Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tillman (talk | contribs) at 22:59, 23 July 2015 (→Statement by (username): placeholder, reply re email rq). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

NewsAndEventsGuy

Eric Corbett

Wavyinfinity

Peter Gulutzan

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 Peter Gulutzan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change :

Reposting. I believe this behavior warrants further review, and since Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution shows the problem is escalating, not resolving itself. Below is my comment on that thread, but other editors (User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Manul) posted additional info I won't reproduce on their behalf. Split comments per request.

---

Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible.

Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources.

Diffs:

• Not answering questions: , , , , , , , to NEG below
  • Strangely, he accused me of not answering his questions, but then didn't answer me when I asked what question I'd missed. NewsAndEventsGuy asked us both to summarize what questions had gone unanswered. I provided a list, but Peter refused to answer.

• Battleground behavior: ,

• Both editors keep misrepresenting others (e.g. by claiming I equate all "skeptics" to "deniers")) Peter repeats this claim, then insists on seeing a citation for it

• EW. While discussion ongoing, reverted 11 pages to his preferred version. , , , , , , , , , ,
• Aware of DS:

  — Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Peter Gulutzan

Statement by Manul

• Note that Peter Gulutzan was alerted to climate change discretionary sanctions on 18 March 2015, earlier than indicated above.

• Peter's comment on that date is indicative of his general attitude:

  By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh?

  This was despite my cordial disclaimer ("Apologies if you were previously alerted; I didn't find a tag in your history"), and our only prior interaction was a couple comments on the article talk page that were non-personal and on-topic.

• Peter proceeded to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, reverting my removal from the BLP of a link to a website publishing the subject's personal address. He did this despite the WP:BLPPRIVACY problem already mentioned on the talk page, even replying to it. This is either blind reverting without care for the reasons behind a change, or worse.

• The situation has not since improved. Most recently Peter claimed that I added a "smear" to the article "without attribution", saying in the edit comment, you don't "clean up" by pouring dirt. The over-the-top personalization from Peter is typical, but more importantly the claim is untrue. My change to the lead cited high-quality reliable sources, and it merely restated what had been in the article body for a month using the same sources.

• Considering the above diffs from myself and others, the disruption appears to stem from Peter's inability to approach the subject dispassionately, imparting a narrative of personalized conflict where editors are simply trying to use the best sources and report them accurately.

Manul ~ talk 04:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Peter:

• Re WP:BLPPRIVACY, to be absolutely clear, the timeline is:

• Peter reverts, restoring Watts' personal address in the article, with edit comment See talk page "Improving the lead".
• Ten minutes later, he replies to my comment about BLPPRIVACY in the thread "Improving the lead". This is the right comment; I did not link to the wrong one.
• Either Peter didn't read the comment to which he replied -- blindly reverting -- or he willingly violated BLPPRIVACY.
• Despite the government website clearly showing Anthony Watts' personal address, he later tried to justify his change by saying it was IntelliWeather's address. I pointed out that IntelliWeather is registered to his home address, as are his other domains.

• I agree 100% with the Jimbo Wales quote. It is a recurring theme that discussion about accurately characterizing the WUWT blog as a climate change denialism blog (which it is, according to high-quality and scholarly sources) will eventually be derailed by a switch to characterizing Watts as a "denier". It is a red herring, and I have said so in discussions where Peter has participated. When the switch happens, as Peter has done in this AE, the conversation is destined to go round and round.

Manul ~ talk 22:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

Re Mann jess's accusations ...

Re "Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution": I indeed made a request for dispute resolution re redirection to Global warming controversy or Climate change denial, saying "... if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording." but got no reply.

Re: pointing to something "more sympathetic to the fringe view": no, I said "slightly less vicious redirect", that is, I care about people who are accused of having the view.

Re: having "dismissed high quality sources": no, they're poor quality, and I have tried to discuss sources despite Mann jess referring to my complaints as "nonsense" and "insane" and "nonsense" again), and I questioned repeatedly what these sources supposedly support, with no reply.

Re me labelling editors as "activists" or calling them "too biased to find the right sources": there are no diffs, I have no idea what Mann jess is talking about.

Re me refusing questions from NewsAndEventsGuy: yes I refused to answer a question which was prefaced with accusations that I said I found offensive, of course, as I explained very extensively at WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy.

Re I "didn't answer me when I asked what questions I'd missed": look at the diff that Mann jess supplied. Mann jess misquoted me twice using quote marks, I objected, Mann jess misquoted again and asked "What sources are being overlooked or misinterpreted?" (not "what questions I'd missed"), and I answered "As for the question about sources, I have no idea what it refers to".

Re "battleground behavior": no, I said on my talk page "I'm acknowledging the existence of a battle" meaning I thought others did it, and "hit me with your best shot, eh? " meaning I thought others intended it.

Re "claiming equate all 'skeptics' to 'deniers'": no, look at the diffs, I didn't say that, I said that it's necessary to show all skeptics are deniers if you're going to change all so all redirects for skeptics point to denial, and that a supposed source had not done so.

Re "EW" (which I suppose means WP:EW): No. Look at the 11 diffs: the first doesn't revert anything, the tenth was self-reverted on July 9, the other nine were all restorations so that the pages were in the state they were in before the dispute began, which is normal when there's no consensus.

Re Manul's accusations ...

Re "Peter's comment on that date is indicative ...", my note about deleting that comment from my talk page is here.

Re WP:BLPPRIVACY: when Manul refers to my reply he shows the wrong link, my actual reply on March 18 is here, please read it rather than Manul's link.

Re "you don't clean up by pouring dirt": Manul had made a section heading "Cleaning up the lead" which uses a hurrah! phrase "cleaning up", I balanced with a boo! phrase "pouring dirt". I mentioned "without attribution" because the text did not attribute the words "climate change denial" in the lead to the opinionated sources (I distinguish attribution from citation and I believe WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does too).

Re "editors are simply trying to use the best sources": I'm an editor too, one of several who don't agree with Mann jess or Manul what sources are best, I agree with Jimbo Wales:

"Yes, as always, good sourcing is crucial. Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Peter Gulutzan

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

• Manul's 4th point in the bullet list is telling; also, since it is clear that no one disagrees with the fact that Watt runs WUWT and the lead of WUWT does say Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism or denial created in 2006 by Anthony Watts (both as of this edit and on June 27 when Manul made the edit to Watts), I find Peter's position in this discussion to be extremely weak. However, I will wait for others to comment before assessing more. - Penwhale | 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Tillman

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 Tillman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change :

Reposting. Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible.

Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources.

Diffs:

• Sourcing, and dismissing reliable sources
  • Characterizes all sources as "personal opinions by opponents". No substantive reply to discussion above.
  • Adds inaccurate summary cited to a facebook post. His summary completely contradicts the citation.
  • He tells other users to find sources, but he never lists any. Here (bottom), he refuses to analyze sources provided, or provide his own, but continues edit warring and arguing.

• Refusal to respond or answer questions
  • Tells an editor to go away, without responding to comments
  • Mistaken use of rollback, with no substantive reply on talk. Entirely ignores comments and sources above.
  • Edit warring without substantive responses: , , refuses to respond to questions

• NOTFORUM, TPG, etc
  • Racist language: . .
  • ranting without sources
  • ,,
  • BLP vio: "The man is an incompetent blowhard". He was warned, and simply removed the warnings.
  • Character assassination of Michael Mann, cited to primary sources and a google search.
  • Suggests we should create a "wall of shame" for "climate alarmists".

• Personal attacks and Battleground attitude:
  • "do you need reading lessons",
  • calls editors "activists", , ,

• DS Warnings: ,

  — Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Tillman

Statement by ThePowerofX

Tillman's editing has concerned me for some time. This user has made his feelings clear that he considers Misplaced Pages to be a battleground for climate wars:

• "Thanks for the prompt response. Saving those of us on the front lines from more work picking up after this fellow." (diff)
• "I try to avoid the disciplinary side as much as possible -- in fact I've been avoiding the area lately becaise it's such a pain to change anything, in the face of the True Believers." (diff)

Tillman made the above remarks without provocation and against the cordial atmosphere prior disciplinary action was being conducted, and was given a firm warning by Sandstein for his battlefield mentality. (diff) Yet his disruptive behaviour continues.

In 2014, climate scientist Michael E. Mann was seeking to bring a libel suit against columnist and talk show host Mark Steyn. There was some discussion in opinion journals and legal blogs as to whether or not Mann could fairly be described as a "public figure". It was thought that an affirmative answer could diminish Mann's chances of success. At precisely this time, Tillman appeared on Michael Mann's talk page to propose a new subsection with a rather conspicuous and pronounced header: "Public outreach on global warming". (diff) This proposal was accepted and added by a different user several days later. (diff)

More recently, he added an inflammatory opinion piece to Michael Mann's biography, by Clive Cook, titled "Climategate and the Big Green Lie", that included the by-line, "The so-called exoneration of disgraced climate scientists has only furthered the damage they have done to their cause", (diff) despite repeatedly being advised against using outdated, fringe sources.

Same user also has no problem warping other Misplaced Pages articles around a fringe narrative. Gatekeeper is one example. (diff) — TPX 21:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nigelj

During the last few weeks, I was concerned when I saw this:

• "Have at it pal. Pretty sure I have a file of your best stuff. See you there! But watch out for that boomerang..."

Upset by this:

• "As always, thanks for fighting the good fight against the POV-pushers."

And worried by this:

• "Peter: could you please drop me an email at xxxxxATgmailDOTcom, to discuss developments in a CC topic of mutual interest?"

--Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tillman

• I have other committments for the next several days, and then have a trip scheduled. For the moment, since one of the Arbs commented on my external discussion attempts: this consisted of my leaving a note at another editor's talk page, asking him to email me. As it happened, he declined: Talk page reply. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Tillman

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

• I'm having issues with Tillman's attempt at external discussions to advance argument in this topic area. - Penwhale | 06:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Debresser

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 Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ykantor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Debresser (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:1RR

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 11:38, 21 July 2015‎ Debresser's first revert
2. 00:55, 22 July 2015‎ Debresser's revert which breaches the wp:1RR rule
3. 04:30, 22 July 2015 Debresser's revert which breaches again the wp:1RR rule

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Block log (rather old blocks).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

- You have been asked twice to revert yourself as you breached the wp:1RR rule, but you ignored them. see: Debresser- violated the wp:1RR

- A civilized person can express his criticism in the talk page before the taking the extreme step of reverting it again.

- Moreover, you are out of the consensus.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of request for arbitration enforcement

Discussion concerning Debresser

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 Debresser

The reason I am being reported here today is because I reverted parts of this edit and this edit, by removing page numbers and fragments of sentences from a quotation inside a citation template. I can't think of anything further removed from the conflict which stands at the basis of the WP:ARBPIA restriction.

My first reaction was that if that trifle is reason to restrict an otherwise perfectly productive editor, who has been contributing since 2007 or 2008 and who is one of Misplaced Pages's 500 most active editors, then just go ahead guys...

My second reaction was that this is a base attempt by YKantor to push through his edit with WP:WIKILAWYERING. The edit is blatantly inferior, and other editors have already agreed with this on the talkpage.

Make no mistake: if I will be sanctioned for reverting an inferior edit to a quotation template on an issue not related to WP:ARBPIA, the message will not be that edit warring is detrimental. The message will be that below par editors can push through their edits with the Wikilawyering that combined with the bureaucracy on Misplaced Pages has already sent many good editors home forever.

I have violated the 1RR rule. I was at the time not aware of the edit restriction on this page. Please note that since I was issued a warning about it, I have not reverted further. I have instead opened a discussion. Restricting me at this point is not necessary to stop further escalation of the edit war, which has stopped, and as far as it regards me, will be only punitive. I have already explained the message it will send in my opinion to other editors.

I know that editors who are reported to WP:AE are expected to roll over and play dead. I propose a more realistic approach, commensurate to the gravity of the transgression (which is in my opinion ridiculously small), the lack of Good faith (law) from the side of the reporting editor, and the lack of positive influence expected to rise form this report, for all sides involved.

Regarding the note on my talkpage by EdJohnston, whom I thank for his note, please see my answer there. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 I agree with your assessment of the situation.

@Kingsindian I also have my self-imposed revert restrictions, but this was not one of them. I never expected YKantor to not recognize the inferiority of his edit after he was reverted and the edit summary explained why.

@EdJohnston As I said on my talkpage, 1RR should not apply to such unrelated edits. WP:IAR comes strongly to mind. Mind you, I am not saying that to show I am right, because I already said above that I simply hadn't noticed the WP:ARBPIA restriction, but on an academic level, I think I have a point here. Even if you disagree, it should definitely be a reason to mitigate any sanctions to an absolute minimum. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@All I am willing to take upon myself not to edit Misplaced Pages for 3 days, if that will make anybody happy, let's say Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by GoldenRing

You need to say which remedy of which case you are looking for enforcement of. Just linking to WP:1RR is not very useful. Did you mean WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction? Also it'd be useful to know whether Debresser has ever been made aware of the 1RR restriction (or the ARBPIA case more generally). GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by StevenJ81

In my opinion, this is a witchhunt. The reversions were principally about MoS issues and only peripherally substantive. I don't think Debresser handled it the best way possible. Yet, I believe that Debresser is correct on the MoS issues. I suggested a way forward for the other editors which would allow 100% of the consensus content to remain intact while addressing Debresser's MoS issues on citation templates. So far, I saw no response on that. My only conclusion is that the other editors want an excuse to invoke an enforcement action here to "get rid of" Debresser, rather than addressing the substantive question of his disagreement. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

People simply cannot bear that the WP:WRONGVERSION stays up a few days while the issues get sorted on the talkpage. There was no reason for edit-warring. Let the discussion sort itself out on the talk page, then the correct edit can be made. I have a personal rule for reverts: even I believe I am right, and even if I believe I didn't break 1RR (which Debresser clearly broke), I simply self-revert when asked. It saves much drama. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ykantor

I submitted this request for enforcement.

-@GoldenRing: Thank you for the explanation concerning the remedy.

---As for "whether Debresser has ever been made aware of the 1RR restriction", As I wrote here, I reminded him twice to undo himself , linking to the wp:1RR page. He responded that he was aware of the wp:1RR rule, and tried to explain that his edit was not related to wp:1RR.

--- When I encounter such an edit, I always remind the editor to undo himself, and until this time, the edit is always undone. This is the first time when the infringing editor refuse to undo himself even after being reminded twice.

--- Why Debresser is deleting a sourced material? why can't he suffice to explain his point and letting the other editor (e.g. myself) a chance to fix the issue?

-@StevenJ81: Yours: this is a witch hunt. Even if reminded him twice?

I'm not saying he did the right thing. I am saying that you could have resolved the problem by simply dividing the citation into three individual citations and have been done, and not brought the whole problem here. I therefore wonder why you bothered, other than for punitive reasons. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

-@Kingsindian: Yours:I simply self-revert when asked. It saves much drama. Of course. Ykantor (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

I am involved in the discussions but I want to point out that Debresser also broke 1RR on another article (1 and 2), was informed (here 2 times) but didn't mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

• Let's see if User:Debresser will respond. A 1RR is a 1RR whether or not a concern about the MOS could have motivated the revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• This shows that Debresser has been warned as early as last August with regards to ARBPIA DS; thus, this request can end in either a block based on 1RR or sanction under DS if necessary. - Penwhale | 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)