User talk:Wikieditor19920

Your GA nomination of Alan Dershowitz

The article Alan Dershowitz you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alan Dershowitz for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheEpicGhosty -- TheEpicGhosty (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do my best to get to this ASAP! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Ilhan

Just a thought -- stuff like talking about rumours about her affair (yes -- I agree -- widely reported on by RS, but still)... is likely a thorn in the side of any future attempt to get the actually DUE info into the article: the complaints by Jewish Americans, spanning the political spectrum and including high profile men and women as well as her own constituents, about her rhetoric. Which maybe I too went about the wrong way, but one thing I can say for sure is that this current endeavour will convince many an editor who would otherwise sit on the fence that what is going on is a number of editors being "out to get her" (even though I do not think that is the case). As I said, just a thought. --Calthinus (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. I try not to concern myself with that kind of stuff, though. I try to evaluate each individual content proposal on its merits as it relates to policy/consistency. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

I notice you deleted the discussion of Ilhan Omar. I said that your comments accused other editors of insensitivity to anti-Semitism, you denied that and asked for a source, I provided the source and then you said that other editors were insensitive to anti-Semitism. When you bring in this type of argumentation it's like the endless loop in a computer program. You will deny you accused other editors of anti-Semitism, I will provide evidence, you will defend your position, I will say it's a bad position, you will deny it's your position and ask for evidence. Why don't you just clearly state your position and arguments? Maybe your position is correct. But we will never know unless you use rational arguments to defend it. TFD (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I think you'll find my arguments pretty clearly stated. @You will deny you accused other editors of anti-Semitism.: Provide the quote where I said anything of this sort. (Hint: I didn't.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant insensitivity to anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You should be more precise with your posts and your reading. I criticized a specific discussion for its result—I didn't speculate about the motivations, and certainly not in the way you suggest. WP:AGF. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You wrote, "The community has refused to consider allegations (of anti-semitism) covered by the NYTimes as WP:DUE." My reading is that you are saying the community is insensitive to anti-Semitism. So you don't think it showed insensitivity in leaving out allegations of anti-Semitism that had been covered in reliable sources or that the average reader who read it that way? TFD (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Given some of the remarks on that page, with editors defending the remarks instead of discussing policy, which you have neither acknowledged nor addressed, I find it curious that you've decided to jump all over me for my critique. However, if an insensitivity to anti-semitism if perceived like you suggest, it would be because of the discussion and its result, not my criticism of it as incorrect on policy grounds. I am entitled to that opinion, I made none of the insinuations or accusations you are attributing to me, and I don't need to justify it to you. Do not continue badgering me about it or falsely insinuating that I made some accusation against another editor, WP:NPA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, any editor is allowed to remove unproductive conversations from their talk page, without having to explain themselves or be criticized for it. Consider it the end of the discussion. WP:TALKOWN. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

PA

Please read wp:npa calling a user a troll is a serious allegation that should not be made lightly.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't think I called anyone a troll. Please raising frivolous issues regarding RfC and review the relevant policy page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

NO you accused them of trolling ("you are basically confirming that you are trolling right now"), which is the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC) to f

@Slatersteven: I actually agree -- better to react more diplomatically. I've redacted it. For your part, stop making frivolous arguments about form on the RfC, which is in compliance w/ the guidelines, and please focus on substance. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alan Dershowitz

The article Alan Dershowitz you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Alan Dershowitz for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheEpicGhosty -- TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wish I could've gotten to this sooner... Will try again and hopefully get it up again in next few months. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Please stay off my talk page unless you wish to bring my attention to a constructive argument. Discussion concerning a specific article's edits belongs at that article's talk page. If you have any concerns about my editing beyond a specific article, the right place to go is WP:ANI. Thanks. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zloyvolsheb: I wish to bring attention to your problematic editing, and your talk page is the appropriate place to do so. You are engaging in obvious POV editing at Bernie Sanders. You are removing a controversy about his views expressed in an interview that received substantial coverage from the NYT and other pieces. You have paid little attention to other aspects of the article. I would be happy to submit for review your pattern of attempting to selectively remove controversial or negative information from that page, which is strong evidence of inappropriate POV editing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Then please do submit it for further review, I encourage it. In the meantime, use article talk pages and do not post threats on my personal talk page. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zloyvolsheb: Your arguments at that page make no sense. You are suggesting "grammatical" issues (??? the grammar is perfect) as a basis for wholesale removal of views he expressed that were criticized in national publications. You understand how this looks? It comes off as blatant whitewashing with a weak perfunctory alternative argument. Dispute resolution is not a threat. I suggest you discuss content and how it can be improved before making such heavy use of your "delete" button when it comes to controversies or possible criticisms at the Bernie Sanders article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

AE: Discretionary sanctions enforcement (American politics 1932-)

As you were previously asked to refrain from personally attacking those with different views from yourself by multiple people, I am submitting a discretionary sanctions enforcement request against you at WP:AE. Please comment there. Thank you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Please self-correct this [1]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not really my job to track which comments you went back and later revised. Further, that diff does not change the meaning of your comment in any substantial way. You are free to offer the "correction" on the AE page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your call, it was noted. I believe there is a difference. [2] Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I've provided a link to the copy-edited diff. You also stated you are assuming good faith, and did the opposite by suggesting I "misused" the pre-copy edit diff. No one notices these copy edits; the sentiment of your argument came through. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was it was clear misuse but I also assumed an "honest mistake." Since it was an inappropriate diff it was technically misuse, but my intention was to avoid connoting that it was a deliberate misuse (abuse) as opposed to inadvertent. So I added that to make it clearer. Anyway, thanks for correcting it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

I'm curious, since you've alleged that I have edited two articles inconsistently. You've just articulated disagreement with WP:RECENTISM as a justification for excluding content at Talk:Bernie Sanders, but it looks like you removed a statement with multiple sources based on that very justification from the same article: [3]. Would you care to explain that inconsistency? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You apply totally different standards for editing controversies/content seemingly based on who the politician is. I removed a statement about an issue in flux, a candidate's frontrunner status, from the lead, later restored it after I saw it confirmed by the NYT, and then it was removed again the next week by another editor after a few primary losses nullified frontrunner status. Check all the diffs, and I know you know the difference. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

But you did accept WP:RECENTISM as valid when you made that edit? Did your view change? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying that being considered the front-runner in the Democratic primaries for several weeks is RECENTISM and UNDUE while comments he made that may have weakened his chances in a primary he had no chance of winning anyway is DUE? TFD (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is questionable for the lead to say he IS the frontrunner when primary elections are ongoing and that changes week-to-week. In other words, RECENTISM is a concern when referencing a condition subject to change and in flux, because it may be accurate one week and innaccurate the next. Initially, I removed it. Of course, I was convinced when I saw the NYT call him such after the first round, and added it back (I don't know where the diff is, but it's there). And guess what? I was wrong for restoring it. Because by the next week, he was no longer the frontrunner and another editor had taken it off. That's how RECENTISM properly works. The body can say he was once the frontrunner, and probably should, as well as document other developments that received substantial coverage.

Now, when Zloyvolsheb argue at Biden that a few second-tier sources are sufficient to include sexual assault allegations, and argue endlessly against including a well-documented controversy in the Sanders campaign, how do you think that comes off? Let me put it another way. When you see an editor throw shade at a candidate on the talk page for their article, and offer a sympathetic defense of their opponent on that talk page, take a wild guess which page that editor is likely to argue for inclusion of controversial information and which page you think that editor would like to see them gone. Please. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That does not look like a good explanation. Wikipedia can be edited at anytime, so current frontrunner status or anything else can be updated at any time. But you chose to remove it completely, citing WP:RECENTISM. You also applied the 10-year-test in relation to Michael Bloomberg [4]. Clearly you believe in rejecting sources according to RECENTISM, but argue the opposite now, when it is used by others. Did you ask yourself how that comes off? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to explain. I personally both removed and added the frontrunner information at different times based on which sources had used that label.[5][6]. I also made my points on the talk page each time.[7][8]. Note how I first said I wanted to see major publications call him that, and then added it back after I indeed found major publications saying that? That's called a consistently applied standard. But I am happy to accept feedback, so please, point out to me the supposed inconsistency. Or, compare that with your political commentary on these two candidates talk pages, and then removing reliably sourced information at Bernie Sanders while arguing for inclusion of still-developing BLP sensitive allegations at Joe Biden. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia can be edited at any time." Correct. The lead is also supposed to offer a concise summary of relevant information, and should be the most stable aspect of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that someone was considered the frontrunner is usually seen as a key fact in biographies: George Romney (1968), Edmund Muskie (1972), Gary Hart (1988), Howard Dean (2004), Hillary Clinton (2008). It is still mentioned in articles about Sanders, for example, "How Bernie Sanders went from frontrunner to the last-chance saloon" (Guardian, 15 March 2020).

In the case of Biden, I would be quite happy to add the allegations against him if they become an issue covered in mainstream media, rather than a single mention.

The problem with the media is that their priorities are not what you or I would choose. However chances are that you and I would not have the same priorities as each other, which is why policy has chosen to use weight determined in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yeah? Well, OK then. The two diffs and talk page contributions illustrate my position, and I have nothing much more to add there. why policy has chosen to use weight determined in reliable sources. I couldn't agree more. That is the standard I've been arguing for at Bernie Sanders in the last discussion. (I also concur the Joe Biden allegations can be included, but only after we have first-tier sources like the NYT reporting on it, which we now do.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit comment

talk:Wikieditor19920: Feel free to conduct your own survey of how many were chanting, but the source reported that a number were. Please do not put snide remarks in edit summaries. And what number? 5? 500? And this is sourced to some undefined, social media post. O3000 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:TMI. What, are we supposed to say "50 out of 75 people chanted." The piece, from the "Times of Israel," describes a "number" of people chanting. The Times of Israel is a reputable source. The level of precision you are asking for isn't necessary. The source is the Times of Israel, not a social media post. WP:SECONDARY. The post they reference was actually a video recording, posted on social media. If you want precision, please be precise in explaining sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I'll note that Times of Israel is a more reliable sources than many provided on that page. Mashable? If you want to work with me to find better sources or more in-text attribution, I would welcome that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Editors do not like collaborating with other editors that make snide remarks in edit summaries. O3000 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I deeply, sincerely, and wholeheartedly apologize for my snide remark. I kneel before you, humbly taking your hand, upon which I kiss to show my contrition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you continue with another snide remark, conversation over. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: For the record, the "quantity" tag is unnecessary. Let's apply common sense here. This is, as you probably know, a level of precision that no reliable source could verify or provide, and does not. The story was that "a number of" DSA members were making this chant. Notice that at [[9]], nowhere does it specify the "exact number" of fraternity members chanting racist slurs. And nowhere is this information deemed relevant or necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries. Your edit summary may have been removed. Please look at pages regarding Civility and Personal attacks in your spare time. Thank you.[10]

• I didn't template you for this yesterday. But now you have done this twice in two days. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Excuse me? Almost all of your comments at the DSA talk page begin with "you" and are followed by some accusatory statement or personal criticism. WP:FOC indeed. My comments have addressed content. Your comments are increasingly combative and personal and I have no interest in continuing a back-and-forth in that vein. I'll also note that your recent tagging of the page resembles exactly what you complained about when I applied tags to pages in the past. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Simply false. You tagged three articles at the top after failing to gain consensus and I complained that you were tagging entire articles. I tagged a small section that is under discussion and to which you edit warred in changes without consent. Of course none of this has to do with the template above. Placing PAs in edit summaries, or anything close, is worse than a PA on a TP because there can be no response. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Each of my comments have addressed arguments. You are behaving belligerently at DSA, I have no further response to you there, or here. These are your contributions at the DSA talk page:

• You are doing it again. You have just been told on AE to FOC, and the case is still open. Diff
• :You claiming you have consensus is not consensus. And you claiming other editors are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is simply false. As usual, you fail to WP:FOC.
• And, RSN doesn't agree with you on issues like this. But, you ignored BRD and just edit warred in your position. Diff
• Why would an encyclopedia push such a suggestive, weaselly, POV sentence when we haven't the slightest concept of 'dueness'? In reference to a reliable source that stated exactly what was represented in the article.

And here is you making yet another combative post directed another editor.

• WP:FOC is not just designed to make the editing process more pleasant, but to make it more productive. If you want to make a change in the focus of the article, you must convince other editors that you have a case. You haven’t done that, and frankly, aren’t likely to with your sources, argument, or attitude.
• If you have a problem with The Washington Post, take it to RSN and stop rejecting everything from a reliable source. Diff
• You will never gain a consensus for anything by resorting to attacks and bad faith assumptions. I and others here see no problem with the correct text as per WP:BALASP. I have explained my position quite clearly. The fact that you have a different opinion does not in any way mean obstinance on my part. People have different opinions. Get used to it. Diff

The fact that you don't see the irony in these posts, lecturing others about FOC and invoking policy, along with conduct warning templates, all the while engaging in exactly the behavior you are ascribing to others — reactive hostility, personalized criticisms, combative attitude — shows how quickly you are to resort to personalized criticisms when someone may be getting the better of you in a debate. Follow the Golden Rule. When you start addressing content arguments, and not me personally, in a calm and reasoned way, we can continue the conversation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Clever. Give my responses, but don't put in the accusations that I'm responding to. But, irony is indeed the correct term. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing

You either have to use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or {{hat}} and {{hab}}. Took me a long time to figure that out, if it makes you feel any better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Ah, I see. Thank you, much appreciated! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Legal Aid Society logo 2020.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Legal Aid Society logo 2020.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Legal Aid Society Logo 2020.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Legal Aid Society Logo 2020.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

WPNPOV and Democratic Socialists of America

I'd request that you withdraw your close...

Nope.

...because the summary you provided is of zero help to resolving the issue

The issue -- a content dispute -- should be resolved on the article talk page, not WP:FORUMSHOPED to vaguely relevant noticeboards. I read the section, and, bluntly, the editor perhaps least helpful in resolving anything was you yourself. As User:Objective3000 said:

• You must stop claiming that other editors said things they never said.
• No, I didn't say to add "a tiny fraction" to the text either. This is pointless
• You simply don't understand what I and others have said, no matter how many times we repeat it.
• Somebody close this. No chance it will ever do anything but waste time.

You couldn't even find level ground on what the other party said, and the editors not already involved didn't agree with you. The point of the page is to get advice, not for affirming yourr own point of view. The whole thing had become a waste of time, as O300 said, so I put it out of its misery, as requested. Remember the talk page? Stick to that, actually listen to what other parties -- including third-parties -- say, avoid Strawman arguments and synthesis by proximity, and do NOT go venue-shopping unless you have something concrete to sell. If you want to filibuster, stick to one page.

I will give you a few hours to reconsider, and then I will open a thread on ANI

Spare me the unctuous attempts at a threat and be done with it. Remember that ALL participants will be scrutinized: are you sure you want that? --Calton | Talk 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I'll be sure to bring this up as evidence of your sincerity: @Objective3000: I deeply, sincerely, and wholeheartedly apologize for my snide remark. I kneel before you, humbly taking your hand, upon which I kiss to show my contrition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Calton: What an obnoxious, confrontational post. The above comments were examples of O3000's belligerence and refusal to address my arguments, or the flaws in their own. Other users clearly acknowledged that the arguments by O3000 were political and probably not compliant with NPOV. A limited few users agreed with the political arguments without weighing in on policy.

This was clearly an NPOV dispute, as alleged by both sides, and if you want to close the discussion, all you had to do was weigh in on whether 1) the content was NPOV compliant and 2) the reasoning offered was NPOV compliant. You did neither, and instead took sides in a personal dispute, one frankly that I have no interest in. I will be opening an ANI for your improper closure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, that last comment was obviously a joke, and one of no relevance to this matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally, even the way you summarized the result was unfair. You pulled a quote out of context, completely mischaracterizing the whole discussion, accused me of being wrong, and left it there. This is a totally inappropriate way to summarize a discussion -- basically calling out one user with a cherrypicked quote and ignoring the central pieces of their argument. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Final comment here: You should retract your false accusation of FORUMSHOPPING. At no point did I present a "strawman," though I was debating with a user who denied making remarks despite diffs and quotes showing otherwise. I sought input from a single forum over a dipute that was characterized as centering on NPOV by both sides involved, after discussions at the talk page failed: NPOVN. Forum shopping is the inappropriate use of multiple forums. By your standard, seeking input from any of the discussion noticeboards is FORUMSHOPPING. You have accused me of misbehavior without basis and singled me out for criticism in a closure result summary. This is not acceptable behavior for someone purporting to provide neutral closure to discussions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

O3000's belligerence and refusal to address my arguments Yet another of many false accusations you have made. I have responded to everyu one of your argumenst (mostly strawman arguments) and have in no way acted belligerently. Disagreeing is not belligerence. Retract it. O3000 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Disagreement is not the issue. Personalized accusations, denying you made comments that diffs show you indeed made, and cursing and swearing is belligerence. I've asked you to stay off my talk page. Here's why. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You cannot order me to stay off your page and then make false accusations about me on your page. The list of such is growing. You repeatedly claimed that I made statements I never made. You have to stop these personal attacks. O3000 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That's my impression of your behavior. If you want to leave a better impression, I suggest a different tack than the one showed in the two threads above. Last time I'm telling you, don't post here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned for three months from post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned For battleground behaviour towards other editors after previously being warned.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)