Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oldstone James

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" 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

Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Year-long block (and subsequent indefinite admin block), imposed at WP:AE#Oldstone_James, logged at [1].

Administrator imposing the sanction

Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I have copied this appeal from Oldstone James' talk page and have notified Guerillero of this.[2] El_C 02:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Oldstone James

The main reason for my indefinite block is my editing at the article Race and intelligence, as per this statement by the blocking administrator. The specific reason why my editing was disruptive is edit-warring, as per the block summary by El_C.

Indeed, it has been explained to me by El C that my editing was unacceptable: reverting - whether following WP:BRD or not - is synonymous with edit-warring, and edit-warring is prohibited by WP:EW - especially at such a contentious article as Race and Intelligence; I had indeed made several reverts at the article, and so was duly blocked from editing for a week.

However, although I now realise that my editing was disruptive, I did not know that at the time of editing: my last sanction was a creationism topic ban imposed 10 months ago, after which several experienced editors, the most vocal of which I recall as being Guy Macon, suggested that I stick to WP:BRD to avoid edit-warring. I had taken this advice to heart, and in the past 10 months, during which I was editing extensively, I had violated WP:BRD only on very select occasions, and even on those rare occasions I had a clear reason for doing so (e.g. re-reverting an obvious misunderstanding/misreading of my edit); on these occasions also, I didn't go beyond one re-revert even a single time. For example, even out of the diffs listen in the AN report] that led to my block, the only edit that violated BRD was a reversion of a clear case of misunderstanding, whereby my edit was originally reverted for being inadvertent, even when it was in fact intentional. Needless to say as well, no bright-line rule such as WP:3RR or the WP:1RR restriction since it was imposed (after which only 1 revert was made) was violated. Now, none of this is an excuse to justify my editing at Race and Intelligence; it was wrong and won't be repeated in the future. However, I honestly thought that I wasn't edit-warring at the time because I simply wasn't told that all reverts not covered by WP:3RRNO are considered acts of edit-warring, and was instead specifically advised to follow the BRD-cycle, so my consequent edit-warring was an example of my genuine misunderstanding and confusion rather than a disregard for the rules or a general disruptive tendency.

Speaking of a lack of disruptive tendency, I had been editing constructively for 10 months without encountering any problems whatsoever; the only occasion on which my editing was found to be problematic was the one that led to the indefinite block, which was a result of my misunderstanding of the rules. Now, I had received earlier blocks than the one that eventually led to my topic ban 10 months ago, but I was just figuring out how Wikipedia works, with my lack of experience as well as persistence getting me in trouble. I am a totally different editor now, which is reflected by the fact that, despite editing many times a week consistently throughout the past year, I didn't encounter any problems up until now. My last topic ban taught me a lot of things, such as that I should never assume consensus by myself, that I should take to the talk page instead of re-reverting regardless of whether the edit that I don't agree with was part of an edit war or was made without or against consensus, and that a respectful and civil attitude is a key determinant of the community's views on my editing even if the editing itself isn't problematic (that's not to say that the editing that led to my topic ban wasn't problematic).

In light of all of the above, my proposition is simple: given that I have proven that I can learn from my mistakes and edit constructively, I believe that it is reasonable to give me one last chance and a fragile benefit of the doubt (WP:ROPE), by which I mean allow me to edit but block me indefinitely at the first shadow of a doubt. This will guarantee that my unblock is a net positive for Wikipedia: I will certainly improve many articles, by wikignoming, i.e. fixing punctuational and grammatical errors, if by no other means, and if I somehow disrupt Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form, it will only take a simple user complaint and/or admin click to get me off Wikipedia entirely. Surely, this can't be too bad for the project? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

There was a discussion open for 3 days where the only suggestion was an indef block. Several people in the discussion above brought up bludgeoning on the talk page in addition to the edit warring. There was a general sense that Oldstone James was pushing a POV within the topic area of R&I.

I see more introspection in this appeal than the previous draft on their talk page, and that is a positive sign. I would suggest that any unblock come with a topic ban from R&I. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would rather not have a topic ban that applies in some places, but not others --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

I have had previous disputes with Oldstone James, and am quite familiar with the circumstances that led up to the block. In my considered opinion all sanctions should be lifted. I think that we are going to look back a year from now and be glad that we did. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As a second choice, I would support a lifting of the ban combined with a six month topic ban from race and intelligence, creationism, or both. I would advise Oldstone James that if he gets unblocked without the topic ban, he voluntarily avoid those areas for at least six months.

I do have one concern about a topic ban. Normally an editor with a TB has to completely avoid a topic, but I wouldn't mind an exception that allows him to post questions about the banned topics on my talk page. As I have worked on the various pages listed at WP:YWAB I have occasionally had the experience of someone who opposes what Wikipedia says about a topic correctly identifying flaws or errors in the page. And of course I can always say "stay off my talk page" if things go south...

A question was raised about mentoring. I do intend to watchlist his talk page and offer advice as needed, but I have no intention of following his edit history looking for trouble. I would really like to see how any such advice is received before making any commitment past that. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at User talk:Guy Macon#Interesting comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Grayfell

• "(e.g. re-reverting an obvious misunderstanding/misreading of my edit)" - Oldstone James's opinion of what's "obvious" is precisely the problem here, so this isn't reassuring.
• "However, I honestly thought that I wasn't edit-warring at the time because I simply wasn't told..." - Oldstone James was told by several editors, but regardless, Oldstone James' block history shows several missed opportunities to figuring it out without being told. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by ජපස

I think there are a few things we need to take into consideration.

• WP:AE is instituted because it is sometimes important to make dramatic action for topics under discretionary sanctions (believe me, I know how this works). Second-guessing an admin who takes an action via WP:AE will undermine this intention, so I think we need to tread very cautiously here if that's what others think we should do.

• I have some sympathy with people who think that OJ might change. I have had that hope as well. However, the user has adopted a level of arrogance that makes him very difficult to work with. For example, consider the conversation I had with him: User_talk:Oldstone_James#jps_discussion_(cont.). OJ simply does not listen to other editors who do not have the WP:PUNITIVE authority over him and continues to argue that he will only listen to admins. He acts as though he is entitled to a detailed explanation of every considered opinion made about his actions, and does not know when to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Time and again, this has been the patterned reaction. I don't think that bodes well.

• In principle, a wikignoming OJ would be fine. But what guarantee do we have right now that he will stick to this? In the past he has promised to steer clear of controversial articles only to wander back. He seems to have a general issue with forgetting about things such as topic bans: User_talk:Oldstone_James#Topic_ban which means there will have to be someone that needs to monitor his work if/when he returns. He also generally does not seem to understand basic rules and ideas on Wikipedia. He was advised to follow WP:BRD, but took this as a license to revert any other editor on sight without so much as a consideration of WP:3RR. He still seems to think that he did not violate WP:3RR, even though he was judged to have done so by an administrator in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive403#User:Oldstone_James_reported_by_User:ජපස_(Result:one_week,_partial). I am pretty amazed at the audacity it takes to claim, I had been editing constructively for 10 months without encountering any problems whatsoever. This is simply false, he has encountered many problems including a denied topic ban appeal, some admin warnings, and now an AE+indef ban. Crucially: This all happening in the context of a topic where he was warned there were active discretionary sanctions.

So what do we do here? I think we need to encourage OJ to work in a more collaborative fashion outside of the places he is attracted to. Wikicommons, wikisource, even en.simple would, perhaps, be possibilities for him to work within a community and establish some experience to retrain his approach to work better here at en.wp.

jps (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

There seems to be an offer by Guy Macon to mentor and a good reception by Oldstone James of the initiative. If Guy makes it a little more official and James engages to retract from a situation when Guy recommends it (versus debating with endless justifications including with Guy), I think that an unblock could be promising. That said, another topic ban may also be difficult to avoid, but that is a reasonable alternative to not being able to edit at all for a year... —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding: I wasn't sure where to comment, I don't consider myself directly involved but am also active in the topic area and have edited on Race and Intelligence and its talk page recently. —PaleoNeonate – 07:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

My starting point is always the edit counter: [3]. 3789 edits as of right now, an average of less than two per day. I'm not convinced that is enough to earn a pass for the quantity of disruption and argumentation, and Guerillero's block is clearly defensible and proportionate.

A large chunk of OJ's edits are to Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and consist of often WP:MANDY-level apologia for creationist pseudoscience, leading to a topic ban. And a lot of the rest appear to promote racist pseudoscience. But let's be charitable. A dual topic ban from creationism and race / intelligence would be OK by me, and see if he can work productively with others outside his hot-button areas. On the other hand, I don't think he's a loss to the project if that doesn't happen. He needs to learn, and quickly, why his edits have been considered problematic. Mandruss is right to note the illusory competence issue here. Guy (help!) 17:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave

I still have concerns about OJ's characterization of the situation.

• In this appeal: "Needless to say as well, no bright-line rule such as WP:3RR or the WP:1RR restriction since it was imposed (after which only 1 revert was made) was violated." and "I had been editing constructively for 10 months without encountering any problems whatsoever; the only occasion on which my editing was found to be problematic was the one that led to the indefinite block, which was a result of my misunderstanding of the rules." Both of these comments were made while under a partial block for violating 3RR and show that this user does not fully comprehend the problems with their editing.
• Also in this appeal: "if I somehow disrupt Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form, it will only take a simple user complaint and/or admin click to get me off Wikipedia entirely." This is a common refrain from editors facing an indef and, as evidenced by Oldstone's talk page, blocking an editor doesn't put a swift end to their disruption. Instead, I'm afraid we would see a series of wall-of-text appeals, and the time spent dealing with them would outweigh the benefits of any Wikignoming.
• In Oldstone's reply to Guerillero [4]: "I just want to give a quick overview of the situation at R&I: there currently seem to be two camps; one camp accuses the other of censorship, science denialism and POV pushing, and the other camp accuses the other party of racism, promotion of pseudoscience, and POV pushing. The two camps are roughly equal in numbers, with a slight numerical majority of editors being on the former camp (which I am on). You can get a very nice overview of the opinions and size of these two groups of editors here or, perhaps less clearly, here. Either way, it is far from unanimous that my editing constituted POV pushing." This statement takes a battleground view of the dispute and implies that the number of editors on each "side" matters. We need to be talking about the merits of each position in accordance with policies and guidelines, not counting how many editors are accusing whom of what. This is not an attitude that is conducive to collegial editing.

Oldstone seems to be working towards a better understanding of BRD but I don't think this is sufficient to continue editing at R&I. This editor needs a topic ban at the very least. –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Oldstone James

I was involved in none of the article activity that led to the indef, so take my comments with a small grain of salt.

What I see is a guy who perhaps has failed to grasp the extent of what he has yet to learn about Wikipedia editing, and so has overestimated his competence level. This, in turn, resulted in an overly-aggressive approach to the editing process. This is a fairly common failing, and he is only 20 years old if his UP is to be believed. We have to be prepared to show some tolerance for this in 20-year-olds or institute a 30-year age minimum (which would reduce the problem but not eliminate it).

This points to the serious flaw in the current culture, which tolerates a large degree of aggressiveness, even abusiveness, when one is in the right, while we always believe we're in the right.

OJ was very cooperative when I approached him about his signature, and this was in stark contrast to the hostile, entitled, and self-occupied reactions I have received from many editors. Taking his comments here at face value, he gives every indication that he gets it and is willing to learn. His appeal lacks the defensiveness, persecution complex, and accusations of corruption that are so common in appeals (those are core-personality indicators that tell me an editor is probably beyond help). If we dismiss that because of the context, I don't know how an appeal could ever be successful, and we might as well get rid of that due process as a waste of time. He does have some history of behavior issues, but that's true in all cases of appealed indefs.

I generally feel we are too tolerant of chronic disrupters, but this may be a case where we have erred in the opposite direction. Maybe I'm too late, but a temporary topic ban would've seemed more appropriate to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

I reviewed the circumstances leading up the block, as well as what took place shortly after, and find the block to be absurdly strict. Additionally, Guerillero has made no attempt to provide any sort of meaningful feedback about the block when requested. I would overturn the block. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Oldstone James

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

• I could support supplanting the block with a broadly construed topic ban in the ARBR&I topic area, per WP:ROPE. El_C 16:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @JzG: I'm fine with ARBPS also being bundled with the topic ban. El_C 17:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment. I think multiple topic bans could actually do the trick. It's a sizable enough 'pedia that Oldstone James could happily edit with those restrictions in place without needing to violate them at any point. El_C 03:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think you would need a broadly construed Creationism topic ban as well. That's why I supported a block to begin with; when you need to apply more than one topic ban, you have to consider how much of a positive the editor actually is. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to believe with the broad topic ban(s), over an indef. Even in AE, where more dramatic steps are utilised, I'm inclined towards what the least, dramatic, option is. The fact that there were multiple users above who felt this user was at least capable of wiki compliant discussion ultimately pushed me to feel that there is hope for this user. Obviously an R&I TBAN, I'm fairly neutral outside that area to what is best covered. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As an addendum to that, I've no objection to slight exemption to the TBANs to allow them to discuss it on Guy Macon's talk page, to the degree that they're willing to do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Zarcademan123456

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2020 (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 Zarcademan123456 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Zarcademan123456 (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 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Zarcademan123456 changes confiscated --> expropriated in countless West Bank villages/towns, in spite of the fact that the source (=ARIJ) says "confiscated". Examples: 09:40, 22 February 2020 change confiscated --> expropriated 09:44, 22 February 2020 change confiscated --> expropriated 21:14, 22 February 2020 After s/he is told to stop, s/he continues with edit-line: "according to google "confiscate" means the action of taking or seizing someone's property with authority; seizure. "a court ordered the confiscation of her property" "expropriation" means the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit. "the decree provided for the expropriation of church land and buildings" by using "confiscation" instead on "expropriation" is a bias that denies Israel its legitimacy as a state" 22:37, 22 February 2020 edit line: "(put the word "confiscate" in quotations because of the loaded political connotations (the accepted term is "expropriations", as noted in the wikipedia page land expropriations in the West Bank)" Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any blocked 22 December 2019 with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) blocked 28 December 2019 with an expiration time of 2 weeks (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted, 28 August 2019 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Comment: I understand that Zarcademan123456 does not like the word "confiscated" (According to Zarcademan123456: "by using "confiscation" instead on "expropriation" is a bias that denies Israel its legitimacy as a state") Nevertheless, the source (=ARIJ) use the word "confiscated", when Zarcademan123456 changes "confiscated" to "expropriation" over lots of West Bank villages/towns, without any source, then they are being highly disruptive, IMO. We cannot go around changing things in the IP area just because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC) It is interesting that some editors here claim that "confiscated" is equal to "expropriated", when Zarcademan123456 explicitly have stated multiple times that they consider them unequal, and that "confiscated" is implies a more critical attitude to Israel than "expropriated", and that is the reason why they change the words in dozens of articles. (See my diffs above, and Zero0000's diffs below.) If we all are allowed to change words according to "what we like", then that will open for complete anarchy in the I/P area, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Comment: User:EdJohnston I'm fine with closing this report, IF (and it' a big IF!) Zarcademan123456 has understood that he cannot change wording because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", nor can he continue making up stuff (like what I undid here). I tried to make him understand this, (both on my talk page, and on his), but he totally ignored me, and continued making the same changes to dozens of articles. Hence this report. Zarcademan123456 hasn't really been editing since I filed this report, but if closing it without action it taken as a sign that he can continue what he was doing, then I fear we will be back here on AE in no time, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456 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 Zarcademan123456 first of all, if this is the wrong place to post this i apologize. while i continue to disagree with the term "confiscate" Nableezy is absolutely correct...the occupation (I prefer disputed territories, but one must pick one's battles, lol) began during the war, not afterZarcademan123456 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy Besides these edits, the user has introduced factual errors in a huge number of article. For example, this is just false. The occupation began during the war not after, and the reason for the change is to not include that the territory remains occupied. The user has been doing this to every article about a village or settlement in the West Bank, and cleaning up after his or her edits is becoming less of a joy, especially as he or she persists without offering even the semblance of discussion. nableezy - 23:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Well I take that back, the user responded on my talk page just now. So forget my comment here. nableezy - 23:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Number 57 I see no problem with the word 'expropriate'; it's more commonly used for government intervention, as is the case here. Bringing someone to WP:AE over semantics like this is a bit much. We do not have to use the exact same words as sources if there are appropriate (or more appropriate as may be the case here) synonyms, although I seem to recall that this point has fallen on deaf ears when made to the complainant previously. Number 57 01:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich ARIJ might use the word confiscate, but they’re not the only source, and confiscate is definitely not the word used by the consensus of sources. I would provide links and examples to back that up, but this is so obviously a content dispute and thus not appropriate for determination at AE. Levivich (Talk) 01:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Also worth noting that Huldra is the editor who added “confiscate” to all these articles in the first place, and if you look at the articles’ histories, you can see various attempts to change it, combined with the usual edit warring we see in almost all PIA articles. And, as always, it’s very difficult to say definitely that one side in the edit war is right or wrong (not unlike the actual war). I don’t envy admin asked to regulate in these situations. How do we get PIA editors (on all sides) to edit collaboratively instead of this constant battleground? Levivich (Talk) 04:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 It is obvious that AE is not the right place to decide whether "confiscate" or "expropriate" is the best word in this circumstance. However, it is highly relevant to AE that Zarcademan123456 gave an explicitly political reason for going against the source on many occasions [5] [6] [7] [8]. This is disruptive editing. Zarcademan123456 must learn to seek consensus before undertaking changes to multiple articles that are likely to be disputed. Zerotalk 02:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Levevich wrote "Also worth noting that Huldra is the editor who added “confiscate” to all these articles in the first place". Wow, Huldra used the same word that the source uses! Multiple times even! I'm shocked to the core. Zerotalk 08:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia By the look of it, the case turns upon the following behavioural issues: - Edit warring: whether Zarcademan123456 carried on repeating the same change in multiple articles after the point they should have realised there was significant opposition. - Misrepresentation of cited sources: substituting a term with a different meaning to the cited sources. With regard to the latter, it has been asserted above that the terms "confiscation" and "expropriation" are equivalent. Sources such as [9] and [10] point out that there are important differences: both involve a change in ownership, but, with expropriation, compensation is usually paid and it is not necessarily carried out against the wishes of the original owner.     ←   ZScarpia   11:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by selfstudier I have noticed that this editor has a habit of making edits based on his own personal opinion rather than on sources; I mentioned that to him a couple times recently on his talk page. I have been nevertheless assuming good faith on his part up to now.Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by (other user) Result concerning Zarcademan123456 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I guess the core question here is this: is Zarcademan123456 edit-warring or editing in defiance of consensus. The OP does not provide evidence of this. Guy (help!) 02:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC) This appears to be a content dispute. We often paraphrase sources rather than quoting them exactly, and the best way to do that is a content decision. It is not up to AE to decide what wording an article should use. If the two here can't come to an agreement, an RfC may be the way forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC) The editor has used language in edit summaries about 'deligitimization of the state of Israel' that appear to be pro-Israeli. In other words, the editor is showing they don't intend to edit neutrally. Though the actual change of 'confiscate' to 'expropriate' might be a matter of word choice, the reasons for the change seem to be to promote the Israeli view of these activities. The legitimacy of the state of Israel is not a matter for our articles to resolve or for Wikipedia to have an opinion on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC) I checked to see if Z was continuting this type of edit after the filing of User:Huldra's complaint. I didn't notice any. Also relevant are the talk threads at User talk:Nableezy#expropriate vs. confiscate and User talk:Zarcademan123456#changes to west bank articles. He promised that 'I will cease with the changing of the terms'. It seems to me that the editor might have got the point. Certainly the block record is concerning, but we can keep an eye on further events. This AE might be closed with no admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Closing with no action per my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Mbsyl

Mbysl blocked one month for repeated topic ban violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 24 February 2020 (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 Mbsyl User who is submitting this request for enforcement Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Mbsyl (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision : A BLP topic ban was imposed by Acroterion. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it All of these are violations of the BLP topic ban, if not worse. For context, all of these are about the surviving stabbing victim of the 2017 Portland train attack. He was stabbed in the neck while confronting the attacker, who was shouting racist insults at strangers. 18 February 2020 to Talk:Rose City Antifa - Regarding the surviving victim, Mbsyl says that his "violence-against-speech helped contribute to people dying". There is no evidence of this callous claim. 18 February 2020 - Mbysl tries to cast doubt about the victim's reliability based on personal opinion. 20 February 2020 - Compares the victim to a Nazi. 21 February 2020 - Doubles down on Nazi comparison. Mbsyl says getting stabbed is somehow similar to a Nazi "stabbing minorities". Mbysl further says that this living person belongs to a "movement based around violence". 21 February 2020 to 2017 Portland train attack - This edit tries to paint the stabbing victim (who is definitely a WP:BLP1E) in a negative light by emphasizing the defense attorneys' unsuccessful court arguments, stripped of context. 23 February 2020 - Says on talk that More evidence that he is part of this new movement on the left that embraces tactics involving violence, intimidation, and doxxing. These are serious allegations about a living person which are unsupported by sources. 23 February 2020 - Similar doubling-down and further insinuations about the victims, including claiming that the victim's past unrelated protest activity can be fairly compared to "promoting drunk driving". If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 27 January 2020 by Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint The attacker was recently found guilty on all counts. The victims were never, as far as I know, credibly accused of any crime related to this attack. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notifed at 01:00, 24 February 2020 Discussion concerning Mbsyl 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 Mbsyl Statement by (username) Result concerning Mbsyl This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It appears that all of the edits by Mbsyl listed above violate the BLP topic ban imposed by Acroterion on 27 January. The wording of the ban makes it apply to living persons both in articles and on talk pages. I suggest a one-month AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC) I concur with EdJohnston. El_C 03:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed more topic ban violations on Mbsyl's talkpage subsequent to the block, along with attacks on Grayfell. If these recur, talkpage access should be revoked. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

PainMan

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 PainMan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

PainMan (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/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 18:45, 22 February 2020 Changes "Taoiseach" to "prime minister"
2. 02:40, 23 February 2020 Same as first diff on another article, claiming in the edit summary "No one outside of Ireland knows what taoiseach means"
3. 04:22, 23 February 2020 Same as second diff on another article
4. 05:12, 23 February 2020 Same as second diff on another article
5. 04:40, 23 February 2020 Adds completely incorrect translation of an organisation's motto to an article
6. 10:18, 23 February 2020 Edit warring to repeat second diff
7. 10:19, 23 February 2020 Edit warring to repeat third diff
8. 10:22, 23 February 2020 Edit warring to repeat fourth diff
9. 10:23, 23 February 2020 Edit warring to repeat first diff
10. 07:24, 24 February 2020 Same as second diff on another article
11. 11:13, 25 February 2020 Exports his campaign to an article about Basque separatists claiming "No one outside of Ireland knows what taoiseach or these other Gaelic words mean. They are almost never used in English language media outside of Ireland", as the edits relating to republican leader Gerry Adams it's reasonable enough to include it here, especially as that type of change has been reverted on numerous previous articles
12. 11:27, 25 February 2020 Edit warring to repeat eleventh diff

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.

Alerted here at 10:27, 23 February 2020‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor was also pinged at 10:33, 23 February 2020 of the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of Taoiseach. They ignored this and proceeded to make the edit in diff#10 to Ulster Special Constabulary. It stands to reason if a particular change has been reverted on multiple Troubles related articles already that you don't just carry on making the same edit on more articles, especially when you've been directed to the discussion. I further notified them at 08:23, 24 February 2020 on their talk page, they ignored this and carried on making the constantly reverted changes at another article. They did eventually reply on their talk page at 11:33, 25 February 2020, described as patronizing, belligerent by @Elizium23:.

The editors claims that nobody outside Ireland uses the terms Taoiseach or Dáil Éireann is totally false as has been demonstrated in the discussion, they are commonly used in English language media outlets across the words. There's a reason Dáil Éireann is actually at that location while many other European (and presumably others worldwide, I haven't checked everywhere) parliaments are located at "Parliament of x", because it's the commonly used name in English, with the same applying to Taoiseach.

Regarding the fifth diff, this was subsequently corrected here by myself with two of many available references confirming that the UDA's English translation of their motto was "Law before violence". When there are multiple possible translations of a Latin phrase, it stands to reason you have to choose the one that references say is correct, there are zero references that say the UDA's motto was ever "let military power give way to civil power".

Also, this editor is not some "innocent" editor who's ignorant of Irish affairs who made a good faith challenge as to why certain words are in Irish, as their self-admitted background makes clear. FDW777 (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at 11:53, 25 February 2020

Discussion concerning PainMan

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.

Result concerning PainMan

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

• PainMan I would be interested in a response from you. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher

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 Peregrine Fisher

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Peregrine Fisher (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/Race_and_intelligence#Editors_reminded_and_discretionary_sanctions :

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

These diffs demonstrate a pattern of disruptive editing at Race and intelligence that mimics WP:BRD, but no valid arguments for reversion are ever given:

8 February:

• [11] Revert: "revert, please seek consensus for major changes"

• [12] Opened talk page discussion: "Do we like these new changes? I think we should undo them and discuss. Personally, I do not think they are an improvement."

14 February:

• [13] Revert: "don't delete huge chuncks without discussion"
• [14] Talk page comment, when asked to discuss revert: "I reverted. I haven't seen you actually wanting to improve the article. You seem to just want to destroy it. But if some editors who are not in favor of destroying this article think you did a good thing, I would abide by that no problem."

23 February:

• [15] Revert: "I think this should be included. Let's talk about it."
• [16] Opened talk page discussion: "What are the policy and guideline reasons this should be removed?" (No rationale provided for reversion)

26 February:

• [17] Revert: "Undo giant removal. Please don't do that. Obviously this whole situation is contested."
• [18] Talk page discussion: "I reverted, again. Do you like it? Do you not like it? Seems the same as the last 10 times. Arguing particular policies and guidelines doesn't seem to have any postive effect."

Series of ANI posts attempting to canvass support and making vague accusations:

8 February: [19] "Seems like editors are taking this as a green light to gut the article."; "Most recent consensus on whether or not a chainsaw should be taken to the article (answer no). Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Let's_go_back_to_a_previous_version"

11 February: [20] "Aticle is at DRV currently. Looks like editors may be trying to take a chainsaw to article again. Keep an eye on us please."

13 February: [21] "Looks like editors are not impartial when it comes to this article. I think you can imagine why. So, Afd voters aren't impartial, closing admin is not impartial and just takes a moon shot delete, and now we're at DRV."

Accusing admins of bias at DRV:

13 February: [22] (Barkeep49) "Seems like you might be involved in some sort of AfD/DfV thing. Are you impartial to the subject? Like, the subject doesn't matter you're just going to evaluate arguments based on how they match up to our rules?"

14 February: [23] (Jo-Jo Emerus) "Are you anti right wing? I did a google search for your name and people are saying you anti intelligent design."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• 19 January 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Peregrine Fisher's editing pattern at Race and intelligence appears to be a type of "civil POV pushing" designed to keep hereditarian content in the article. Although their edits superficially resemble the BRD process, a valid reason for removal is never given and the discussion usually consists of "I like/don't like it" or "I removed this, what do other people think?"

In a recent talk page discussion mentioned above ("I reverted" permalink), Peregrine Fisher asks "What are the policy and guideline reasons this should be removed?"; after multiple editors cite policies that support removal of the content in question, Peregrine refuses to engage and simply gives variations of "There's no policy based reason to remove it."

Other concerning patterns of conduct include repeated canvassing at ANI and accusing admins of having biases that would preclude them from closing a DRV discussion.

Multiple attempts have been made to address this behavior: [24] [25] [26] [27]

-Dlthewave 26 February 2020

• As with most conduct issues, there is indeed a content dispute at the heart of the matter. I didn't come here to resolve it but I will give a summary since other editors have brought it up.

A major concern is that the Race and intelligence article relies heavily on what I call the "he-said-she-said" format in which a debate is presented using quotes and paraphrasing sourced directly to the individuals involved, instead of using secondary sources that discuss it from an independent point of view. This is problematic because it gives equal weight to the fringe and mainstream viewpoints with no attempt to identify the minority view as such. One example is found here where I removed fringe statements including "Jensen and Rushton argued that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity." (I later removed the rest of the section after it was pointed out that only one side of the "debate" was left intact.)

Although the source was published in a peer-reviewed journal, I consider it to be a primary source for the authors' opinions on public policy. I'm willing to discuss the finer points of what constitutes a primary source and where it can be used on Wikipedia, but the discussion regarding this section (permalink) is full of comments that are not based on policy ("This material had been in the article for years, until Dlthewave removed it a few hours ago"; "I generally oppose removing content"; "Peer reviewed journals are our gold standard. What's one awesome way to know if an opinion is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? When it's published in a peer reviewed journal." "Her opinion became OK to include when it was in the peer reviewed article"but what about WP:WEIGHT? or deny that these are primary sources without addressing the arguments for why they are: "I'm seeing people calling secondary sources primary sources. And I'm seeing people saying primary sources need to be removed, which is also not true. If you think I should feel chagrined, I don't."

Regardless of the dispute, these comments by Peregrine and others are disruptive and do not move us toward resolving the POV issues that were a large part of the recent AfD discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [28]

Discussion concerning Peregrine Fisher

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 Peregrine Fisher

This was written later than what I wrote below.

We need help on this article. Our policies and guidelines almost mandate the article we currently have. But a lot of editors feel in their gut that this article is evil. That's a recipe for endless edit warring.

I guess I'd like to tell my story on this article. I took a 10 year wiki hiatus. I came back. Did a DYK. Other stuff. But...I believe in academic freedom and I had a wild hair, so I went looking for something that's against NOTCENSORED. I checked a few controversial articles (gender, LGBT, etc.), and found that Race and Intelligence was being deleted, from the inside out, right then! A user not discussed here was deleting roughly 3000kb chunks, several chunks per day. Day after day. Against talk page consensus. Similar to what's going on now.

So, I started a talk page thread to determine consensus. After lots of discussion, 8 vs. 4 people thought deleting the article from the inside out was bad. I guess you can't take my word for it, but the 8 were using policies and guidelines to justify their positions, and the 4 were misusing and misunderstanding our rules. Similar to how "X" is a POVFORK of "History of X" at the AfD was the winning rational. That would be considered silly if this wasn't possibly the most controversial article on all of WP!

So we went back to the older "stable" version (the completely referenced one that existed for 10 years). That lasted a week or two, then the article was nominated for deletion. Things calmed down for a while. It was sent to DRV: good time to wait for the entire article to possibly be deleted? No, for whatever reason, dlthewave decided it was time to start deleting the article from the inside again. They removed huge chunks, I reverted, someone else reverted that, etc. And now we're caught up to the present. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a group of editors who are trying to delete all the well referenced information in the article that's on one side of the argument. They delete 2000kb here, 5000kb there. Kind of an ISCENSORED. You can probably imagine on an article on this topic. I sometimes revert those giant removals.

We talk about it on the talk page. They do not have policy and guideline based reasons for these deletions. They do have about 50 percent of the people on the talk page though. And they are dedicated.

This is all info from peer reviewed journals. I don't feel like doing a bunch of diffs, but you can read all this on the talk page and the last couple archives. Also, it's been taken to the RS noticeboard and impartial editors have deemed this stuff reliable.

There's a contentious DrV on the subject now. If they don' delete, they may give us some guidance on whether info from highly regarded peer reviewed journals and university presses should be treated differently on this article than the rest of the wiki. We'll see.

Anyways, editors keep coming along and taking a chainsaw to the article. I revert them when I can. We go to the talk page. There's certainly no consensus to remove the info. Frequently there's consensus to keep it. They delete a huge chunk of the article again...Rinse, repeat. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm too lazy for diffs, but here's a link. Just imagine the sound of a chainsaw in the background as you look at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&curid=26494&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

And this one for more. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&offset=20200216022540&curid=26494&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want to be talking back to each person. But Guy said I've been adding racist stuff to the article. I haven't added anything. Unless you count reverts to non consensus giant blankings. Again this is a well refed article that's sat well refed, NPOV, everything good for 5-10 years without a problem. All of a sudden people think peer reviewed journals and books written by scientists are fringe. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

Apparently the filer, Dlthewave does not understand what WP:PRIMARY sources are (based on the edit summaries of the 9 February and 24 February reverts). The source that is claimed to be a primary source is:

• Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R (2005). "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" (PDF). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 11 (2): 246–8. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.186.102. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-11-03. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law is reputable peer-reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association. A scientific review article released in such a journal, even if authored by controversial authors, isn't a primary source. This was explained on the talk page, yet the content was removed anyway. And in fact, among the passages removed in the February 24 reversion was an article by the environmentalist James R. Flynn released in Nature.

Peregrine Fisher reverted and opened a thread on the talkpage. That isn't disruptive. Your WP:PRIMARY argument was false, so what kind of a valid argument do you expect from the other person other than that the sources are valid (WP:RS) and that their inclusion is warranted (WP:NPOV)? This is a normal content dispute (WP:LIKE/WP:IDLI) which WP:BRD has failed to resolve, so a request for comment could be opened. --Pudeo (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by IP editor

Dlthewave's pattern of editing on this article has been to repeatedly remove large chunks of content with no prior discussion, and to demand a consensus for its inclusion before it can be restored. This has included blanking three entire sections, that had been in the article for something like a decade ("Spearman's hypothesis", "Global variation in IQ scores", and "Policy relevance and ethics"). Because of the rapid-fire nature of these removals, it has been nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion about any of them. When we begin discussing any one of his removals, before the discussion can progress very far he removes something else.

Here are diffs of some of his large removals:

• February 8: [29]
• February 8: [30]
• February 9: [31]
• February 12: [32] (section blanking)
• February 15: [33] (section blanking)
• February 15: [34] (section blanking)
• February 15: [35] (section blanking)
• February 24: [36]
• February 25: [37] (section blanking)
• February 26: [38] (section blanking)

I'd like to call attention to Dlthewave's blanking of the "Policy relevance and ethics" section in particular, in the second to last diff on February 25. Dlthewave's edit summary for this removal falsely asserted that I had suggested on the talk page this section should be removed. It's well known that the ethics of research in this area has been a major topic of the race and intelligence debate. It was, for example, the subject of an exchange between Ceci & Williams and Steven Rose in the journal Nature, and the article's section about ethics included citations to both these papers. How could any reasonable person think that it was appropriate to remove this entire section of the article?

Peregrine Fisher has not been the only editor objecting to these removals. Most significantly, they were undone in this edit by user:Snowded, an uninvolved admin who has had no other participation in the article or its talk page. (Snowded's edit undid removals by both Dlthewave and one other editor who's been making similar removals.) However, aside from Peregrine Fisher, none of the editors opposing these removals have been as active and determined as Dlthewave has been.

The person whose behavior is the main problem here is Dlthewave, not Peregrine Fisher. Dlthewave has already voted Delete in the AFD for this article, so as per Snowded's edit summary, he should await the outcome of the AFD instead of trying to delete the article one section at a time. Dlthewave was notified of the Discretionary sanctions here: [39]. 2600:1004:B107:64A3:ED2C:F2BD:D1B5:7B42 (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jweiss11

There's been a long history of contentious editing at the "Race and intelligence" article because of fundamentally conflicting viewpoints on the subject. And I wouldn't expect the conflict around this article to cease anytime soon, provided it survives deletion. Dlthewave's efforts to either delete the article outright or gut it of well-sourced substantive content so that it has no reason to stand alone have been stalemated more or less by Peregrine Fisher and others, so he's turned here to eliminate a key opponent, so that his view can prevail. That's what this report is about. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Grayfell

Race and intelligence is a broken article which fails to summarize even its own sources. The AFD shows that the community wants it to change dramatically. Every single edit spawns interminable discussion, and the end result is that nothing can change. It's impossible not to see Peregrine Fisher's overall behavior as tactical.

Peregrine Fisher uses superficially neutral language to request other people's attention, or he asks leading questions when the answer is obvious. As a few of examples, we have [40], [41], [42], and plenty more available. Judging by his user page, he seems to take pride in being antagonistic and lacking self-reflection. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

To my reading, Peregrine Fisher is adding material that is basically WP:SYN, in support of a fringe (and racist) idea. A topic ban would be a good idea. A better idea would be to nuke the entire article from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Guy (help!) 21:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

@In actu: If the goal is to improve the stability of the article, then topic banning Peregrine Fisher but not Dlthewave won’t accomplish that. Instead of topic bans, I would suggest a new restriction to be applied to the article: that significant changes should not be made to a stable version of the article without first achieving consensus on the talk. The Donald Trump article is currently under a similar restriction that appears to have been helpful.

24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

I suggest that something along the same lines should be applied to the R&I article. - Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Peregrine Fisher

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

• It is increasingly hard to muster up the energy to wade into this mess when I don't know if the article in question will be gone tomorrow. I will say that no one involved here looks great, right now. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Is there any appetite to topic ban Peregrine Fisher? I was on the fence, but this is a fairly obvious pointer that PF needs a vacation from the topic area. There is an argument for a topic ban for Dlthewave as well, but I have seen less evidence in this thread --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)