guide you as to how consensus can be found (not what consensus is, but what level of discussion is needed to find it). 2) If someone has done a "massive" revert then you've done a "massive" change. In this case, you can open discussion with, "X, you've reverted all my changes. Do you object to all of them or only specific ones?" and go from there.
    • As to warnings, the standard discretionary sanctions notifications should suffice. I hope editors will be kind to each other and give an editor who has a good or empty record a chance to self-revert before reporting them. The American Politics editors, while disagreeing vehemently on many, many things, usually extend this courtesy to each other if the editor hasn't abused this courtesy in the past. --NeilN 16:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    Calton

    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 Calton

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    D.Creish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Calton (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#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Repeated personal attacks in edits to American Politics articles:

    • Identity Evropa "Your inability -- or pretense thereof -- to understand plain English is not my problem."
    • Alexander Downer Personal attack in edit summary: "No, genius, I said nothing -- zip, zero, nada -- about the source. Pay attention: WP:DUE for the purpose of insuation which, again, has fuck-all to do with reliable sources. Any more non sequitors?"
    • Lana Lokteff He restores an unsourced "white supremacist" label in a BLP (The source uses "white nationalist.") Personal attack in edit summary: "Far left? Cool, way to out yourself."
    • He continues the edit war. Personal attack in edit summary: "Please don't make shit up about VOX. The talk page awaits you."
    • Continues. Personal attack in edit summary: "Your link doesn't say what you claim, so yep, making shit up. Talk page? Have you heard of them?)"
    • Continues. Personal attack in edit summary:"I DID prove it: you pretended not to understand it."
    • Prostitution in the United States Personal attack in edit summary: "Get over yourself and your persecution complex. Repeat: per WP:UNDUE"
    • Continues attacks on editor's talk page with Section title "Your garbage edits"; "Making shit up about other editors's motivations for basic quality control isn't go to fool anyone, son."
    • Andrew McCabe Personal attack in edit summary: "Thought you could sneak out the Russian-contact mention, eh?"
    • Alexander Downer Removes content sourced to thehill.com with edit summary "Save this insinuating crap for Breitbart News.
    • Political correctness Personal attack in edit summary: "You've got an ax to grind? Find a blacksmith."
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Many previous blocks for personal attacks and incivility

    • Blocked in August 2006 for "repeated personal attacks"
    • Blocked in September 2007 for "Persistent incivility and taunting of other users"
    • Blocked in November 2007 for "Continued incivility and taunting after previous block"
    • Blocked in August 2008 for "Incivility"
    • Blocked in September 2009 for "Personal attacks or harassment"
    • Blocked indefinitely in March 2013 for "Personal attacks or harassment: racist edit sumamries & general awful attitude to others"
    • Unblocked after "Assurances given that offensive epithets will not be repeated"
    • Days later "Per ANI discussion. The consensus on ANI is any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block"
    • Blocked in April 2015 "Further use of edit summaries to make disparaging comments about other editors, after being clearly infomred that doing so would lead to another block."
    • Blocked in January 2016 "Personal attacks or harassment"


    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 29 2017
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Despite many warnings and blocks editor is unwilling to refrain from personal attacks.

    In suggesting they won't consider this report, Black Kite and Seraphimblade do a disservice to the editors against whom these PAs were directed which includes established wikipedians @HiLo48:
    As far as my own comments and edit summaries, I'm not concerned as long as they're evaluated objectively - PA on talk page vs PA on article page under discretionary sanctions; pattern of PAs vs a single example; unblock on the condition that further PAs would result a block vs clean block record; and so on.
    Maybe an excess of good faith but I can't imagine a single offensive response to an editor who ignored my request to stay off my talk page will be judged more harshly than continuous incivility across the project. D.Creish (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    Extended content
    I saw the one PA and checked recent edits then his block log but given the IP's list of complaints and number of editors complaining it's mind boggling that he's still editing and continues as if nothing's wrong.

    (Redacted)

    I'm at a loss. Pinging @RegentsPark: who was the last admin to unblock. D.Creish (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    NeilN: I don't know procedure so please collapse those excerpts if necessary but I think it's relevant that the problem continued for "more than ten years." I'm not asking admins to address the earlier behavior but the current behavior in the context of earlier behavior that suggests the editor has no intention of stopping. Their only response (below) is to argue the PAs were appropriate. D.Creish (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Calton

    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 Calton

    I can already see where this is going, so I'll only say a few things, unless otherwise required.

    • Lana Lokteff involved a brand-new account (User:Hansnarf, with 5 edits, and their previous IP) edit-warring to remove "white supremacist", despite sources -- a constant problem on this and other pages about alt-right and white-supremacist pages. Amusingly, the editor proclaimed one source as invalid because it was from a "far-left" website (VOX), despite the fact that their own "proof" of this didn't say what they claimed. I did make a mistake: I didn't notice that the VOX source wasn't attached directly to the lede, so I have fixed that. My apologies for not noticing.
    • Identity Evropa involved yet-another brand-new account (User:Barbarossa139, with 29 edits) edit-warring to remove "Neo-Nazi", despite sources and the talk page, with wikilawyering demands that I show where in policy the term "whitewashing" appears. I don't play that game, where someone establishes a false framework and demands that I justify it.
    • Continues attacks on editor's talk page with Section title "Your garbage edits": that was from indef-blocked Miacek (talk · contribs) -- whom you may remember from here, odd how D.Creish leaves off the name -- who left this bad-faith gem on my talk page:
    Eager to just pick up a fight, yes?
    A pretty much a textbook case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING I guess . What next? Gustav Naan? Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes? Miacek (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

    This is all I care to respond to unless necessary. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

    Maybe it's not directly a matter for this page and maybe it's just me, but does anyone else find this entire conversation just a tad suspicious? --Calton | Talk 06:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    Addendum: Given @Sandstein:'s comments, I'd again urge him to take a look at this entire conversation on D.Creish's talk page. --Calton | Talk 13:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    @GoldenRing:: I'm also not seeing the equivalence between an account with a clean block log who has made one uncivil remark and an account with a log as long as your arm covering 10+ years with 10+ diffs of recent incivility that would lead to equal sanctions. If the block log is your only measure, then you really really haven't been paying attention to the conversation. Look above your comments for some context. --Calton | Talk 13:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Dave Dial

    Most of the links given by D.Creish are of Calton rightly making sure some of the articles concerning or about white supremacists/neo-nazis/racists remain NPOV, without obvious whitewashing. Some edits reverted were ips, obvious sock accounts or throw aways. If anything, D.Creish should be topic banned. One of his examples he writes:

    Lana Lokteff He restores an unsourced "white supremacist" label in a BLP (The source uses "white nationalist.") Personal attack in edit summary: "Far left? Cool, way to out yourself."

    In the NPR source it states:

    Asked how she would pitch the alt-right to conservative white women who voted for Trump, but are also wary of being labeled a white supremacist, Lokteff told her, "we have a joke in the alt-right: How do you red-pill someone? ("Red-pill" is their word for converting someone to the cause.) And the punch line was: Have them live in a diverse neighborhood for a while," Darby says. "She also said that when she is talking to women she reminds them that white women are under threat from black men, brown men, emigrants, and really uses this concept of a rape scourge to bring them in."

    The edits of D.Creish and the editors he is defending really speak for themselves. This is absolutely an attempt to rid these articles of editors that know the subject so they can more easily be whitewashed. Dave Dial (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by SPECIFICO

    I urge Admins here to take a close look at the DCreish account's history and behavior on Misplaced Pages. Here is his editing history profile This ID has few edits, but an extraordinarily high proportion of aggressive AE, AN, and other noticeboard complaints, and what I evaluate as aggressive and uncivil POV editing and wikilawyering. This is a NOTHERE account, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    Result concerning Calton

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • One of the first things I always do when looking at an AE request is check the contribution history of the editor filing the complaint. On this case, I don't think there's any reason to even go further than that. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Per Black Kite's suggestion to check contrib history, without even looking at any diffs, I straightaway see this: , with the edit summary of "Didn't I already tell you to fuck off? If not, consider yourself notified." If D.Creish is advocating that sanctions be placed for uncivil comments, I think they might want to carefully consider who that might cover. Seraphimblade 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • D.Creish, providing a long list of diffs, some from more than ten years ago and others having nothing to do with the topic area, is not helpful. This is WP:AE, not WP:ANI. --NeilN 19:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've removed submissions not pertaining to the AE request at hand. If you want to present general and old editing history then open an ANI discussion separate from an AE request. We are focused on specific topics covered by discretionary sanction here. --NeilN 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I am minded to turn this around and TBan D.Creish instead. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Since I've been pinged. The unblock referred to by D.Creish was back in 2013 and is way too long ago to be germane to this discussion. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I think I missed a memo somewhere. Can someone explain the enthusiasm for a boomerang against D.Creish? Yes, that one diff provided by Seraphimblade is not good but it's one diff. If everyone who reported here had to have a clean history, we could almost mark this page as historical and focus our energies elsewhere. --NeilN 20:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • We could, but seriously, look at the history. D.Creish involves themselves at one contentious article or another (Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, Men's rights movement, The Hunting Ground, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Murder of Seth Rich), gets involved in various AE and ANI shenanigans around those articles, then disappears again. A while later, they pop up again, find another article ... rinse and repeat. Their very first edit was this, with an edit-summary invoking WP:COATRACK. Hmmmm. No, I don't expect people bringing AEs to be sparkling clean, but this report is a waste of time; let them bring it to ANI, and let's see what happens there. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not necessarily suggesting a boomerang. More just how frustrating I find it when people will happily dish it out, but run straight to AN-(insert letter here) when they get a bit of their own medicine in return. It's rather like when someone reports to the edit warring noticeboard, and both of them are well past 3RR. And realistically, I find Calton's comments to be somewhat abrasive, but not really what I'd consider attacks. But if the level of discourse you practice is "fuck off", you'd probably best not be too surprised when people in turn speak that way to you. Seraphimblade 22:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've blocked Hansnarf (talk · contribs) for 48 hours making accusations of racism against Calton after warnings and several opportunities to just stop. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Calton's edits reported here fail WP:CIVIL, particularly in a contested area, and they have a relevant sanctions record. On the other hand, Seraphimblade above cites an edit by D.Creish that is at least as problematic, and D.Creish seems generally to be here to engage in political drama. I'd either topic-ban both for a month or take no action, depending on what other admins here prefer. Sandstein 13:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with Sandstein that Calton's edits are not acceptable. This is from an editor who has been repeatedly, over a period of years, unblocked on the basis of assurances that "offensive epithets will not be repeated" and "any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block" (quotes from the block log). The message has clearly not gotten through. I appreciate that the objective of their recent editing has been good, but this is not a license to be offensive. I'm also not seeing the equivalence between an account with a clean block log who has made one uncivil remark and an account with a log as long as your arm covering 10+ years with 10+ diffs of recent incivility that would lead to equal sanctions. I'm sorely tempted to simple block Calton indefinitely as a normal admin action; the history more than warrants it. If other admins object to this, please say so here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • As Misplaced Pages's resident civility enforcement fundamentalist, I can hardly disagree with this argument, but my experience has shown that lengthy civility blocks, particularly against long-established editors, are among the most controversial admin actions and can generate an inordinate amount of drama, perhaps because it signals to very many editors that Misplaced Pages is not in fact their private playground but a work environment - a collegial, collaborative project among adult professionals. That's not to say that the drama isn't occasionally worth it. So feel free to go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Sandstein 10:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • No, don't do that, for goodness' sake. I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that indeffing someone for an incident in which they were not even the worst behaving party would go very, very, badly indeed - especially given the existence of this and similar. I agree with Sandstein's original point. above - either topic-ban both for a month or take no action. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    My Lord

    No action. Sandstein 13:07, 13 June 2018 (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 My Lord

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Farhan Khurram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    My Lord (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    I am finding his editing style to be too aggressive. His reverts are accompanied with attack terminology on other users' edits, words in the edit summaries include "useless", "irrelevant", "pov", "pseudo".

    1. 13:29, 6 June 2018
    2. 13:27, 6 June 2018
    3. 09:59, 5 June 2018
    4. 04:23, 6 June 2018
    5. 17:23, 11 April 2018
    6. 17:10, 11 April 2018
    7. 17:03, 11 April 2018

    He is also too ready to assume bad faith of others. He makes unsubstantiated accusation of socking on another user and accuses another of edit war.

    1. 08:19, 8 June 2018
    2. 16:33, 7 June 2018

    But what I find most concerning is the misrepresentation of talkpage discussions and false claims of consensus for their preferred page versions.

    1. My Lord (previously called Anmolbhat) added this content on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus but was reverted and told by administrators to get consensus for it because it was contested by other users. He has now restored that content without consensus and has even cited this talkpage discussion in his edit summary as a justification for his mass revert even though the talkpage discussion shows no consensus in favour of his content. This is a deliberate misrepresentation, which I think is disruption.
    2. This is by no means the only article where he has behaved disruptively like this. On Violence against women during the partition of India he made a contentious edit with an edit summary saying "see talkpage for consensus" even though there was no consensus on the talkpage in favour of that edit.
    3. There are other examples too of this disruption which in my view amount to tendentious editing. On Kashmiris he removes content with a similarly fictious edit summary, citing a talkpage discussion which does not actually support his version.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. User was blocked for violating the copyright policies.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I am finding that this user's editing behaviour in relation to other users is just too confrontational. This "you lose buddy" edit summary is just symptomatic of their battleground mentality. They also recently filed two groundless enforcement requests against two users.

    This user has already received multiple warnings for unconstructive editing, disruption, and for pov deletions.

    I would like the administrators to stop this user's disruption on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Violence against women during the partition of India, Kashmiris and Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. In the last one he unilaterally removed a section which was originally merged into the article per a community discussion at AfD. Farhan Khurram (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:My_Lord&diff=prev&oldid=845151250


    Discussion concerning My Lord

    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 My Lord

    Statement by Danish.mehraj26

    Sandstein may be right that the first batch of diffs is not actionable but the third batch is very concerning. He has been falsifying consensus and misrepresenting talkpage discussions to do reverts. He has also removed content from Cow vilgilante article even though it was added there after a community discussion.

    For someone who has already been warned not to do POV deletions and disruption, the kind of disruptive behaviour Farhan Khurram has reported of My Lord doing reverts and falsification of talkpage consensus to support those reverts is disconcerting.

    Here is additional evidence of this user's battleground attitude, in addition to this edit summary. Danish Mehraj 03:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    Discussion by uninvolved editors

    Statement by WBG

    • As Sandstein notes, the first seven diffs are non-actionable.If anything, Anmol shall be commended for some of the edits.Also, see WP:BURDEN and WP:RS.Period.
    • As to unsubstantiated accusation of socking, I'm curious as to whether the OP has missed Anmol's dummy-edit-summary, just 15 minutes after the aspersion.
    • As to the case of edit warring at List of wars involving India, Anmol was acting against the established consensus and I've reverted him.But, I fail to see any shred of evidence where either of the editor(s) has raised the issue at either's t/p or the article t/p and that does not speak good, for either of them.
    • His restoration of content at Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus is problematic.And, it's a sad state of affairs (overall), where wild accusations occupy a majority of any t/p discourse. I tried to mediate but both the sides seemingly dropped the issue, before Anmol came back, out of nowhere, with an illusion of a consensus.(It might be noted that the recently imposed mass-T-bans don't vacate the absence of consensus......)
    • No idea as to the happenings at Violence against women during the partition of India.No comments.
    • I'm curious as to how a copyvio block is a tangentially-relevant sanction but I'll let it go.......
    • It may be noted that the warnings for un-constructive editing, POV edits are way too old, (when he was a newbie) and I've not even looked at the merits of the issuing of the warnings.
    • Danish's diffs for battleground mentality aren't much actionable either, esp. given that the parties at the other end have earned a much deserved T-Ban from the Indo-Pak arena.
    • The last two enforcement request(s), filed by him, though partially frivolous, had aspects of faults from the other parties.
    • As to the case at Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, Anmol was perfect to trim the sections (per the general style of the article) and it's a content dispute, which predictably will snow in his favor, if RFC-ed.
      • Overall, I don't see anything sanction-able, in this report, based on point(s):- 3 and 4 alone.At best, a warning to Anmol to be more careful and a warning to the OP to not use AE as a tool against fellow opposing editors.
      • And, going by the substance of this filing, I would echo Sitush who stated of a tendency to:--run to the drama boards at any opportunity, however tenuous, that might result in an "opponent" being sanctioned.~ Winged Blades 07:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


    Statement by DarSahab

    I have just checked Winged Blades of Godric's statement. His statement says that the first two batch of diffs showen are non-actionable. Agreed.

    But the meat of the problem is in the third batch of diffs. Winged Blades of Godric accepts that the behaviour on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus is problematic. But WBG is silent on the fact that this is a part of My Lord's general trend of disruption on pages such as Kashmiris and Violence against women during the partition of India where he reverts with false claims of consensus and talkpage support in his edit summaries.

    The removal of content on Cow vigilante violence in Indian since 2014 is also a problematic because that content was merged into the aticle per a community discussion on AfD. That in my view is disruptive.

    The warnings cited of POV edits and unconstructive editing are still relevant because they give an idea of the kind of disruption this user has done before and its even more relevant now because he is still doing similar disruption.

    These diffs for battleground mentality are actionable because it shows that he has the same, even worse, behavioural issues as the T-Banned parties.

    I wonder why does WBG on one hand think that its okay for My Lord to say stuff like "You lose buddy" and "That's clear WP:IDHT from you. I had explained it in edit summary as well as here, but you have no concerns about using a weak source for your POV pushing. And when you are telling that others are "censoring" removing content cause they "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" as defense for clear POV content, it is just not gonna help", but on the other hand argue that if others respond in kind they deserve to be T-Banned? Why not just be fair? DarSahab (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    I am adding RaviC to the category of users involved in this style of disruption. He chimed into Kashmiris to repeat My Lord's behaviour with the same misleading edit summary which basically falsifies consensus. There is nothing on the cited talkpage thread indicating any consensus for that version (actually it shows the opposite). Not just My Lord but RaviC is also actively practising this deception and this I believe is disruption.


    Statement by Spasage

    The diffs shown of this user's conduct are enough to convince me that this user is not helping the project. User writes incorrect statements in edit summaries across several articles is not only disruption but also WP:BLUDGEONING. Not just by this reported user but by RaviC as well. I have seen My Lord's talkpage disputes, which he conveniently only began after this AE was filed for being deceptive while doing reverts on the mainspace articles, and having know how of these topics what I have read from these discussions has reaffirmed my feeling that My Lord is bludgeoning. Instead of refuting valid arguments he starts to nitpick and raise red herrings. I feel sorry for the users who are debating him because they are just going to get frustrated with all this. I am also going to add Kautilya3"So this division you imagine seems to be in your own imagination" and Joshua Jonathan"Bullshit" here for incivility and WP:BLUDGEONING of other users. The former accuses a user of WP:OR even when that user referred to scholarly sources/historians such as Gulshan Majeed and Abdul Lone.

    Statement by Obaid Raza

    My Lord's talkpage interactions were highly uncivil. He was let off for this in his last AE due to the intervention of the same sympathetic admin, WBG. Sadly, My Lord has not improved since. There is what other users have reported of his recent and constant lying in his edit summaries. He is still lying and using diversionary tactics, an example is his posting a link to a very recent discussion as an answer to a question about locating support for his version in an older discussion. Its a shame that English Misplaced Pages administrators choose not to act on such disruptive users until the water is over our heads and these users have infuriated everybody else. In a similar case, WBG came to my talkpage to ask for already posted evidence about Kautilya3's disruption. Sadly, Kautilya3's own incivility is continuing in the same places as My Lord. He recently commented at Talk:Kashmiris like this, "So this division you imagine seems to be in your own imagination." These two, My Lord and Kautilya3, are users who repeatedly comment on other users and not solely on the content in their content disputes. When I see such disruption and incivility on Urdu Misplaced Pages I block such accounts as a normal admin action. I would suggest the same approach with both here. Obaid Raza (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Result concerning My Lord

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I've looked at the first seven diffs and don't find them actionable. They contain judgments about content, yes, but this is what we do as editors. Criticizing content is ok, it's criticizing editors personally that we disapprove of. Given that the first batch of diffs is completely non-actionable, I've not examined the rest of the request and would close this without action. Sandstein 21:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

    ‎Netoholic

    No action. Sandstein 13:09, 13 June 2018 (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 ‎Netoholic

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    ‎Netoholic (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#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. June 5, 2018 Just after the recent previous AE, does a massive revert while Template:In use is on the page. Another editor comments to him about it: .
    2. June 9, 2018 Another massive revert, edit summary is misleading.
    3. June 9, 2018 "Begin"s to restore material that had been deleted by consensus.
    4. June 5, 2018 Battleground-y comments, disregard for actual policies.
    5. June 6, 2018 Ditto.
    6. June 6, 2018 Ditto.
    7. June 7, 2018 Ditto, with me replying.
    8. June 8, 2018 Ditto. ("Careful what you ask for.")
    9. June 9, 2018 Uses "throw anything at the wall and see what sticks" argument to say that the page should not include what the author of a study says about her own study.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Just days ago, another AE complaint was raised about Netoholic: permalink. I suggested cutting him some slack, : "In the next several days, I plan to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of that page. In the past, that would likely have led to edit warring. But let's wait a couple of days, and see whether that happens now. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't." On that basis, TonyBallioni closed the thread: (sorry Tony!). Unfortunately, exactly what Netoholic was supposed not to do is what he did, and repeatedly. He had every reason to be aware that DS were in effect. And please note that there was overwhelming support from other editors for the revisions that I had made: , , , , . And before anyone gets the idea to go boomerang-y, I've been trying very hard to be fair to him: , , , . When he added material that I thought should not be there: , I nonetheless made edits to try to improve it: , , , , , , , . (Looking at Talk:Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages#Conservapedia, it looks like this may be happening at other pages too.)

    At the very least, you need to topic-ban him from American Politics, explicitly including "political bias". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

    I want to make it clear that what I am raising here is not about asking AE to resolve a content dispute. Lionelt says that there is not a consensus (cf , ), but there really is a consensus. The page was moved, , on the consensus that it was a POV violation to write it as a stated fact that there is a liberal bias. When Sandstein closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Political views of American academics, most of the "keep" arguments (of which I was one) were conditional on the page being significantly rewritten to address the "delete" concerns that the page was pushing a "liberal bias" POV. And, with the sole exception of Lionelt, every other editor strongly endorsed the revisions that Netoholic is nonetheless working to undo: , , , , . So it most definitely is not just a two-editor disagreement that could use a 3O. This is a situation of a single editor working against a consensus in a manner that is tendentious. Don't decide it on content. Decide it on conduct. If it's OK for Netoholic to revert the edits that all those editors endorsed, when I for the most part am not reverting him, and for him to say of me "Frankly, dishonest writing", , that's not the way I understand DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    Note: To make it abundantly clear that I am not filing this to get my way in a content dispute, I just completely self-reverted all of my edits back to where the page was before I started revising it: . --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    As of today, multiple other editors have arrived at the page, and all have disagreed with Netoholic. Nonetheless, he is engaging in reverts against consensus at that page and others: , , and made the bizarre assertion that the self-stated opinions of a BLP subject (with whom Netoholic disagrees) should be removed on the basis of supposedly violating BLP: . --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    And is edit warring over that, too: . --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning ‎Netoholic

    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 ‎Netoholic

    Statement by Lionelt

    I do not see a consensus. I just see Tryp and Netoholic going back and forth on the Talk page and at the article. Occasionally another editor will chime in with "Good" or "Not good" but I would not call that consensus. I, for one, have voiced concern with Tryp's efforts at the article.

    It's extremely difficult to completely re-write a controversial article from "top-to-bottom." Perhaps even ill-advised. It severely limits the ability to compromise over fine points. Imagine if an editor attempted to re-write Presidency of Donald Trump from "top-to-bottom"?

    Yes, there does appear to be frustration at the page. However I do not see any violations which rise to the level of sanctioning. Our normal dispute resolution process should be adequate. Since this appears to be a content dispute primarily between Tryp and Netoholic, perhaps WP:3O is the solution.

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning ‎Netoholic

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm not seeing actions worthy of sanctions here. Editors are allowed to criticize the writing of others as long as they remain civil in doing so and do not personally attack others. Netoholic's comments here touch but do not cross that line. The other diffs being reported here reflect content disputes, which AE does not decide. Sandstein 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice

    Procedural closure. Not an appeal of an AE action, therefore out of scope of this board. Factchecker_atyourservice blocked for topic ban violation. Sandstein 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Factchecker_atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Factchecker_atyourservice 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Text of false and unsubstantiated aspersions by User:Jytdog in the evidence section of this AE case which resulted in the sanction against me logged at the AP2 sanctions list.
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    Done here.

    Statement by Factchecker_atyourservice

    Request for the comments by Jytdog to be struck out (struck out like this, not removed) in the record of my AE case

    In a recent Arbitration proceeding successfully seeking an AP topic ban against me, a number of statements were made by Jytdog which grossly mischaracterized my editing history, without evidence, while giving a misleading impression of being accompanied by evidence. I seek the striking of these comments, either in whole or in part, from the record of the proceeding. I feel this is appropriate because of the persuasive force of posting a long, convincing-looking takedown with a bunch of links in a top-level administrative proceeding.

    Jytdog does not appear to have looked closely or at all at the subject matters he refers to, and thus the compilation of diffs and statistics is misleading. It's one thing for someone to make an off-the-cuff remark without diffs simply claiming someone has a pattern of abuse, but it's another when a deeply established user shows up to comment on a topic ban case, posts something that looks like a comprehensive overview of an editor's conduct, purporting to offer "review with a solid foundation of context", and then claims he can't find any edits upholding a left-wing POV. This puts me in the position of having to prove a negative by coming up with a long post with a big pile of diffs contradicting the claim of right-wing POV push.

    Outline of complaint
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The general premise of the claim is that I joined Misplaced Pages to combat left wing bias and have never done anything else. He cites as evidence for this that my very first edit was this additing of a FACT tag to a statement in Wiki voice reading that "The government fabricated evidence documented in the January 16, 2002 search warrant and affidavit issued by the FBI."

    This was indeed my first article-space edit, but I didn't arrive at this point because I said, I want to combat left wing bias on Misplaced Pages, let's go find some, here it is. Rather it was because I was reading a Misplaced Pages article and it told me that the FBI had fabricated evidence in referring an American citizen for prosecution on terrorism-related charges, which I found shocking and outlandish.

    Indeed, although Jytdog presents my original username of "Factcheck_4uwingnuts" as further evidence of an ab initio purpose of combating left-wing bias, he doesn't seem to realize that "wingnut" is usually interpreted as a reference to right-wing nuts, not left-wing nuts. Rather, the left-wing counterpart is moonbat.

    This is further explained by another reason I was motivated to edit WP, which was the second article I edited, Copwatch. While Jytdog correctly notes that my edits changed prose saying the guy being arrested was "apparently restrained" to prose that indicated he was "struggl to prevent the police from handcuffing him" and that the cops were "trying to force his hands together". This was simply replacing one WP editor's editorializing with another's. Neither was sourced. (Watch the video for yourself to see if you think the guy was "apparently restrained" or whether the cops were struggling to restrain him.) But going back to the tie-in to the "wingnuts" in my original name, I had seen the WP article but also an external website called copwatch.org (NSFW), which seemed to be an extreme militant right-wing anti-authority website, with a lot of virulent anti-police rhetoric that sounded like Waco type stuff, including, for whatever reason, a lot of stuff about the guy from the other article, Sherman Austin. I edited both these articles on Day 1. That was why I had "wingnuts" in my name.

    In any event, Jytdog then goes on to talk about my time at Sarah Palin and, while presenting diffs that look like they are supposed to be supporting evidence—but without explaining why he thinks my editing was indicative of a right-wing bias—he goes on to conclude "They seem to have come here specifically to address what they perceive as left-wing bias, from what i have seen. There may be diffs of them tamping down POV editing from the right, but I haven't seen that...."

    When another editor replied that the diffs he cited were mostly "exculpatory evidence", Jytdog made no effort to validate his accusations, but instead demanded evidence invalidating them(!), saying "If you have significant diffs of this person serving as a 'Factcheck 4uwingnuts' with respect to anything ring-wingish that would be somewhat exculpatory. It is hard for me to see past the glare coming from the very shiny ax that this person has carried into WP and the sparks that are flying from grinding it."

    Indeed, he seems to have been blinded, because if he had looked past his analysis-free tables and edit counts, or his 90-second "deep dive" of my first couple-hundred edits, he would have noticed that my next 1000 edits were spent being the most ardent anti-Sarah Palin content hawk that ever existed on WP. Indeed, I am present in about 30 talk-page archives and while I have only combed through the first 7 of those for diffs here, I'm confident they're representative of the rest:

    "Moratorium on article material about Palin controversies until after the election?" OH HAIL NO
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    • I complained about a biography being used as a uniformly promotional text (perhaps even ghostwritten) and it's hard to see how it could have any reliability at all. Could anybody help me understand this?" To his credit, Jytdog actually gave credit for this being a "good question", but then this turns to ashes when he persists in claiming he didn't see any sign of me combating right-wing bias.

    Indeed, in the below debates I did virtually nothing but ensure that well-sourced criticisms of Palin made it into the article:

    • I began (or continued) an endless series of arguments in favor of including "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy material. Palin is being held out to the nation as a "reformer" who "opposed pork". The conceivably biased view of her as a reformer is handily balanced by the massive amount of Federal pork funding she sought for such a tiny town and tiny number of people. I think the Federal-dollars-per-person tally comes to about $17,000. If such an extravagant level of spending were insisted upon for all US citizens, we'd have $5 trillion worth of Bridges to Nowhere each year. To put that in perspective, the Federal budget submitted by Pres. Bush for 2009 totals just over $3 trillion and includes all expenditures by the government, including paying down interest on the national debt. Another way to put it in perspective? Obama has pursued similar amounts of Federal pork funding ... but his state contains 18 times as many people as Alaska does.
    • I argued and edited for inclusion of commentary on Palin's support for banning abortion. Nobody has included a claim that she "would ban abortion", "has tried to ban abortion", or "as VPOTUS/POTUS, would have the power to ban abortion." However, her statements on the record clearly confirm that she opposes abortion, supports banning it, and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, thus allowing it to be banned. This is all perfectly accurate; you are arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is. The language used in the article is that she "believes abortion should be banned in nearly all cases" and this is substantiated both by direct quotations and analysis by reporters working for reliable sources. And it's quite relevant to her VPOTUS candidacy as that inherently carries the possibility of appointing Federal judges... and possibly SC justices... both of whom hold power over the issue. The likely inference is simple: she opposes abortion in nearly all cases, thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, supports the rights of states to ban abortion, and, if elected, may be put in a position to influence the judicial handling of the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court level. Hence the serious and direct relevance to the campaign.
    • I argued extensively in support of saying Biden had made himself available to the press adequately and Palin hadn't. Biden has given 90 interviews. Palin has given 3, and they were tightly controlled. Without suggesting any specific guideline for how much press access is "adequate", I still feel pretty comfortable saying Biden's level of press access has been adequate and Palin's has definitely not. I don't really think it's relevant, though, except insofar as it may be the subject of on-the-record commentary by reliable sources. In Palin's case, her unwillingness to be interviewed has sparked protests by some of the most established and reputable news organizations in existence. Given the current scope of this article it should definitely be included in my opinion. I also called for a repeat of a failed RFC.
    • I went on what I called a "large scale weasel hunt regarding a bureaucratic investigation of Palin because I felt that the wording of this section is carefully chosen to distort its cited references and undermine the apparent credibility of the investigative probe while upholding Palin's actions.
    • I argued further for mentioning the above bureaucratic report which accused Palin of ethical violations. When somebody proposed a "moratorium" on any further controversies about Palin until after the election day, I strongly pushed back: Actually, it would do a lot of harm. If there's a moratorium on including material about controversies until after the election, anybody reading this article before the election (which will probably be the majority of people that ever look at this article) will be wrongly getting the impression that there are no controversies. Meanwhile, all manner of positive and supportive material would be fair game, and the article would take on a promotional tone.
    • I argued at even greater length against removal of the controversy on victims paying for their own rape kits. I'm nearly positive that there was no consensus for the wholesale deletion of any mention of the rape kit controversy. Threeafterthree deleted the section all by his lonesome after not participating in (and ignoring) the ongoing discussion. I restored the deleted material and added additional material reflecting both criticism and defense of Palin with respect to the issue. This also involved a very salty complaint about how much of a shameless, POV-pushing, original-research-laden, blatantly promotional article it was thanks to a flurry of effort by at least one McCain staffer in the hours leading up to the announcement of her selection as McCain's running mate

    I also at some point wrote an eye-popping-angry breakdown of an argument I had had with a pro-Palin editor. Looking back on this I'm not especially proud of it, but it is evident that I was arguing at exhaustive length for inclusion of a piece of anti-Palin commentary despite arguments that the source itself was "conjectural" and supposedly thus prohibited by BLP.

    Again, these are just from the first 7 talk page archives in which I appear (28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36). There are something like 23 more. On the eve of the presidential election I was hashing out disputes and putting to bed any last doubts that the controversy on billing rape kits to rape victims' insurance instead of having the police department pay for them (as was previously done) was RS-documented extensively enough for detailed discussion.

    If there is a criticism here, it's that I was too hard on Palin.

    Other topics

    The Sarah Palin article wasn't the only one where Jytdog's superficial presentation is misleading.

    • For example, he lists the fact that I edited the article on Fascism as evidence of trying to oppose left-wing bias, but my time at Fascism was spent arguing against editors who disputed Fascism being described as a right-wing ideology.
    • Jytdog also cites this diff at the article on Michael Brown removing a comment claiming NOTFORUM, and racks this up with the "right wing troll" evidence because I was removing a statement complaining of "certain media outlets" attempting to "criminalize" Michael Brown. But he neglects other edits such as this similar NOTFORUM removal of some trollish comment calling Michael Brown a "drug dealer". Of course there are other edits that you might describe as "right wing", but which were emphatically legitimate, such as opposing the use of a WP-editor supplied Commons photo caption saying a police sniper had his "weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests"—a very inflammatory phrasing not used by any RS—with the adding editor arguing on the talk page that the police sniper was "aiming at the crowd", when in reality he is sitting on a rooftop aiming up in the air and comparable RS descriptions said things like "A police sniper looks over the crowds"
    • Jytdog cites my editing at OWS, but this was not a cleanly left/right issue. If anything it had to do with many of the same competing visions for the Democratic party, i.e. Classical Secular Liberal vs. Progressive, that are tearing it apart today. Moreover, I spent a very great deal of my time trying to compartmentalize material about a splinter group 99 Percent Declaration that grew out of a content fork arising out of the efforts of a later-indeffed sock, User:Dualus—and as interesting side note, this series of events led to my very first block.
    • Jydog cites my POV tagging of the then-revision of "Mattress Performance (carry that weight)" as a "shameful advocacy tract rife with innuendo and unsubstantiated criminal accusations", again as part of a list of supposed efforts to "oppose left-wing bias". But this whole incident, wherein a girl essentially accused a guy of rape via an art project and attempted to hound him off campus instead of cooperating with a police investigation, was hugely controversial and generated a great deal of mainstream news commentary. Again, not a cleanly left/right issue.

    These seem to be the bulk of the subject areas he raises, besides the issues I addressed during the case itself, but since he doesn't present a clearly diff'd claim of POV pushing, I'm reluctant to go digging around further in my edit history looking for evidence of not being a right wing troll.

    In any event these comments are deeply misleading, and since they were posted with such apparent authority at a top level administrative proceeding, I think it is a reasonable request to ask they be stricken.

    Thank you. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by NeilN

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice

    • Two things, one: there is almost no chance of getting an evidence statement from a closed discussion removed. The closed discussion is a record of comments that may/may not have influenced the discussion. As such removing one section would be falsifying the record. Two: when you are topic banned, the exceptions for discussion the topic are for appealing the ban itself. Not for discussing your past editing. So a good portion of your comments are technically a violation. I suggest you withdraw this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    I am asking the comments to be struck out, not removed.
    Moreover, the idea of a hypertechnical "violation" that heaps additional punishment on me for disputing false statements in a permanent record of a case lodged against me seems extremely unreasonable, and I respectfully decline to withdraw the request. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm closing this because it is not an appeal of an AE action, and therefore out of scope of this board. Continued discussion will yield nothing but drama. Factchecker_atyourservice violates their topic ban by making this request because it concerns a dispute that bears on US politics. It is not covered by the WP:BANEX exception because this is not an appeal or request for clarification of the ban, as NeilN noted here. I am blocking Factchecker_atyourservice for a week. Sandstein 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    Calton

    General agreement that the block was controversial in that the BLP issues were unclear enough to be sanctionable, and has been reversed. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (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 Calton

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Calton (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#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    diff showing content Calton reverted:

    1. 23:20, 10 June 2018 1st revert
    2. 00:41, 11 June 2018 2nd revert
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    I don't know if Calton has been subject to previous sanctions. I'm not interested in litigating past disputes.

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 10:04, 29 June 2017
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    These reverts were not only in violation the 1RR restriction but also BLP violations. I had stated my good faith belief and in talk page discussion that this content violated BLP because the sources did not expressly support the content. Calton called this "Bullshit" and repeatedly restored content calling the subject a neo-Nazi based in part on an opinion piece in a student newspaper. Calton has never exactly been a scion of civil discourse. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    Oh sorry GoldenRing, that question was meant for Sandstein. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Examples of how Calton's edits were BLP violations

    Multiple admins have suggested that I explain the BLP problems with Calton's edits, and how I was enforcing BLP by reverting. As NeilN notes there have been some tweaks and changes during the course of this multi-editor dispute so for the sake of clarity I'll focus solely on Calton's two identical edits, diffs above.

    1. Content: "In 2014 he was banned from Hungary and mocked by the Hungarian press for his call to supplant a distinct Hungarian racial identity with a Pan-European white identity." Cited source: (English translation: ) The source doesn't say anything about Spencer being mocked, it doesn't say anything about the Hungarian press, and it doesn't say anything about Hungarian racial identity. It does say, "Spencer erre felvázolja álmát, aminek lényege a Római Birodalom egyfajta felélesztése, az európai egység lenne," which translates to, "Spencer outlines his dream, the essence of which is the revival of the Roman Empire, a European unity." It was explained later on the talk page (after my reverts) that the added content was based on this sentence. But the added content wasn't even close to a fair paraphrase.
    2. Content: "Spencer ... has publicly engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions. Cited sources: First off, this content was redundant as it already said that Spencer is a neo-Nazi, so why do we need to say that he's also engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions as well? That aside, the sources don't bear out the "on multiple occasions" bit which seems like the reason this content was added. The SFGate and Independent sources say Spencer is a neo-Nazi but don't say anything about his rhetoric. The Daily Beast source says Spencer gave a neo-Nazi speech in Florida. The University of Michigan source (a student newspaper of questionable reliability) says he engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric during a campus visit. Finally, the San Diego State University source is an opinion piece in a student newspaper defending people who punch Nazis--a funny piece I actually kind of agree with, but so blatantly unreliable I don't think any longstanding editor should can reasonably support using it as a secondary source. So we have one reliable source saying he engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on one occasion and a second, questionable source saying he engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on another occasion. This isn't the exceptional sourcing needed to justify a blanket statement about "neo-Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions." As I asked in the talk page discussion, why not just say the guy has engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric (citing the Daily Beast source) and leave out the unnecessary and synthy "on multiple occasions"? I got no substantive response, but I was accused of "obvious whitewashing." Huh?
    3. Content: "Spencer has been banned from entering most countries in Europe, including countries whose governments are described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist." Cited source: none. This was the least egregious BLP vio, but a vio nonetheless. The sentence was probably meant as a rough introductory summary of the remainder of the paragraph, but like the above, the sourcing was lacking for its key parts. The paragraph didn't bear out the most important bit about "most countries." This part was a relatively minor a text-source integrity problem as I believe sources cited further down in the paragraph did bear out the "most countries" bit, but the sourcing was opaque. The "including countries whose governments are described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist" part traced to a statement further into the paragraph that Poland banned Spencer and is "often labeled a nationalist or ethnic nationalist state," citing this source. The source said that "Poland has been a surge in nationalist activity" but didn't describe the Poland's government as nationalist or ethno-nationalist. The sentence that Calton added also referred to countries plural whose governments were described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist, and that was unsourced.

    There you have it. A whole lot of derogatory content that didn't reflect the cited sources. That's not to say that this content was false, just that it wasn't adequately sourced. And just to be clear I'm no defender of Spencer, despite the ridiculous accusations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Calton

    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 Calton

    Thank you for the unblock. First, I'd like to apologize for breaking 1RR. No, I didn't realize I was doing so when I did it, but it's not a good excuse. I'll be more careful -- and patient -- next time, even in the face of what I thought was a straight Sun-rises-in-the-East no-brainer edit. --Calton | Talk 04:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    @DrFleischman: This is a 100% clear-cut BLP violation despite the averments to the contrary. Perhaps you could point to all the editors -- here or at Talk:Richard B. Spencer -- who agree with that characterization. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    his was a clear-cut 1RR violation. So were your multiple reverts. Care to own those? --Calton | Talk 05:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Calton

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Clear violation of the 1RR restriction on that article. Blocked for 72 hours. clpo13(talk) 19:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
      • clpo13, just to make one thing clear: DrFleischman wasn't blocked because of a BLP exemption? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • @Drmies: That was my original reasoning, yes. However, discussion on Talk:Richard B. Spencer since the block has me second-guessing that. clpo13(talk) 01:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Hmm, yes, clpo13--Dr. Fleischman is not doing himself any favors there. Actually nothing in that discussion, regardless of which side one believes, points to serious BLP violations that would exempt one from 1R. I think Calton made a mistake, and I am not going to argue against the block, but I also think that Fleischman's revert seems more like CRYBLP to me than a justified overruling of 1R; Steeletrap makes a decent argument and Fleischman is remaining vague and general. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not happy about Dr. Fleischman's conduct in this, nor about the block of only one of the combatants. clpo13, not only discussion on talk but also the editing of the article since the block tends to vindicate Calton with regard to the BLP issues. Yes, Calton made a mistake, and should have read the edit notice. But a block of both would have been fairer. In lieu of that, considering that both editors surely acted in good faith as far as editing the article, please consider unblocking Calton. The reason I say good faith "as far as editing the article" is because I don't like Dr. Fleischman's action in immediately bringing the issue here. Surely the normal principle, and best practice, is to warn a user who violates the 1RR restriction and give them a chance to self-revert, before running to AE? Bishonen | talk 03:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC).
    • I tend to agree with Bishonen here. Calton did violate 1RR, and shouldn't have done that, but if you're going to claim a BLP exemption for reverting, it better indeed be rock-solid. That's not the case here. So we can block both or neither. I would agree that we should just unblock Calton, and caution all parties to use more care in their conduct going forward. Seraphimblade 04:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've unblocked Calton per the discussion above and issued an apology for not taking enough care in looking at this case. clpo13(talk) 04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've not looked at all the sourcing in detail, but I agree that in any case this is not the sort of BLP violation the edit-warring exemption is designed for. If the choice is between calling someone a Nazi or not, then the sources had better be solid or the exemption can be claimed; if the difference is between someone engaging in neo-Nazi rhetoric and engaging in neo-Nazi rhetoric on numerous occasions then sort it out on the talk page or BLPN. The other BLP problems identified are on a similar level or even more minor. To my mind, the question about European governments doesn't come close to the "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" language of 3RRNO; nobody disputes that the governments in question are nationalist or that they have banned him and the only question is whether there is a source that expressly connects these facts. I propose closing this with a warning to Dr Fleischman to use the edit warring exemption for clear-cut cases. GoldenRing (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I would take no action. DrFleischman alleges that the diffs violate WP:1RR, but they do not establish in their complaint why an 1RR restriction is supposed to apply to the article at issue. DrFleischman also alleges a WP:BLP violation, but the diffs they provide do not work and therefore I cannot evaluate them. A very poorly made report and a waste of our time. Sandstein 12:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    The diffs now work after NeilN fixed them. I leave the 1RR issue to NeilN as the admin imposing the sanction, although it seems to me that DrFleischman also made multiple reverts if one counts the initial removal of the contested content. As to the BLP issues, I agree with NeilN that any BLP violation by Calton is not clear enough to warrant either multiple reverts or sanctions. Although I understand the argument DrFleischman makes, this is in my view primarily a content dispute, which AE does not address. Sandstein 21:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • There's something to the BLP claims, but I don't see enough meat to claim a BLP exemption. What should have happened was talk page discussion resulting in agreed-upon wording, instead of making wording tweaks in the article itself. --NeilN 15:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

    Rafe87

    Closing as no action. If people feel that the Yaniv's actions merit further looking into at AE, they can file a new request. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2018 (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 Rafe87

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 22:03, 11 June 2018 revert of my edit challenging the source
    2. 22:04, 11 June 2018 Removal of previous content
    3. 21:28, 12 June 2018 Third revert in less than 24 hours, again replacing content and restoring controversial source by middleeasteye.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Rafe87

    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 Rafe87

    Statement by power~enwiki

    Procedurally, as the first two diffs are consecutive, they only count as a single diff for 1RR purposes. While a gap of 23.5 hours between reverts does violate 1RR here, if there's no larger pattern here a warning should be sufficient. Largely thanks to Rafe87's lack of edit summaries, it's not immediately obvious whether these edits are reverts. The first diff is clearly a revert based on יניב הורון's evidence (and the second diff can be considered part of that); but the last one does not add the middleeasteye reference, and in fact removes an addition by Erictheenquirer. It's hard for me to see how two reverts, 23.5 hours apart, one adding a source and another removing that same source, should justify anything other than a warning to be extremely conscientious editing in this controversial area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Nableezy

    The reverts by יניב הורון (talk · contribs · logs) across a range of articles should be looked at. But at this article Ill just note that the complainant here has made four edits at this article, all reverts, and exactly zero edits at the talk page. A look at their contributions will quickly demonstrate this user is strictly a revert warrior. Would be happy to expand on that if invited to do so. But at this article specifically an admin should look at who is drive-by edit-warring without even attempting to collaborate on the talk page. nableezy - 04:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    @RegentsPark: I was thinking more of the reverts where the user reverts to include material that manifestly does not appear in the sources while demanding other read the damn sources while simultaneously, and hypocritically, reverting per ONUS. nableezy - 17:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    @RegentsPark: honestly I am unsure how one could report such editing. You can look at each of those edits and say on their own they are justified, but taken together they demonstrate somebody who is here playing the rules against each other. Either this editor believes that consensus is required on the talk page to restore challenged material (which is a challenge when the user is never on the talk page), or they believe if something is sourced it remains, and that is completely leaving aside whether or not the material in question even appears in the source. But you cannot seriously make those two edits that are wholly philosophically opposite Misplaced Pages editing-wise. You cannot make this edit and then this edit. But the position at this board seems to be that a strict adherence to the 24 hour shot clock is sufficient to escape any sanctions. I get that admins do not want to be accused of judging content. But there are users who are gaming the rules against each other in blatant ways with nobody seeming to be willing to look at it beyond "not a 1RR violation". nableezy - 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by TheGracefulSlick

    The filer not-so-ironically has been more disruptive at the article. Here he removed the Middle East Eye source; he was reverted and could have contributed to a talk page discussion. Instead, he waited and reverted again without discussion, this time calling it "propaganda". As Nableezy said, this editor is strictly a revert warrior and has not learned from past reports against himself. At Quds Day for instance, he has replaced a long-standing image without consensus three times , oddly citing an ongoing discussion that has no consensus. In a small twist, he actually engaged in discussion, but wrote a heinous, in my opinion, blockable personal attack: "Says the guy who comes from a country where dissidents are hanged in cranes". If BOOMERANG can be applied to AE, there is no better time than now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    TonyBallioni the reverts without discussion by the filer are against the spirit of 1RR, but do not actually violate it, correct? So would, say Nableezy or I, be wasting community time with a seperate case? Or can a pattern be established and genuinely evaluated? In my opinion, the attack I mentioned above crosses the line extremely and the past history is enough to consider a than or something similar.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Icewhiz

    I want to note that the Middle East Eye is a very borderline source, and probably not a RS (see RSN discussion). It is definitely not a source that should be used on a contentious subject that has been widely covered by mainstream media - removing this source was entirely within policy, and frankly adding (or reverting by Rafe87 - ) material based on a such source is quite questionable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by יניב הורון

    @TonyBallioni: Sorry for the off-topic, but what TheGracefulSlick apparently "forgot" to mention is that this comment I made was a response to a previous personal attack by Expectant of Light (quote: ...It's not Israel here where you have your opponents either shut up or shot up!). My contributions speek for themselves. As for my previous mistakes, I was already sanctioned for them, despite some editors keep talking about them (while trying to invent new reports based on spurious reasons). I'm confident that you are an honest administrator who can investigate the matter by yourself without being influenced by users who are obsessed with banning me for political reasons. Thanks.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Zero0000: This POV aberration of yours was a "mistake" or intentional? That's one example of many. You are the least appropriate to judge my edits.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Expectant of Light regarding -יניב הורון

    I was notified on this talk by -יניב הורון but I want to confirm a complaint by Nabzeely that -יניב הורון engages in revert wars on other pages, often citing irrelevant reasons in his explanations or reverting many edits while citing only one truly problematic edit. A recent example can be found on the Houthis. He reverts an edit claiming the source is a blog, then when reverted back explaining that the source is not a blog but a very reliable source , then reverts again this time claiming it's an opinion whereas the author is an high ranking expert named Bruce Riedel who also happens to be from this user's own ethnicity and nationality (citing this since he seems to be driven by his strong political inclinations). In short, he keeps shooting in the dark until his/her counter-party backs down and accepts his desired version. That's not constructive editing. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Zero0000

    In this AE case less than a week ago, יניב_הורון was "warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area." Mention was made of יניב_הורון's habit of making repeated "mistakes" that always seemed to match his POV. I'd like to mention this "mistake" only a day ago in which יניב_הורון removed text on the grounds "not supported by source" even though it consisted of direct quotations from the sources. As other people have written here, יניב_הורון is the paradigm edit warrior with no redeeming features. Zero

    Result concerning Rafe87

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • While a technical violation of 1RR (23.5, rather than 24 hours), I don't see this is worth acting on. From what I can see, the editor has been discussing their views and this particular edit on the talk page and generally editing responsibly. Perhaps a warning that, sometimes, care in observing bureaucratic requirements is the sensible course of action, but not much more than that. I'm also loathe to see a boomerang here. The way discretionary sanctions are set up, following the letter of the sanctions without being overly tendentious or disruptive (and I don't see a revert only policy as being any of those), is a sufficient condition for avoiding admin action. --regentspark (comment) 15:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    @Nableezy:, purely administratively, the examples given by you don't seem actionable. The editor is sticking to the page sanctions (albeit barely) and, looking at the sequence of edits, they look like a tit-for-tat revert war. Of course, none of this takes into account the content, consensus, and source fidelity involved in those reverts. Perhaps, as TonyBallioni suggests, it would be best to file a separate report with more details and, if that's the case, evidence of the broader problem that Tony alludes to but I'm not familiar with.--regentspark (comment) 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I’m inclined to close as a warning. @Nableezy and TheGracefulSlick: As I’m familiar with Yaniv’s editing, and given his history here, I’m more open to a boomerang, I also don’t want to discourage the filing of good faith reports (which I think this is.) If someone thinks sanctions are needed against them, it would be best to open a new report rather than deal with it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @TheGracefulSlick: Yaniv had somewhat of a baptism of fire into ARBPIA by being blocked for 30/500 violations (by me). They’re one of the few editors who gets blocked for that who actusllu stuck around. I’m willing to cut them some slack because they basically dived right into AE without getting acquainted with other areas first (partially their own fault, but our behavioral norms in this area are tough to follow sometimes).Re: your diff as a personal attack, yes, I think it’s agrigous and if I had seen it two days ago I would have blocked then as a regular admin action. That and some other things he’s been involved in of late especially after the last AE makes me think that there might be cause for a deeper look (Doug Weller, I know arbs tend to stay away from AE, but you might be interested in these ones.) That being said, I believe in being fair to people and I think that in an area as complex as ARBPIA, the best way to handle it would be through a new report if someone thinks it is merited rather than a boomerang. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @יניב הורון: I think I’ve been fair to you generally (or I’ve tried to be). You can be a bit like a bull in the china shop in these areas, but I get that it’s a highly contentious area. Like I said, I don’t think a boomerang should happen here, but if people think it should there may be grounds for opening a new AE (I haven’t looked in depth at any of your recent edits outside of the Muslim Brotherhood, which didn’t have any banners at the time.)All that being said please be more cautious in this area and with how you interact with others. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with TonyBallioni's assessment here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    TheGracefulSlick ‎

    Apparent honest mistake, immediately corrected. No action necessary.--regentspark (comment) 19:22, 13 June 2018 (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 TheGracefulSlick ‎

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    TheGracefulSlick ‎ (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 13 June 2018‎ Revert after not waiting 24 hours from this revert
    2. 12 June 2018‎ 1 revert
    3. Date Explanation
    4. Date Explanation
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    The policy is quite clear on this ". If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."--Shrike (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Today.


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning TheGracefulSlick ‎

    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 TheGracefulSlick ‎

    Sigh, here I outlined my edits and, according to my time stamps, I was six minutes past 24 hours. I asked Shrike if I was understanding this correctly; if I was wrong, I will gladly revert my mistake. Instead we are here, wasting time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    On second thought, I will just self-revert and revert. Better than wasting any time here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    RegentsPark it is done.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning TheGracefulSlick ‎

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • @TheGracefulSlick: It does appear to be a violation since you're supposed to wait 24 hours after the first revert (21:48 EDT) of your edit (or your revert, in this case). Basing this on your talk page comment to Shrike, easiest if you just revert again and we can move on. --regentspark (comment) 19:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

    SPECIFICO

    No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward. Awilley's advice to everyone below is also sound. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:23, 15 June 2018 (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 SPECIFICO

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    SPECIFICO (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:ARBAP2, DS/1RR :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 23:27, 13 June 2018 First revert
    2. 13:03, 14 June 2018 Second revert, bright-line 1RR breach
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    In normal circumstances, I would have given SPECIFICO a chance to self-revert, but given the numerous warnings she recently received in the AP2 area, a closer examination by the DS/AE board is warranted. — JFG 13:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    @Awilley: Again, in normal circumstances I would have given SPECIFICO a chance to self-revert, but as other editors mentioned, she often asked for tougher AE enforcement, and several admins warned her that she might fall victim to that. In the thread User talk:SPECIFICO#Arbitration enforcement request, she wrote: Overall, what I think would help is 3-5 times the number of Admins keeping an eye on these Politics articles and willing to hand out sanctions. I've said this repeatedly for a couple of years now. And indeed she was admonished in 2017 for calling for sanctions all over the place.
    I do believe that SPECIFICO mistakenly overlooked her earlier revert here, but admins should decide what is their standard for DS enforcement. When an editor has been toeing the line so many times despite warnings from several admins, what should be done to prevent further disruption and restore a collegial editing atmosphere? — JFG 08:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

    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 SPECIFICO

    Simple error. We generally don't file such AE complaints about an obvious error before posting a friendly warning on the perp's talk page. At any rate I self-reverted and replied to OP on my talk page. . SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Nomoskedasticity

    JGF apparently missed the bit where Specifico already self-reverted: . Hard to fathom, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Winkelvi

    While SPECIFICO did revert herself, the revert didn't occur until more than an hour after her original reversion (that went over 1RR) and a half hour after this report was filed. That doesn't seem like an "Oops, I forgot about 1RR" error to me where she would try to honestly correct her error on her own volition. An hour later seems like damage control to me. It should also be pointed out that she didn't revert and then leave her computer or Misplaced Pages to do something else, then return to see the notice JFG left on her talk page; she performed two edits after the 2RR . All this considered, she absolutely did violate the 1RR rule for that article, the bright line was crossed, and I believe she knew it and didn't act until she was caught. It's not as if she's not well aware of the 1RR restriction at that article. Anyone who regularly edits there knows it. SPECIFICO is a regular editor at the article (116 edits since 10/3/16) and at the article's talk page (684 edits since 12/11/16). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Objective3000

    Winkelvi: the revert didn't occur until more than an hour after her original reversion (that went over 1RR) and a half hour after this report was filed (undue emphasis removed). OMG, an entire hour. You must have a direct feed into your brain to edit here. I’m not saying Specifico (and numerous other editors) aren’t too quick on edits in DS articles. Long ago, the filer (JFG) was brought to a noticeboard and was probably about to receive a 0RR. Much as I disliked the editor’s quick trigger finger, and rather often disagreed, I thought the editor was valuable and argued that a 0RR would be too restrictive. We need good editors – including some that may have strong opinions (who doesn’t). But, the number of noticeboard efforts to sanction other editors over, basically, content disputes has been rapidly expanding. This is not only a time-sink, but has a chilling effect. As the edit was quickly self-reverted, I suggest the filer withdraw. I also think some warnings on bringing content disputes to noticeboards might be of value. Just my opinion. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by Netoholic

    In SPECIFICO's own words:

    I am uninvolved with the Trump article. -- Netoholic @ 04:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning SPECIFICO

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • The self-revert was made after this report, but it does seem to obviate the need for action. Sandstein 14:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • A few comments:
      • @SPECIFICO: Please be more careful in your reverts. I'm getting tired of seeing your name here.
      • @JFG: Please consider asking people to self-revert before jumping to an admin board. And @SPECIFICO, you'd better be sure to offer others the same courtesy you expect from them.
      • @Nomoskedasticity, apparently you missed the bit where this report was made before SPECIFICO self-reverted.
      • @Winkelvi, what Objective3000 said.
      • @Netoholic, please don't try to pretend you're "uninvolved". You may not be editing the Trump article but it was only three weeks that ago you got an official warning not to use this noticeboard to further your disputes with SPECIFICO.
    ~Awilley (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

    TheGracefulSlick

    Withdrawn
    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 TheGracefulSlick

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    TheGracefulSlick (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 14 June 2018 Restoring word terrorist in his edit that was reverted
    2. Date Explanation
    3. Date Explanation
    4. Date Explanation
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Only today he have broke 1RR

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User today created the article and used the word "terrorist" his orignal edit was reverted and he restored the usage of "terrorist" once again The policy is quite clear on this ". If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." As he original author of the article he have to wait 24 hours especially if it was created today. Also the user seem can't grasp 1RR he have history of not adhering to the rule for example:

    @TGS Becouse you doesn't seem to grasp 1RR.--Shrike (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning TheGracefulSlick

    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 TheGracefulSlick

    I did not realize the creation of the article counted as the "first" edit. Why could you not discuss this at my talk page, Shrike?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Fixed. I appreciate your close observation of my edits Shrike, and you will find my talk page always open to discussing them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    Shrike editors with tenures much longer than mine still make similar mistakes. I am not going to shy away from the area, creating articles and content, simply because you wait to pounce on those mistakes without discussing them. I "grasp" 1RR just fine, have reverted, and encourage you to find anything better to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning TheGracefulSlick

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

    Talatastan

    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 Talatastan

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Talatastan (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User doesn't care about ARBPIA restrictions. As soon as the sanction expires, he comes back to edit the same articles. An indefinite block might be necessary.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Talatastan

    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 Talatastan

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Talatastan

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