Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 9 October 2017

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.

Stormwatch

Angel defender

2.29.61.73

Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

1. 00:20, 8 October 2017 Volunteer Marek added new content.
2. 00:31, 8 October 2017‎ I reverted
3. 01:16, 8 October 2017‎ Volunteer Marek reinstated their edit without consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Lengthy block log, but nothing recent seems relevant.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12 December 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I asked Volunteer Marek to self-revert but they have ignored me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am a little shocked at how many very experienced editors are using this report as a forum to discuss content. I brought this report because Volunteer Marek violated the simple, straightforward, and widespread DS rule not to reinstate edits that have been challenged without consensus. For GoldenRing to suggest that their violation was inadvertent is quite frankly beyond belief, especially after I politely notified VM of the violation and asked them to self-revert. VM is an extremely experienced editor who I understand focuses mostly on post-1932 American politics articles (as do I). Anyone who edits regularly in that space knows VM is one of the most consistent and ardent battlegrounders. It's exactly the sort of editing pattern that {{Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions}} is designed to cut down on. While of course I defer to admins' greater experience, I think merely issuing a warning to this editor and for such a clear-cut violation would be inappropriate. As for the proposal to do away with the restriction, I would not oppose it (never liked it anyway). But my main concern is that we should all be playing by the same set of rules, and politics battlegrounders with over 68,000 edits should be the last editors to get some sort of free pass. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer Marek's most recent comment shows a continued unwillingness or inability to distinguish a conduct dispute from a content dispute. As I mentioned on the talk page, the content dispute is over; the conduct dispute is not. VM seems to think this renders this report moot. No. The point of the arbitration remedy is to achieve consensus before disputed content is reinstated, not after. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:20, 8 October 2017

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

• Another user agreeing that Forbes is RS here
• Added a second source here
• Dr Fleischman himself using the second source and calling it reliable
• User:Doug Weller affirming the use of Buzzfeed as a source

Additionally, inline citations are not required in the lede as long as the text is well sourced in the body of the article. Which it is. Hence, it's sort of hard to understand the objection and why Dr. Fleischman is bringing this here.

Dr Fleischman's own edits

• Removing a source claiming it does not support text. Not true.

Masem's claim below that "any (Forbes) "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not (reliable)" is also completely false. The two discussions at WP:RSN are a) this one and b) this one. a) Most certainly DOES NOT say "definitely not reliable". What it says is "reliable if the contributor is reliable" which is the case here. Likewise b) again says "reliable if the contributor is reliable" and "no, it's not user generated content" (and in the particular case discussed there the commentators deemed Forbes reliable). Masem, please don't falsely misrepresent discussions like this, especially since this is something that is trivial to check. There's absolutely no "definitely not" in there by any stretch and I have no idea how you came up with that. Please retract or strike.

Regardless, like I said, 1) there are other sources in the article, 2) lede doesn't need citations if it has them in text, 3) additional citations could - and were - easily provided, all that Dr. Fleischman had to do was ask for them.

I'm also not quite sure what DS was suppose to be violated here. There was one revert by Dr. Fleischman and one by myself. I did start a discussion on talk. Dr. Fleischman responded by making the claim about Forbes' reliability. So I added a second source just to appease him, although, one more time, this actually was not necessary since there were inline citations in main body already.

So this is sort of a strange request over ... not sure what exactly, but definitely something trivial that could've (and I think was) handled simply through good faithed discussion and clearing up of what appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Fleischman's part.  Volunteer Marek  05:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, since Dr. Fleischman himself added the buzzfeed source and didn't object to the text within the main body, this seems like an attempt at playing some "gotcha" game. Volunteer Marek  06:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: - so yes, to begin with I did completely forget about that stupid restriction (and it is dumb as several other commentators here noted). I did remember it when Dr.Fleischman left the note on my page (at Oct 8, 18:35) but I did not "ignore it". Based on a) Dr.Fleischman's edit summary ( not a reliable source), b) the fact that he DID NOT object to the same text appearing in the body of the article (which makes their BLP claim transparently bad faithed) and c) the fact that he even added the Buzzfeed source as reliable to the same text in the body of the article himself , I took that to mean that what was being "challenged" was the source itself. So I went and added a source used by Dr. Fleischman , (on Oct. 9, 00:04), which I thought would address the "challenge". Since Dr.Fleishman himself, as well as another user and myself all agreed that Buzzfeed was reliable for this, the edit presumably had consensus once the new source was added.

Now reading Dr.Fleischman's comments below this looks more like he was trying to WP:GAME the restriction (which is one of the reasons the restriction is dumb) and set up a "gotcha" trap; neither his stated reason nor his notification on my talk page nor this report were made in good faith. The fact that he calls me a "politics battlegrounder" sort evidences that. What's more WP:BATTLEGROUNDish? Taking steps to address another editor's stated objection like I did (by adding a source he himself used), or running to WP:AE over a trivial matter and agitating for sanctions? Here's a hint: the degree of your true WP:BATTLEGROUNDness is directly proportional to the number of spurious time wasting WP:AE reports you file. Volunteer Marek  17:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And oh yeah, here Dr.Fleischman says the problem is solved but he still wants to persist with this AE report none the less. That's also a bit disingenuous since now I can't even self revert my own edit because the original edit has consensus... he's set up a perfect catch-22. Volunteer Marek  17:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I can just repeat - Dr. Fleischman indicated clearly that he was challenging the source, NOT the text itself (indeed they left the same text in the article and even added a source to it). So I reasonably inferred that providing a second source - one which he also used - was sufficient to address "the challenge". I guess I could go in and remove the original source he objected to (Forbes) to "self-revert" but now he says he's satisfied with the situation as it is, so I'm not exactly clear on whether that would be appropriate either.

You can't separate out the "content" issue from the "conduct" issue because in adding the second source (conduct) to address the objection I was working on the basis of what I understood was being challenged (content). Volunteer Marek  19:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

From the edits quoted, it appears that DrFleishman believes himself to be the sole arbiter of content on this article, and if he unilaterally removes something without discussion, he then threatens the good-faith user with AE if they revert for cause. It seems to me that a boomerang is in order here more than anything else. There was no violation of 1RR, since VM's first edit was adding content, not removing or altering another editor's content. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

Overall, there is no violation because 1RR was not violated, and one can just replace the Forbes source with the Buzzfeed source. Discussion is proceeding on the talkpage, and I don't see any issues.

1RR has this "loophole" because the initial edit is not counted as a revert, so the person who is objecting to the change finds it irritating that the initial change can be reinstated but if they revert it, they will break 1RR. In the ARBPIA area therefore, a slightly modified 1RR remedy is used, which reduces irritation. ArbCom might want to consider implementing that remedy for ARBAP2 as well. However, this is not a matter for AE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that the Talk page contains the infamous "consensus required" provision. I have two comments on this matter:

First, it is a very BAD IDEA. Thankfully, we got rid of it in the ARBPIA area using an ARCA request. Second, when I read the WP:ARBAP2 page or WP:ARBAPDS, it does not mention any such provision. Is the talk page template out of date? Who added this provision there?

Since I think it is a bad provision, I would not want any sanctions. Talk page discussion is proceeding normally, and things can be handled there. However, this issue ought to be clarified. By that I mean: please get rid of the provision. You can thank me later. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: As far as I can determine, the "consensus required" provision was first used by Bishonen on some pages (though they seem to have had a change of heart, and no longer support it). The template was, as far as I can judge, created by Coffee to add this provision. Coffee is no longer active; though I believe The Wordsmith has been keeping an eye on these kinds of things. Ks0stm simply added the template to various pages and didn't actually add the provision themselves.

This is all very confusing, but I might give it another shot at ARCA, with a more focused request, like the one for ARBPIA. As far as I can see, the AE discussion you linked to was very close to converging on the same solution as the one being used in ARBPIA, but somehow it petered out. So another attempt might well succeed. I'll have to look into this area a bit more, as time permits. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

@Sandstein: There is no 1RR violation but there appears to be a violation of the "do not reinstate challenged edits" provision, which is displayed prominently in the article's edit notice and on the talk page: 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.

I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute, and content is out of scope for AE anyway. As others noted, it should be resolved by talk page discussion. Until then, the contested edit should stay out. — JFG 09:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I share the general sentiment that this "do not restore challenged edits" provision-that-keeps-on-giving has created way more drama than it was supposed to prevent. It has been regularly abused for stonewalling any content change in controversial articles. Time to get rid of it completely. — JFG 19:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Legacypac

All I can see on review is normal editing, no violation of anything. Lede does not need sources for content sourced in the body. I don't see an edit war either. Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

The Forbes contributor sections are not reliable. They clearly say "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Edit warring to use them as a source for BLP related content is exactly what DS are for. --DHeyward (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

This discussion currently hinges on whether Forbes contributor articles are reliable, but that is utterly irrelevant to the question. The facts in evidence, which are clearly pertinent, are known through Joseph Bernstein’s original reporting in Buzzfeed, which has since been widely discussed. These facts are clearly pertinent to the article; the reversion with a comment complaining about the source cited was surely disingenuous, as numerous alternative sources (especially the original reporting) could be adduced in its place. Instead, the complainant sought to suppress these facts; a vain effort in all likelihood, but one that we have seen time and again here and which on which we expend a vast amount of time.

This sort of fact suppression makes Misplaced Pages seem ridiculous. Recent disclosure of well-funded Russian efforts to subvert Facebook and Twitter should give you pause. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System

Just a comment that if an admin imposes a discretionary restriction on a per article basis there should be a requirement that the restriction be periodically explained and renewed. According to the admin discussion below this restriction was imposed in 2016 - these should not be allowed to sit on a page indefinitely for no reason, until the admins who imposed the restriction just forget about it. If the admins do not renew these restrictions they should expire after a certain time (like 6 months.) Seraphim System 23:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

@JFG: RE: this "do not restore challenged edits" provision-that-keeps-on-giving has created way more drama than it was supposed to prevent. It has been regularly abused for stonewalling any content change in controversial articles. That's off-topic for this time and place, but I'd welcome separate discussion of it at a suitable venue. If you want to argue from an empirical basis, we'd need evidence. I disagree with your characterization of this provision and its effects. If you have diffs to support your statement, perhaps you could bring them to a suitable venue for orderly discussion. I see the opposite: wasteful edit-warring at AP articles that do not have this provision. I'd just as soon see it on all the AP DS articles.

As to this complaint, there was no harm done or intended, so it should be dismissed. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

• Only to comment that is long-standing that while Forbes articles written by staff are RS, any "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not. ( in July 2017 has two sections dealing with Forbes contributors). So they should not be used as a source for factual claim, much less any controversial one. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not retracting what I know is long-standard conclusions from RSN (eg and plenty more in a search). I will agree that if the contributor has an established track record that we might allow it as an RS, but we treat Contributors from Forbes as user-generated content. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• How is this not just a content dispute? The complaint does not identify any conduct rule that was supposedly violated.  Sandstein  06:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek:: Please comment on the question of whether you reinstated a reverted edit in violation of a discretionary sanction documented in the edit notice, as outlined by JFG above.  Sandstein  10:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The "consensus required" restriction may have issues, but it was validly imposed, and violated in this case. Volunteer Marek's confrontative response is a bad sign. An enforcement block would be warranted, but I think that admins who impose such broad restrictions - in this case, Ks0stm (talk · contribs) - should take the responsibility of enforcing them where appropriate. I'll therefore let them determine what to do here. The question of whether the source at issue is reliable is a content issue and outside the scope of this board.  Sandstein  19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• This does appear to be a violation of a consensus-before-reinsertion restriction; I'm not inclined to do anything about it beyond a warning, though. These restrictions are easy to fall foul of unintentionally and I don't think we should whack anyone for isolated, inadvertent violations. GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: This is not a topic-wide restriction but one that's applied to pages as a discretionary sanction, in this case by Ks0stm in 2016; it's logged under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2016#American_politics_2. As for overturning every instance of this restriction, I proposed it a few months ago here but it died a slow death; enough admins felt that the restriction was useful that nothing happened (and actually I think they had a point). There was a proposal to replace it wholesale with "Editors cannot restore edits which they have introduced within 24 hours if the edits have been reverted" which I think would have been an improvement, but there was not enough support to do it. If you want to have another crack at this, my advice would be to try proposing that change to the larger audience at AN. GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:GoldenRing as to the history of the restriction. If someone wanted to revisit the 'consensus required' provision at AN, they could certainly do so. But while we are here at Breitbart News, nothing prevents a consensus of AE admins from modifying the restriction applied to this particular page, if they want to remove the 'consensus required' provision and do something simpler. There is a procedure for changing page-level restrictions that is described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. Or, since User:Ks0stm applied that restriction to Breitbart News in December 2016 we could begin by asking that admin to reconsider. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Ks0stm explicitly applied the consensus required provision and logged it with the entry Breitbart News placed under 1RR and consensus required as indicated with {{2016 US Election AE}} as linked above. Otherwise, I quite agree with you. I don't have time to put together another proposal on this right now, but I would certainly support BU Rob13's proposal in the previous discussion if it was put forward again. GoldenRing (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)