Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, let's go find some, here it is. Rather it was because I was reading a Wikipedia 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[ing] 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 complained about the removal of details about some sundry Palin controversies 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. It's often celebrated how much I talk(!) so here's an even lengthier disposition and rebuttal of one of the endless arguments why the "Bridge" controversy was supposedly not worth mentioning. Arguing strongly for inclusion of quotes by other Republicans calling for Palin to withdraw from the nomination ("...the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic... Palin is not ready") 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 complained about a Palin campaign staffer who was editing her WP article, I accused users of being pro-Palin sockpuppets, I talked about NYT article which "details the way this article, in the 24 hours BEFORE Palin's candidacy was announced, was plastered with bubbly, glowing commentary of Palin sourced from her published-just-in-time-for-the-election biography". Later in a debate about AGF'ing: I mentioned the issue of good faith only the highlight that editors who appear sympathetic to Palin have repeatedly questioned the good faith of editors who appear unsympathetic to Palin. This is merely to remind everyone of the context in which these claims are being made. Speck in neighbor's eye, boulder in own, and all that. I argued at length for inclusion of mockery of Palin in "Jesus Ponies and Dinogate" controversy, defending the use of an op-ed in LA Times ("No matter how much of a liar you think that guy is, he's a critic, this is on reputable record by a publication with a factchecking department and the ability to be sued for libel, and that is the whole basis for Wikipedia's reliance on mainstream news publications.") I argued further against removal of "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy details. 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 at extreme length about source material regarding Palin's apparent blurring of the line between church and state. Why this is all troubling is not because of Palin's faith or beliefs; it's to do with the apparently special status she places on religious beliefs, religious people, and religious organizations. I further argued about source material about Palin's attempt to ban books due for religious reasons. Again, at very great length. According to Time, according to Stein, the attempt to ban books was an example of her injecting religious beliefs into her policy. Perfectly legitimate, primary-sourced, analysis/synthesis which has been published by a reliable source and is therefore fit for inclusion in appropriate format. 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. [emphasis added in 2018] I argued for inclusion of source material discussing Palin's husband's past association with a political party advocating Alaskan secession from the US. When somebody asked why something had been removed, I explained: Probably deleted because somebody felt it made Palin look bad. I argued for inclusion of a controversy about making rape victims pay for their own rape kits. While doing so I complained: The constant effort to turn this article into promotional campaign literature is equally annoying. I pushed back against complaints that mentioning various criticisms and accusations violated NPOV. I'm not sure anyone here is intent on including any scurrilous or merit-free allegations. I argued against someone removing RS-published criticisms of Palin simply because they quoted a political opponent of Palin. 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 Here is another lengthy complaint about what I regarded as POV-pushing in favor of Palin. 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)

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 talk to me 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 [4]—12:03, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes [5]— 12:21, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes [6]—17:58, April 23, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes [7]— 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) Article discretionary sanction in for conduct in the area of conflict placed here [8] and [9] by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). 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 [10], 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 [11], 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) NeilN, all sounds reasonable and no objections on my part. --E-960 (talk) 17:36, 6 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: [12] Discussion concerning François Robere Statement by François Robere Few points: Several days ago User:E-960 reverted a series of edits of mine en masse [13]. 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. I started a discussion about the reversal [14]. The user made no policy-backed claims, and at some point stopped replying. Now, eleven days later, they file this AE request. Change #1 was never out of consensus. It looks like someone's linguistic mistake, and a petty, petty thing to bring here. 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. 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 [15] (This goes all the way back to March, where the same user changed quotes of sources to suit their POV [16][17]. Note the edit summaries). 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. 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. 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" [18] mandating a retaliation [19][20][21][22]. 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 Wikipedia 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 [23]. 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 [24][25][26]. 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: 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. 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 Wikipedia, 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" [27] that had been reverted today by FR. here [28] 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 [29] 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. [30],[31], (I have read one of these books) So what happened next? Icewhiz removed not only the sources I supplied but also the entire information [32] 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 [33]: "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 [34],[35],[36],[37],[38] plus an image of an actual German poster from 1941 [39] announcing such policy. All in English, all published books by historians, clearly backing the information. Give me some hours @NeilN: to think about it please, I'm not as swift as you are fellows. Thanks. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC) I think it’s clear to me.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 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 - 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). 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: [40] - 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) [41] - letter published on Glaukopis website after History refused to publish it. Challenged as BLPSOURCES, and reverted. See subsequent BLP/n discussion. [42] - Use of self-published documents by Mark Paul. See RSN on Kurek and Paul, and subsequent RfC opened on this matter. [43] - 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. [44] [45] - 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. revdelled 22 May 08:10 (so no link) - restored copy-pasted content from Mark Paul's WP:SPS. [46] - 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) @NeilN: the page level restriction is mostly clear to me - though it is unclear to me (having avoided for the most part any editing on AP2 consensus required pages) - just how far back challenged (via reversion) goes (Obviously if I made the edit, it gets reverted, then I can't put it back in.... Does this apply to edits made over a month ago, possibly by someone else (that I might not be aware of - this page had a lot of back and forth I was not involved with))? I haven't edited the article itself since the restriction, I did open an RfC on the issue that was disputed late May.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC) RE comments below by VM on 12 June - WP:NOENG applies when there are better or equal quality sources in English for a particular topic - this is Wikipedia policy - I have not advocated for wholesale removal of Polish sources (though there have been issues with such sources being misrepresented) - merely for their replacement when English sources are available. An AfD of a scholar that doesn't meet NPROF is not an "attack". VM calling Ewa Kurek a "mainstream scholar" is quite out of line of the reception of Kurek in RS,(How Ewa Kurek, the Favorite Historian of the Polish Far Right, Promotes Her Distorted Account of the HolocaustPoland cancels award for author accused of anti-Semitism) and as for Jewish partisans - I will refer to VM referring to content sourced to Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis) edited by David Cesarani with the chapter authored by Antony Polonsky as "dubious" or calling a work by Christopher Browning "garbage" - "and any source which describes AK as "conservative nationalist" is garbage. Yes, that applies to Christopher Browning" - all works by well established academics specializing in the Holocaust in Poland - is displaying a clear NPOV problem in regards to the Poland and the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 12 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: [47], [48], [49] and [50]. 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 Wikipedia policies, with which Icewhiz approaches this subject pisses me off and gets my Wikipedia panties in a twist. Nobody who thinks that these kinds of tricks and stunts are ok should be editing Wikipedia, 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 [51]. 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 [52]), 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 Wikipedia. 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) @NeilN: there's an essay that may be helpful: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), specifically the section: What is historical scholarship? If this guidance were implemented in this area, it would cut down on much of the conflict and time-consuming discussions / RfCs. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 5 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 Wikipedia? What is the affiliation of these users? How are they connected? They appear to be pushing the same agenda. As Wikipedia 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. Pinging NeilN as the admin who decided on these restrictions. Sandstein 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @Icewhiz: Please comment about Volunteer Marek's allegations of you using unreliable sources and misrepresenting sources. Sandstein 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 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) @Ealdgyth: With respect to article content, is it your opinion that both sides are using questionable sourcing or is it mainly limited to one side? --NeilN talk to me 14:48, 3 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 talk to me 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 talk to me 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 talk to me 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 talk to me 16:17, 6 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 Wikipedia: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: [53] 23:20, 10 June 2018 1st revert 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) I'm a little shocked that admins are criticizing my conduct when this was a clear-cut 1RR violation and everyone is in agreement on that. I am more than willing to explain my behavior. This is a 100% clear-cut BLP violation despite the averments to the contrary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Would it help if I laid out the BLP vios here, or is this report already too stale for that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC) GoldenRing, what diffs aren't working? They're working for me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Oh sorry GoldenRing, that question was meant for Sandstein. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Sandstein, when derogatory content is added that isn't supported by reliable sources, that's a textbook BLP vio. How did my reverts not fall squarely into WP:3RRBLP? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:00, 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. 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: [54] (English translation: [55]) 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. Content: "Spencer ... has publicly engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions. Cited sources: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] 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? 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) [T]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 Talk to me 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) @Sandstein: The page does have a 1RR editnotice placed by User:NeilN, though the sanction was not logged in the DSLOG. GoldenRing (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC) @GoldenRing: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2017. Search on "Spencer". --NeilN talk to me 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I stand corrected. GoldenRing (talk) 14:48, 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 talk to me 15:05, 12 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 Wikipedia: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". 13:29, 6 June 2018 13:27, 6 June 2018 09:59, 5 June 2018 04:23, 6 June 2018 17:23, 11 April 2018 17:10, 11 April 2018 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. 08:19, 8 June 2018 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. My Lord (previously called Anmolbhat) added this content[61] on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus but was reverted and told by administrators to get consensus for it[62] because it was contested by other users.[63] He has now restored that content[64] without consensus and has even cited this talkpage discussion[65] 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. 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[66] with an edit summary saying "see talkpage for consensus" even though there was no consensus on the talkpage in favour of that edit.[67] 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[68], citing a talkpage discussion which does not actually support his version. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [69] 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) [70] 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" [71] edit summary is just symptomatic of their battleground mentality. They also recently filed two [72][73] groundless enforcement requests against two users. This user has already received multiple warnings for unconstructive editing[74], disruption[75], and for pov deletions[76]. 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[77] which was originally merged into the article per a community discussion at AfD.[78] Farhan Khurram (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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[79] and disruption,[80] 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,[81] in addition to this edit summary[82]. 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 BladesGodric 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. [83] 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[84][85] 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[86] with the same misleading edit summary which basically falsifies consensus. There is nothing on the cited talkpage thread[87] 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.[88][89] 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.[90] Its a shame that English Wikipedia 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.[91] 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."[92] 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 Wikipedia 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) Given that no other admin has expressed interest in taking action, I am closing this accordingly. Sandstein 13:07, 13 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 Wikipedia: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 Pretty much all of this is at Political views of American academics. 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: [93]. June 9, 2018 Another massive revert, edit summary is misleading. June 9, 2018 "Begin"s to restore material that had been deleted by consensus. June 5, 2018 Battleground-y comments, disregard for actual policies. June 6, 2018 Ditto. June 6, 2018 Ditto. June 7, 2018 Ditto, with me replying. June 8, 2018 Ditto. ("Careful what you ask for.") 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) [94] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Just days ago, another AE complaint was raised about Netoholic: permalink. I suggested cutting him some slack, [95]: "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: [96] (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: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. And before anyone gets the idea to go boomerang-y, I've been trying very hard to be fair to him: [102], [103], [104], [105]. When he added material that I thought should not be there: [106], I nonetheless made edits to try to improve it: [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. (Looking at Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia#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 [115], [116]), but there really is a consensus. The page was moved, [117], 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 Wikipedia: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: [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]. 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", [123], 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: [124]. --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: [125], [126], 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: [127]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC) And is edit warring over that, too: [128]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [129] 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) Given that no other admin has expressed interest in taking action, I am closing this accordingly. Sandstein 13:09, 13 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 Wikipedia: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 13 June 2018‎ Revert after not waiting 24 hours from this revert [130] 12 June 2018‎ 1 revert Date Explanation Date Explanation Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Date Explanation 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 14 June 2018 Restoring word terrorist in his edit[131] that was reverted [132] Date Explanation Date Explanation Date Explanation Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Only today he have broke 1RR [133] 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 [134] 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: [135] [136] [137] @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 [138] 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.

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 23:27, 13 June 2018 First revert 13:03, 14 June 2018 Second revert, bright-line 1RR breach Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the AP2 area on 22 April 2017 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Previously given a DS warning for conduct in the AP2 area on 20 May 2018 by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Received a "two strikes" warning for edit-warring in the AP2 area, on 3 June 2018 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). 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 by 3 different users in the last twelve months, more earlier. Gave alerts about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict to 18 different users in the last twelve months, more earlier. Participated in several arbitration request or enforcement procedures about the area of conflict in the last twelve months: (search AE) 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 talk 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.[139] 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 talk 08:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff [140] 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. [141]. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Nomoskedasticity JGF apparently missed the bit where Specifico already self-reverted: [142]. 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 Wikipedia to do something else, then return to see the notice JFG left on her talk page; she performed two edits after the 2RR [143] [144]. 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: "There's a reason for ARBCOM sanctions. A brightline violation ... coming after so many prior warnings, has clear consequences. Otherwise the thousands of other editors who are trying to work constructively and respectfully will continue to suffer the deadweight loss of this kind of disruption." "The current environment has way too high a bar for enforcement -- something DS is intended to prevent ... The editors who end up getting banned have in most cases been obvious problems months or years before the system/Admins finally deal with them. We've lost many good editors who decline to work in the chaotic environment." 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)

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 22:03, 11 June 2018 revert of my edit challenging the source 22:04, 11 June 2018 Removal of previous content 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) [145] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [146] 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 Wikipedia 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 [147][148][149], 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 - [150]) 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). [I thought Riedel was a dual national. Appears not true.] 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. Zerotalk 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)

Talatastan

Talatastan indefinitely blocked, first year under arbitration enforcement. --NeilN talk to me 02:57, 17 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 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 [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [163] [164] 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 [165] 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. Talatastan, do you have anything to say for yourself? Because this is the third time, and an indefinite block seems reasonable to me. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC) NeilN just indef'd Yaniv (the OP), but I tend to agree with Drmies here: not even on the 30/500 but for the attitude that underlines them. Unless there is strong objection from other administrators I intend to block for POV pushing and 30/500 violations: the first year as an AE action, after that as a regular admin action. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Ha, you know the paperwork better than me. I just saw that block go by--I am surprised, but I don't know the editor's previous history. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC) OK I think NeilN was momentarily puzzled too. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)And after I posted that, NeilN unblocked as he apparently intended to block another user. If it was Talatastan the block was intended for, I endorse the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC) I clicky-clicked on the wrong browser tab. Talatastan is indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 02:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO

No violation. Sir Joseph warned not to open frivolous AE requests. --NeilN talk to me 14:16, 19 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 Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:56, 18 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION : WP:ARBAP2, CIVILITY RESTRICTION Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it June 17 antisemitic comment and insinuation, " or that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money because, well... you know. " Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [166] Specifico warned about 1RR Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the AP2 area on 22 April 2017 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Previously given a DS warning for conduct in the AP2 area on 20 May 2018 by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Received a "two strikes" warning for edit-warring in the AP2 area, on 3 June 2018 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). 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 by 3 different users in the last twelve months, more earlier. Gave alerts about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict to 18 different users in the last twelve months, more earlier. Participated in several arbitration request or enforcement procedures about the area of conflict in the last twelve months: (search AE) Additional comments by editor filing complaint To those claiming that SPECIFICO didn't make these comments but is merely putting them into Trump's mouth, that is just as offensive and a BLP issue as well. These comments have no place on Wikipedia and I'm shocked that there are people here defending them. To Objective3000, my comment on WV's talkpage has nothing to do with this request or of Wikipedia. I was making a comment about the growth of antisemitism in the US. SPECIFICO's antisemtic comments were not read with any bias, I read them simply as they were typed out. Let's not start to blame the victim here. User:My very best wishes which sources is SPECIFICO quoting? SPECIFICO, we're not talking about Trump. We're talking about YOUR statements. People are either purposely or accidentally turning this into a Trump issue. This has nothing to do with Trump or Trump's statements or his views. This is about SPECIFICO's statement. Bringing in sources about Trump is just trying to bludgeon-out the fact that SPECIFICO made comments that should not have happened. @NeilN: How is what I read and brought here indicative of a battleground? Again, SPECIFICO is not claiming Trump said it, and this is not about Trump's Mexican statements. This is a statement that is indeed antisemitic. Again, read the whole paragraph, ""MelanieN, there's a bit too much OR in your statement to use it for an editing decision. But just to follow that line of reasoning, I think what this shows is equally likely that Trump thinks l) religion is nonsense and he doesn't care about it at all - or 2) that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money because, well... you know. But Melanie what about DUE WEIGHT? This is an insignificant interview, one of thousands Trump gave in 2015-6 and it was not picked up by RS. It has about 300 google hits. Most of Trump's memorable statements have at least a thousand times as many. SPECIFICO talk 8:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"" Again, SPECIFICO is saying, that "I think what this shows is equally likely that Trump thinks....." Warning me would be a terrible mistake and a miscarriage of justice and one that will just prove yet again that certain comments can be made on WP without consequences. That would be the truest definition of chilling effect. @Regentspark:, I think you're confused. I never said SPECIFICO is ascribing these views to Trump. That is what others are saying. You also say that the comments themselves, regardless of who said it is not antisemitic. That is just unbelievable. Talking about unwashed, dumb and money with regards to Orthodox Jews and you don't find those comments, regardless of who said it, troubling? 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 I see that MrX has given the full text of my remark on the talk page. Several editors misrepresented that by cutting words out of context. I asked them to stop. Instead, here we are. To provide additional context, it was a long thread that got off into OR back and forth, so I started a subsection to focus on the only issue I was raising, to wit NPOV. This was a Trump interview by a small Jewish publication with a very defined readership in Brooklyn, NY on the occasion of Trump's attendance at a Jewish recognition ceremony. The interview was not picked up by mainstream media, and in the absence of any confirmation of its significance, it fails DUE WEIGHT as an indication of Trump's core values or beliefs. It was directed to a certain audience on this occasion and, as I said earlier in the thread, is typical of the kind of meaningless statement public figures or political hopefuls will make to win affinity from various defined groups. To my great surprise, MelanieN had a different view and wrote the following [167] Look, it’s not just a matter of what he said, or to whom, or what he meant by “honored”. Forget the quibbling over that stuff. This is basically a matter of his actions. There are Christians who would disown a daughter who married a Jew and converted to Judaism. There are others who would try to hush up their daughter’s conversion, treat it as something “we don’t talk about.” Trump is no such person. He obviously loves his daughter as much as he ever did, is still very proud of her, respects and embraces her religious choice, and accepts and loves his son-in-law and grandchildren. That says something important about Trump and how he regards religion. And it deserves a mention in the religion section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC) . My reply responded to this (which, in its insinuation that many folks would disown Jewish offspring, may be quite offensive to some readers, BTW). My response simply posed the opposite interpretation of Trump's statement -- that he was acting only out of self-interest and that there was nothing to indicate this Ivanka snippet contradicts his well-documented and amply sourced record of anti-Semitic statements, enablement of neo-Nazi supporters, etc. My post clearly states that it's just as likely that Trump is at best indifferent to religion, Jewish people, and religious hatred, and that he is motivated only by perceived self interest in such matters. I hope that's clear enough for the present thread. As some of the Admins know, I have been stalked and singled out over the past month or so by a series of mostly pro-Trump editors who have brought a series of specious or exaggerated complaints about me, possibly because I have insisted on NPOV editing and valid sourcing in articles that concern him. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC) @MelanieN: @MelanieN: Of course I was indicating a possible Trump mindset, to tell you I rejected your confidence in your take on his mindset. That's plain from my English words. Thanks for your comment. I believe I was also clear -- but perhaps assumed too much context -- that my take on public figures' attitudes is often not that they have strong views, but that they don't care about the substance of this or that issue, they care about how it affects their image and popularity. I said Trump may just not care at all about religion. That's a personal interpretation, but not a disparaging one and not inconsistent with acknowledged fact. I also said, and gave the "unwashed" definition to demonstrate, that expression does not refer to folks who don't bathe or something. It's a colloquialism for the hoi polloi - for the sort of folks that don't travel in Trump's circles, that will never be business partners, counterparties, power-brokers, or other useful contacts. They are not in the market for Trump condos or golf memberships. They have other interests. Etc. etc. That means he might be completely indifferent to these folks, except for their votes and possible campaign contributions. And like the other bit, it was expressing the likelihood not that Trump is personally virulently anti-Semitic, but rather that a public figure courting favor with any group reflects the needs of a public figure, not an inner good or bad will. I'd previously illustrated the same point using the name of Hillary Clinton. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I'll be glad to provide citations that point to Trump's tolerance or enablement of anti-Semitism, but I didn't do so here at AE because it's a content matter. As a matter of fact I've been looking for the best references to add more content to the article, because it is a longstanding and noteworthy aspect of Trump's public persona. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I've just begun to look for valid sources, but per MVBW, it's surely not a BLP violation to suggest that Trump might be indifferent to or tolerate Anti-Semitism. And then along came Trump. The dog whistles heard throughout his campaign turned into an unmistakable bullhorn of intolerance once he arrived in the White House, emboldening the likes of Richard Spencer, Andrew Anglin and David Duke. Not only was the new administration ham-handed in dealing with Jewish issues — releasing a message on Holocaust Remembrance Day that failed to mention Jews at all, for instance — it winked enough at the alt-right to make them feel legitimated and loved. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/awakening-to-the-depth-of-american-anti-semitism/2018/03/23/048b18ec-18aa-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html Trump has made much of his support for Israel, a position that allows him to paint himself as a friend to Jews. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has even said that Trump feels “very warmly” about the Jewish people. And yet Trump entertains a degree of anti-Semitism unparalleled in recent American administrations. At home, Trump is responsible for stoking a resurgent white nationalist movement that’s still divided over the “Jewish Question”—whether or not Jews are tolerable in a nationalist America—as the New Republic reported yesterday. He galvanized these anti-Semites when he suggested the existence of a globalist Jewish conspiracy during his campaign, and his election may offer them unprecedented access to the political establishment. During the campaign, Jewish journalists reported facing a wave of anti-Semitic harassment, and since his election hate crimes against Jews have spiked. He also chose to elevate Steve Bannon, head of white nationalist favorite Breitbart News, to chief strategist. Trump's remark about Gary Cohn, who had criticized Trump's words after the Neo-Nazi Charlottesville incident. @Tryptofish: Just for the record, the problem with cutting OP some slack for misreading my words is that by the time this complaint was filed, the whole thing had been hashed over 3-4 times on talk. Look at this user's recent block record [168]. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by MrX Here is what SPECIFICO actually wrote: "MelanieN, there's a bit too much OR in your statement to use it for an editing decision. But just to follow that line of reasoning, I think what this shows is equally likely that Trump thinks l) religion is nonsense and he doesn't care about it at all - or 2) that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money because, well... you know. But Melanie what about DUE WEIGHT? This is an insignificant interview, one of thousands Trump gave in 2015-6 and it was not picked up by RS. It has about 300 google hits. Most of Trump's memorable statements have at least a thousand times as many. SPECIFICO talk 8:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)" — [169] She did not say Hasidic Jews are unwashed; she posed a hypothetical of what Trump might think, using an idiom commonly understood to mean poor or unsophisticated. She also did not say that Hasidic Jews are dumb. To characterize these comments as antisemitic is ridiculous.- MrX 🖋 15:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Comment by MONGO SPECIFICO seems to think the purpose of a BLP page is to make assumptions about what the subject of the BLP thinks with nary a supporting reference to hold up the claim, which in itself would in this instance be relegated to an opinion piece anyway.MONGO 15:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC) SPECIFICO has been warned repeatedly by what appears to be neutral admins, not pro-Trump editors. two in this thread alone, [170]MONGO 16:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000 I wouldn’t have said this as someone might misunderstand it or try to use it against me in a completely unrelated thread (a la [171] two hours ago). Looks clear to me that was a hypothetical about possibilities of the thinking of another person used to give alternatives to a previously mentioned possibility. That’s not anti-Semitic. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC) May I point to a comment just made elsewhere by the filer stating: Sadly antisemitism is on the rise and in my opinion is being condoned by the left. diff. Whatever is meant by “the left”, I fear it's possible that we may, once again, have a politically motivated filing based on a bias against the left and an editor perceived to be in that grouping. Such a bias could color the way a person looks at a sentence; and the out of context quote in the filing removes the fact that this was a hypothetical of someone else's thinking. I'm not casting aspersions, simply showing how bias can color perception. Has to be a better way of handling these. O3000 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC) @WinkLevi, And, just for the record: there was no context given by SPECIFICO in the original statement. Yes there was. It was just omitted in the quote in the filing. an administrator admonished her for it an hour and a half after the comment was made And that administrator said she saw no reason to redact the text. Look, what was under discussion in that section was Trump’s relationship to Judaism. It was stated that he couldn’t be anti-Semetic because he accepted his daughter’s marriage and conversion. Specifico gave a couple of alternative possibilities. It’s really difficult to talk about anti-Semitism without talking about anti-Semitism. Let’s not be so sensitive (or quick to sanction). (And yeah, I’m Jewish under the Law of Return) O3000 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Winkelvi Anti-semitic remarks on a talk page for an article that has views which number in the tens-of-thousands where anyone "off the street" could wander into the talk page discussion are incredibly unacceptable and inexcusable. What's more unacceptable is that after making excuses for why her unqualified comments were acceptable and having that pointed out to her by two editors (one being an admin), SPECIFICO didn't admit her error or strike with an explanation next to the strike. Such comments should never be just left without a qualifier and explanation. As they are written in the original comment, they are unabashedly anti-semitic, full stop. If an editor who's Jewish sees SPECIFICO's comments as anti-semitic, the proof is in the perception by those in the protected class, regardless of how many explanations are provided and how many apologists for her comments emerge. Indeed, if anti-discrimination law and the ADL or the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center would consider those comments discriminatory hate speech, why wouldn't we? Here's a hypothetical: if anyone who is Jewish (regular editor, infrequent, newbie or just a reader) happens to stop by there and read them and is insulted and/or offended and feels discriminated against, then there's extreme damage done. And not just to the person who is offended, but the reputation of Wikipedia. Which could also then become a feeling of "Wikipedia makes excuses for and allows editors to promote anti-semitic commentary". Can anyone not see this? I agree with what Sir Joseph said above: it's shocking there are editors defending these comments. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Re: "Winkelvi tells: "If an editor who's Jewish ...". I think it is precisely the kind of argument one must avoid around here. OK, I am also partly Jewish. So what?" -- My very best wishes, the "so what?" here is that not one Jewish person can or should speak for all Jewish people. That in mind, if one Jewish person is offended by the what they see as anti-semitic comments written in SPECIFICO-voice (which, in this case, because it's on an article talk page is essentially Wiki-voice should an unknowing reader or editor stop by), then there is a problem. And not a small one. Any idea how this not only looks to the viewing public (and non-editors do look at talk pages as well as media) but how it can make Jewish editors feel unwelcome and discriminated against? And if it gets swept under the rug and no warning or sanction is issued, what does that say to the world (let alone Wikipedia editors)? The implications and future possibilities over such a non-action in the way of how Wikipedia looks to the world and feels to Jewish (and other minority) editors are huge. This is bad, very bad, all around. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Re: "I am simply saying this is not a comment that would be universally accepted as antisemitic by a Jewish person - in context." My very best wishes, that is precisely the problem. A person who is Jewish brought the issue here and does have a problem with it because they see it as anti-semitic. If a non-Jewish person does see it that way and they are alone, that's one thing. If the non-Jewish person and the Jewish person sees it that way, then that's a problem. And, just for the record: there was no context given by SPECIFICO in the original statement. An attempt at context was given only after she made the comment and when an administrator admonished her for it an hour and a half after the comment was made and then SPECIFICO's attempt at context a half hour after that. See diffs and time stamps here: Comments written: [172], admonished for comments: [173], SPECIFICO's response: [174]. I find this interesting when you consider that an editor who pays very close attention to context and specific wording in articles was oblivious to what she had written and how it could be perceived, only to -- as an afterthought -- claim the context of an obscure reference should have been obvious. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Re: "Based on the statement by MelanieN below, I realize that the comment by SPECIFICO was not antisemitic because she was probably talking about the alleged antisemitism of other people." My very best wishes, the issue is that apart from MelanieN's statement below or SPECIFICO's belated reference to an obscure source for the statement, there is no context. As a stand-alone, it's an anti-semitic statement -- whether she intended it way or didn't. On its own (and it's incredible to me that SPECIFICO still hasn't struck the stand-alone statement with an asterisk explanation to follow the strike) it is anti-semitic, no matter who would have written it. Fact remains, it's in SPECIFICO's voice because there's no context to it. Re: "But was it a BLP violation?" That's a separate issue. It doesn't have to be a straight-up BLP violation for it to be sanctionable and an anti-discrimination policy violation. Re: "I do not think so because the subject was indeed covered in multiple RS and because these RS discussed something they called "antisemitic"." This point is irellevant as Donald Trump has never referred to Hasidim as "unwashed" and "dumb". SPECIFICO did, however (attempting to use Trump-voice to do it), and that's why we are here. Not because of a BLP violation in the way of content on Trump, but what was said about Trump and how it was said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC) NOTE: For those who don't see the comments written by SPECIFICO as anti-semitic, I would like all of you to look at this, on the same article talk page, in the exact same section, compliments of Scjessey: "Like every politician running for higher offices, it is necessary for them to establish their "Jewdentials" (my own neologism)" [175] This, exactly this is what I expected to start seeing once the first admin said, "That's not anti-semitism" followed by "Shame on the filer". By blaming the filer and saying something obviously anti-semitic is not anti-semitic, you've given permission for others to follow suit. And if you look at the history of discrimination as well as how human nature works, this is how it all get started and grows. Now, how is this going to be dealt with, rectified and stopped, MelanieN, NeilN, Sandstein, and RegentsPark - with another slap on the wrist? Does it sound like I'm angry and disgusted? Good. Because I am. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes One should look at the comment by SPECIFICO in appropriate context [176]. This thread is a discussion of content, which includes such things as conversion to Judaism. This is something widely published. The comment by SPECIFICO is obviously not directed against any other participants of the project. Neither this is a BLP violation. Does it qualify as "antisemitic"? I do not think so because she discusses something published in sources. Winkelvi tells: "If an editor who's Jewish ...". I think it is precisely the kind of argument one must avoid around here. OK, I am also partly Jewish. So what? My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC) @Winkelvi. I am simply saying this is not a comment that would be universally accepted as antisemitic by a Jewish person - in context. In addition, debating improvement of pages on the subject of antisemitism is a perfectly legitimate business. However, it is important that one contributor should not accuse another of antisemitism without very serious evidence, and I do not see such evidence here. If anything, this could be a problem on the part of Sir Joseph, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Based on the statement by MelanieN below, I realize that the comment by SPECIFICO was not antisemitic because she was probably talking about the alleged antisemitism of other people. But was it a BLP violation? I do not think so because the subject was indeed covered in multiple RS and because these RS used wording "antisemitic" (just a random example). My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I am not saying that the notable politician was antisemitic (he is very much pro-Israel!). I am only telling there are multiple RS that seriously discuss this question, so it can also be legitimately discussed on WP pages. That would apply to any other BLP subjects. How exactly such matters can be properly discussed on WP pages is a good question. Was it so improperly worded in this case by SPECIFICO that she deserves sanctions? I do not think so, but this is something for uninvolved admins to decide. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Geogene MONGO said, SPECIFICO seems to think the purpose of a BLP page is to make assumptions about what the subject of the BLP thinks. Actually, the evidence already given seems to show it was MelanieN doing that. Geogene (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by MelanieN In an effort to Assume Good Faith, that was a possible interpretation I put onto SPECIFICO's comment - that maybe she was trying to convey that was how Trump thought about it. SPECIFICO has not confirmed this interpretation; she has related the use of "unwashed" to the term "great unwashed" meaning lower class or working class. It should be noted that I initially said "Shame on you" to SPECIFICO for using this language[177] - not realizing that it would escalate into a major issue. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. An aside that may relate to SPECIFICO’s motivation: above she referred to Trump’s “well-documented and amply sourced record of anti-Semitic statements”. This claim on SPECIFICO’s part is not documented by the record. Trump’s supporters undoubtedly include many people who are anti-Semitic, and he does not disavow them, but he himself does not seem to hold any such views or make such statements. Apparently she felt free to ascribe such contemptuous comments to Trump’s thinking because she assumes he holds Jews in contempt. IMO that is a false assumption on her part, and she should remove it from her arguments from now on. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC) @My very best wishes: The Washington Post article you linked does indeed discuss whether Trump is anti-Semitic - and concludes that he is not. (“My own guess is that Trump is not personally anti-Semitic (in the way that he clearly is, by contrast, sexist).”) As I said: he tolerates anti-Semitism in his followers, but IMO does not personally feel that way. This is not to say that her comment or implication was a BLP violation; IMO it was not. As for my advice above to SPECIFICO, I have taken that subject to her talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by JFG No strong opinion on this particular dispute, except that the whole conversation looks excessively emotional for a talk page where everybody should be focused on improving article content instead of blaming each other. But I do challenge the admins' response: how many times is SPECIFICO going to walk away from her inflammatory attitude with yet another warning to edit more carefully and be more respectful of her fellow editors? — JFG talk 20:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish I've been looking at this section while participating more actively in the section above. I think it would be reasonable to cut Sir Joseph a little slack over initiating this report. I can appreciate how, seeing the language in question, a person acting in good faith could become concerned about it, even though, at the same time, it looks to me that SPECIFICO was not actually stating it as an antisemitic assertion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC) NeilN, sure, that's very reasonable. But per "bad cases make bad case law" (not that this is law, of course!), this is perhaps a bad example to base that decision on. The language sounds pretty awful on first read, even though it isn't awful in context. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Bus stop This might squeak by as not being antisemitic but it is egregiously gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 19 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. I've read the entire conversation leading up to the reported diff and I'm really not happy with this report. It's a waste of time as any reader not actively looking to take offense would see that the comments SPECIFICO made were a hypothetical and exaggeration for effect but not anti-Semitic. An editor writing, "Trump's Mexicans are all rapists and criminals" is not anti-Mexican. Accusing an editor of anti-Semitism is a serious charge and better be backed with solid evidence, something that is completely lacking here. Unless there are other admin viewpoints, I intend to close this with a logged warning to Sir Joseph for displaying a battleground mentality. --NeilN talk to me 20:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Tryptofish I would be inclined to cut Sir Joseph a little slack if they hadn't been blocked for the same type of behavior before. --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC) (ec) Like MelanieN, I read SPECIFICO’s comment at issue not as an attempt by SPECIFICO to perpetuate antisemitic stereotypes, but rather as an attempt to ascribe such beliefs to Donald Trump. That's also not a very nice thing to do, given that WP:BLP applies to Trump also, and it's not like he is very commonly associated with this kind of overt prejudice (as opposed to several other unflattering traits he is commonly associated with). But at least it's on the talk page rather than in the article, and the previous cited sanctions are not for similar issues. I'd take no action at this time and ask SPECIFICO to be more careful in the future when discussion BLP topics. Sandstein 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC) That this is an antisemitic comment or insinuation, or even an attempt to ascribe beliefs to Trump, is a (fairly long) stretch. All I'm seeing is a response that provides alternative explanations for something that another editor (MelanieN) writes. (Frankly, 90% of the stuff in that thread is OR anyway!). I suggest closing this as no action. If a warning needs to be given, it should be to the filer for wasting everyone's time with sort of petty stuff. --regentspark (comment) 20:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)