Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:37, 18 March 2020

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 information

Shortcuts

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

Patapsco913

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 Patapsco913

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Patapsco913 (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: NEWBLPBAN DS

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

July 2019 (BLP violations, see below for details)
1. Repeated restoration: [1] [2] [3] and more in the history of Bradley_S._Jacobs
Previous final warning by administrators for the same issue [4]

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)

Alerted to BLP DS less than a year ago [5]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I originally imposed a flexible ban from BLPs [6], giving the following reasoning:

Hi Patapsco913. I have some concerns about your contributions to biographies of living people. Specifically, in this series of edits to Bradley S. Jacobs in July, it appears that you added the category Category:American Jews and added the claim that "Jacobs was born to a Jewish family in Providence, Rhode Island, the son of Charlotte Sybil (née Bander) and Albert Jordan Jacobs." You source this statement to two obituaries [7] [8] in legacy.com for his parents, neither of which even mentions anything about any of them being Jewish. When this content was removed, you vigorously and repeatedly reverted the removal with edit summaries such as "sorry you need this for the category he is in" (that's kind of putting the cart before the horse) and most strikingly "You do not have a source that he is not jewish" (this edit was made less than a week ago). WP:BLP is pretty explicit that the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. It's the burden of the person who wishes to retain or restore material to provide high-quality sources to verify the material; in this case, the sources didn't even mention anyone (much less the article subject) being Jewish. (Not to mention concerns about the quality of the source itself -- often obituaries in local newspapers are written by family members, not editorial staff, and legacy.com does not give sufficient information to determine who wrote a particular obituary. I personally spent a considerable amount of time trying to find these articles from another source, to no avail.)
I see that there have been several previous notes and warnings about BLP issues. In December, Coffee, TheSandDoctor, and Oshwah extensively wrote about the sourcing requirements for BLPs in the specific context of your edits inappropriately identifying a particular person as Jewish, and especially in categorization.[9] TheSandDoctor wrote, "I just was made aware of this edit you made today introducing text stating that Maurice Kremer is Jewish in violation of WP:CAT/R. Please cease this immediately. Further edits of this sort without previous consensus and in blatant disregard for the above will result in a block. This is your final warning." (emphasis in original). Furthermore, you were alerted to BLP DS in December by Cameron11598. [10]
Accordingly, I feel I have no choice but to impose a sanction. I'm sorry to do this, Patapsco913, but I am imposing the arbitration enforcement sanction described in the next section. I will look favorably upon a request to ease or lift this sanction with an acknowledgement of the BLP issues thus far and a commitment to avoid further issues in the future, after a record of contributions that shows a strong understanding of sourcing and verifiability requirements across Wikipedia. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Those with access to oversight OTRS, see ticket:2020030210009186 for background info; it's probably fine to move that ticket to info-en-q though since there's nothing oversightable there.)

Levivich objected to my sanction, arguing that the edits made were not BLP violations. I think it's pretty clear that the Jacobs edits were sanctionable BLP violations, especially in light of the user's history of warnings, but it seems Levivich feels strongly about this. Therefore, I'm vacating my sanction as a courtesy and filing here for possible action. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the original enforcing administrator, I want to note that I'm fine with no or limited further action in light of Patapsco913's recent statement here. Thanks all. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notice

Discussion concerning Patapsco913

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 Patapsco913

Bradley S. Jacobs. If you look at the history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_S._Jacobs&action=history I was reverting numerous edits which turned out to be 15 sockpuppets Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aussietommartin. I did not think it controversial stating that he was from a Jewish family since both his parents had Jewish funerals (both stating “Shiva will be observed… or “Shiva will be held”).

As far as the warnings received from User:Coffee, User:TheSandDoctor, and User:Oshwah. I think it started with my edit on Edward Kosner where I added he was from a "Jewish family" with two citations. I could have used the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115654273560545904 "Mr. Kosner grew up as the precocious only child of a marginally middle-class Jewish family." but it was behind a paywall so I left it out since others cannot see it. It was requested to be removed via OTRS for "Concerns of undue weight, and request for removal."

I do not know what the OTRS request was about but it seems that it involved more than Edward Kosner. I then received a warning from User:Coffee on my talk page User talk:Patapsco913#Discontinue violations of BLP. User:TheSandDoctor and User:Oshwah then briefly chimed in support of Coffee. When I queried about what standards are required to list someone as Jewish, I was told that they would tell me later after he reviewed all my edits which he started https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Coffee&offset=20200116185617&target=Coffee and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Coffee&offset=20191225102214&target=Coffee I disagreed with his standard which I rehashed based on his edit comments as "In order to document a subject as ethnically Jewish, I have to have at least 3 unquestionably reliable sources describing the subject as ethnically Jewish. In order to document a subject as religiously Jewish, I have to have at least 3 unquestionably reliable sources showing that they self-identify as a practitioner of Judaism and that the fact they practice Judaism is part of their notability." This would seem to preclude adding any Jewish designation on most biographies. As I understand it, this is not the standard that wikipedia uses.

Maurice Kremer. I did not think this was controversial since he died in 1907 and was a founding member of Congregation B'nai B'rith (now the Wilshire Boulevard Temple) and there are reliable sources that state he is Jewish (see talk page for Kremer). I changed it from "raised in a Jewish family" to "Kremer is Jewish" to try to alleviate Coffee's synthesis concerns so I really did not add anything.

I then posted on my talk page that when I look over the contributions by the various Jewish wikiprojects Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Women, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture, I did not see that strict standard being followed. I posted on Wikipedia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 37#Identifying who is Jewish to get some clarity. Eventually Coffee's edits (where he was removing Jews from lists some of which he first cleared all supporting references in their biography) became a discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316#Coffee removing Categories and Lists Inappropriately. Several editors seem to have disagreed with this strict standards either on the Wikiproject Judaism or the Noticeboard or my talkpage (Sir Joseph, Dialectric, Debresser, Cullen328, Levivich, Bus stop, Johnbod, Jayjg) although you should read their comments yourself.

The fundamental problem I see is that there is not a standard for identifying someone as Jewish. Some believe it is contentious to be Jewish (which i do not agree). I stated on the ANI: " I think the problem is that there is not a clear consensus on when we can identify if someone is Jewish and what kind of sourcing we need. I cannot find anything directly on point in the various discussion boards. As Jewish can be both ethnic and religious (generally Judaism is the term for the religion), it crosses several lines. If a source says they are Jewish (e.g. Jewish Women's Archive, the The Jewish Encyclopedia, or the Jewish Virtual Library), can we include even if it is not relevant to their notability. If a subject's parents are both Jewish, is the subject? If one had a Jewish funeral and burial, are they Jewish? If one is born to a Jewish family, are they Jewish? If the subject is an atheist but of Jewish heritage, are they Jewish (Woody Allen, Albert Einstein)? If one becomes a bar mitzvah, are they Jewish? These nuances should be explained in the biography just like we say that someone is of Italian descent." The standard that I think we should follow is that which was left on my on my talk page by Jayjg (who is very active in Jewish topics) that "All one needs is to follow Wikipedia policy: that is, find a reliable source indicating that the individual is Jewish. Two or more sources would, of course, be better, particularly for living people."

I admit this was a mistake I made with many of my edits thinking that stating that someone was from a "Jewish family" was better than stating that someone "is Jewish" and that was original research (which I could remedy) and which is what I did when I re-edited Maurice Kremer (see User talk:Patapsco913#Other business people you might be interested in). I have not been editing any biographies to a great degree since then nor have I touched the edits Coffee made since I do not have a clear standard to go by. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was quoting someone who left a message on my talk page but I agree with their sentiment. I should note that on Bradley S. Jacobs I was reverting a bunch of sock-puppets who were removing info as well as changing the bio from chronological to latest career posting first (although I added the original about his parents being Jewish). I should not have asked them to prove a negative but I was frustrated with the now banned 15 sock puppets that were editing the page. I do not see that being Jewish is contentious but just another component of a person's biography like where they grew up, where they went to high school, what their parent's occupations were...etc. But I think you hit the nail on the head when you referred to Jewish as being solely a religion which I think is how many perceive it. Being Jewish can mean many things as demonstrated by the Wikipedia article Who is a Jew?. Under the argument that not being a practitioner of Judaism would nullify one's identity as a Jew would exclude Woody Allen, Sergei Brin, Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein...but we include them as Jews. If you look at discussions under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 37#Identifying who is Jewish and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 37#Splitting categories and lists by ethnicity and religion (proposed by EllenCT) you will see that it is accepted that being Jewish is much more than being a religious Jew.Patapsco913 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original response was posted in an uninvolved admins-only section and is a response to Awilley. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will limit my edits on living Jewish biographies to individuals that have a strong reference they are Jewish; and if I have somewhat less direct or less reliable evidence i will seek an outside opinion and/or post on the talk page for discussion. For deceased Jewish people, I will make certain I have a good source as well. I think this may be something that I take up on a discussion board (although I will have to get a lot of examples) so hopefully future editors will have better guidance. I will also not put "from a Jewish family" but rather "x is Jewish" so I avoid the synthesis issue. Patapsco913 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: @Newyorkbrad: The first diff (Special:Diff/940254355) cited is supported by an article by the well-known genealogist Nate Bloom (see below) who writes for numerous respected Jewish publications and is used as a resource by mainstream news sources as well. "Jewish people" are listed in bold in his articles. The second diff (Special:Diff/943104971) was wrong on my part to mention Jewish but as I detail above but I was reverting an edit that made major changes to the page by a series of editors (who I suspected were sockpuppets) and even posted a note to their talk page [[11]] for discussion

Kampeas, Ron (January 14, 2011). "Nate Bloom buries "Loughner is Jewish"". Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Kampeas, Ron (February 10, 2012). "Political Points — GOP outreach edition". The Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Nate Bloom, the tireless Jewish genealogist
Farhi, Paul (November 29, 2002). "From 'Hanukah' To Eternity". Washington Post. Yet, "if you don't ever talk about who's Jewish, then you bury the Jewish cultural achievement," says Nate Bloom, the editor of Jewhoo.com, an encyclopedic Web site of Jewish celebrities.
Lewis, Randy (December 24, 2009). "Bob Dylan joins long list of Jewish musicians performing Christmas music". Los Angeles Times. Writer Nate Bloom has run down the roster of classic Christmas songs written or co-written by Jews for the Judaic website Interfaithfamily.com
Topping, Seymour. "Biography of Joseph Pulitzer". Pulitzer.org. Retrieved January 5, 2018. We thank journalist Nate Bloom for his diligent efforts in bringing this matter to our attention
Gertel, Elliot B. (December 23, 2018). "Dreaming of a Jewish Christmas". American Thinker. A simple internet search will yield articles on the subject, including an excellent 2014 piece by Nate Bloom showing that Jewish song-writers did not start the genre, but wrote about half of all leading pop Christmas tunes.

Statement by Levivich (Patapsco)

Kevin (whom I thank for bringing this here for review) wrote, "I see that there have been several previous notes and warnings about BLP issues.", and then as an example, uses the warning Patapsco913 received for edits to Maurice Kremer. Kremer died in 1907; not a BLP. The article Maurice Kremer states that he is a founder of Congregation B'nai B'rith, now Wilshire Boulevard Temple, the oldest Jewish congregation in Los Angeles. The two sources in the article were [12] and [13]. When Patapsco913 was warned on his user page, he provided more sources establishing Kremer's (very obvious) Jewish identity, such as the article "LA's first Jew" by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency [14] (note: Kremer is not LA's first Jew; but is mentioned in the article as one of the first seven). Here's another one. There are more such sources. There was nothing wrong with categorizing Kremer as an American Jew. It was not a BLP violation – it's not even a BLP – and all of this Kremer stuff happened back in December, before that long AN thread, which I had hoped would have clarified this issue for everyone. The warning was improper, and relying upon that warning in issuing this sanction was improper.

The only other alleged problem since Kremer in December (correct me if I'm wrong) are Patapsco913's edits to Bradley S. Jacobs. Patapsco said that Jacobs was "born into a Jewish family", and named his parents (Charlotte and Albert), citing to his parents' obituaries [15] [16]. Kevin said that those sources don't say that the parents are Jewish, but he is incorrect; the obituaries clearly establish that Jacobs' parents were Jewish. There's a Star of David on both the obituaries. The funeral home in both is a Jewish funeral home (it even has "Sinai" in the name). It announces shiva hours, a Jewish funeral rite. Charlotte's obituary talks about how she sat shiva for her mother for a year (the traditional period is 7 days, so this is very devout Judaism). Charlotte's obituary was published in The Jewish Voice & Herald [17]. As I said on Patapsco's page, these are Jewish biographies of people who are receiving Jewish funeral rights from a Jewish funeral home, and we're not sure if they're Jewish? Of course these sources establish that the parents were Jewish.

So, Patapsco wrote "born to a Jewish family", and a more-accurate construction would be "born to Jewish parents" (similar to what our article Sergey Brin says). But that is not a BLP violation; it's semantics–a content dispute. Whether Jacobs's Jewish heritage is WP:DUE in his biography is, similarly, a content dispute. It should be resolved by means of a talk page discussion or RFC; not by a TBAN from BLPs. Whether Jacobs should be in Category:American Jews or Category:Americans of Jewish descent is also a content issue to be resolved in the usual way. It's not a BLP violation to pick one or the other. I tend to think that, for Jacobs, his ethnic background is not DUE, and he should be in Category:Americans of Jewish descent and not Category:American Jews, but that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees with me is committing a BLP violation or should be TBANed from BLPs.

In this case, I think it is the administrators, and not Patapsco, who got it wrong. One of the big disconnects is that "Jewish" is an ethnoreligious group, and not just a religion. That means that if your parents are Jewish, you will generally be considered Jewish, and people of Jewish heritage continue to be Jewish even if they don't follow the Jewish religion. This is the predominant view of Jews throughout the world (based on survey by Pew and others), and that is also the consensus view of reliable sources about Jewish identity. It's what our own articles on the topic say as well. Those who treat "being Jewish" as a religious belief that requires explicit self-identification do not understand Jewish identity, and frankly, shouldn't be policing the topic area. Contra to Awilley's comment below, I am not aware of any sourcing restriction in place regarding the sourcing of people as Jewish. But even if there is such a restriction, Kremer's sources would certainly pass it, and whether it's DUE in Jacobs' case is the stuff of content disputes, not BLP violations. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley and JzG: Any editing restriction would have to be limited to the DS area of BLPs, right? I'd ask you to look at the evidence again and note that Patapsco has made, at most, one bad BLP edit, and this doesn't justify an editing restriction. There's this idea that he was warned multiple times, but he wasn't. Those previous warnings were not merited, and most of them weren't even to BLPs. Nevertheless, in response to the concerns brought up on his talk page, Patapsco added additional sourcing to these articles, or did not reinstate the objected-to edits. You can see this for yourself by looking at every article that was discussed in this AE report or on Patapsco's talk page:

Maurice Kremer, for which Pataspco received a BLP warning from TheSandDoctor. Kremer died in 1907, so it's not a BLP, and per sources (linked in my first paragraph above), he was one of the first seven Jews to immigrate to LA, founder of the largest congregation of Jews in LA.
George Blumberg was discussed on Patapsco's talk page and reverted by Coffee. Blumberg died in 1960, not a BLP. "Jewish" is well-sourced to multiple secondary sources in the article added by Patapsco. Please take a look for yourself at the article and edit history. No foul here.
Sherman Block was brought up by Coffee on Patapsco's talk page. Block died in 1998, not a BLP. "Jewish" is well-sourced to multiple secondary sources in the article added by Patapsco. No foul here.
Edward Kosner is a BLP and is discussed above; Patapsco's edits that Kosner was "born to a Jewish family" were reverted and not reinstated. However, I think I will be reinstating them myself. Kosner wrote an autobiography, cited multiple times in his article, in which he describes his Jewish identity and background at length. Here are a couple excerpts: p. 17: As my bar mitzvah approached ... Like other assimilating second-generation American Jews, my parents were observant in the most idiosyncratic way. p. 18: When the big Saturday of the bar mitvah finally came, I sang like a little Jewish prince and my mother kvelled with pleasure. In addition to his autobiography, we have: NYTimes "No buccaneer, Kosner, born in 1937, grew up a ham-eating, third-generation assimilating Jew in Washington Heights."; Wall St Journal "Mr. Kosner grew up as the precocious only child of a marginally middle-class Jewish family"; Jews in American Politics, p. 134, lists him among "Jewish practitioners ... dealing with a Jewish heritage"; American Space, Jewish Time, p. 135, lists him among "Jews who have occupied pivotal positions in the media"; the author of that book also wrote a report published by Oxford U Press and available at policyarchive.org, The American Jew as Journalist, pp. 165–166, which lists him among Jews "conspicuously at the top".
Bradley S. Jacobs – the one and only arguably bad edit discussed here so far: "born to a Jewish family" and Category:American Jews (instead of Category:Americans of Jewish descent) based on parents' Jewish obituaries (primary sources)

If there are other articles with problems that aren't on this list, I apologize for missing them, but I'd ask that the evidence be looked at closely, because there isn't a pattern of BLP problems here, but rather a problem of bad warnings. The only BLPs are Kosner (sourced to his own autobiography), and Jacobs, the arguable case. It's understandable, if a user receives four bad warnings on his talk page, he may not pay attention to the fifth, even if the fifth was merited. But one mistake doesn't merit anything more than a reminder–not even a warning. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Special:Diff/940254355 appears to be reading purely between the lines whilst not being supported by what is actually written in jweekly: I'm not sure why it's "reading between the lines" when the source calls Abby Kohn a "Celebrity Jew", using those exact words. After all, that's the name of the column in The Jewish News. I think Kohn being written about in Nate Bloom's Celebrity Jews column in The Jewish News is an acceptable source to use to say that Kohn is Jewish. This is not a primary source, and it's explicitly stating that the subject is a "Celebrity Jew". – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I echo Levivich's statement. Does an obituary of a Jewish person have to say, "the death of a Jew?" As per BLUE, it mentions sitting SHIVA, more importantly, which Levivich missed it also mentions "no flowers" which is also something in Jewish mourning rituals. It's as if there was an article about someone which mentioned "she took communion" but didn't explicitly say "she is Catholic." Someone who takes communion is Catholic (I think I got that right) and someone who sits shiva is Jewish. I just want to add that if there is a source, then we should treat being Jewish as any other religion, even if other's disagree, as some in the AN thread said. It is no different than any other fact, if we have RS, then it's good for Wikipedia, as long as it's notable. You don't need extra sourcing just because it's Jewish, as Coffee said (I should note that I, and others, are still waiting for the answer to the question, "How is being Jewish contentious" which Coffee never answered, but that's an aside). Also, since you did bring up the AN, I should point out that consensus was against Coffee's actions in the mass removals and his edits, AFAIR. I am also not sure how someone who died decades ago has BLP concerns. Regardless, I don't see anything actionable here.

Finally, just to clarify or theorize to Levivich Charlotte didn't sit Shiva for a year, after the death of a parent, a Jew is in mourning for a year, see Aveilus for more information. Which itself is more proof that we are dealing with an observant or at the least very traditional Jew. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: as Levivich pointed out above, there is no BLP issue. You say he's unwilling to listen to reason. I think he's just frustrated that people are continuously throwing false policy at him when none exists. People who died 50+ years ago, don't have BLP issues. Furthermore, there are certain BLUESKY issues as well, as pointed out already. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish, on Patapsco913

I also agree with Levivich, pretty much word-for-word. I'll add that this is very unlike the |religion=Jewish stuff (a huge squabble when Bernie Sanders first ran for president, and what led to us removing |religion= from most bio infoboxes). There's a fallacy of equivocation happening here, in which people who do not know (or like to pretend they do not know, or who want to discount) the ethno-cultural sense of Jew[ish] make a bogus argument that the label implies a particular religious faith automatically or even that it only refers to the religion. It does not. It's simply one of those words in English that has multiple meanings and which is made clear by properly writing the contextual material that surrounds it. There really isn't anything further to this. In the obituaries case, it absolutely was not original research, though I agree that "born to Jewish parents" is better phrasing than "... Jewish family" since family can also be interpreted different ways, narrowly or broadly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Patapsco913

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

@Patapsco913: You say above, "All one needs is to follow Wikipedia policy: that is, find a reliable source indicating that the individual is Jewish. Two or more sources would, of course, be better, particularly for living people." Actually it's a higher bar than that. If somebody's religion is notable enough for Wikipedia then it will be easy to find reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for it. But that doesn't address the problem that led to the topic ban...that you were using a low quality source for something that didn't even support the content you were trying to add, and then asking others to provide sources proving the negative. Do you understand why all of this is problematic? ~Awilley (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: You make a good point that the proposed sanction would have to be very narrow, limited to the living and recently dead. I also take your point about previous warnings being for things where they were correct. I think the biggest thing for me is that with the series of edits that led to this thread being opened, I haven't seen that Patapsco913 understands what they did wrong. I asked the question fairly directly above and Patapsco913 responded in-line but the response skirted the problem, only conceding that they shouldn't have asked the sockpuppet to prove a negative. (I accept BTW that Jewishness is more than religion. Based on that I should rephrase my statement above to say, "If somebody's religionand/or ethnicity is notable enough for Wikipedia then it will be easy to find reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for it.") I don't dispute that Jacob's parents were Jewish...it's clear they were when you read between the lines of the obituary (services held at "Sinai Memorial Chapel" etc). But reading between the lines of primary sources that aren't even about the article subject isn't our job. From my perspective all Patapsco913 has to do is indicate they understand this problem and make a clear commitment to use better sourcing in the future and I'd support closing this with no action. ~Awilley (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is good enough for me. I would now support a close with "No action" (@Patapsco913: IMO saying someone is "from a Jewish family" is fine if there are secondary sources saying that...no synth there.) ~Awilley (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a category based on a source that does not include the category is not cool. Defending it based on synthesis from implied data is actually worse. I don't see any good evidence here that Patapsco913 has properly understood the problem. I completely understand the desire of Wikipedians to claim notable members of minorities of all kinds, but pride and support does not exempt one from sourcing requirements, and categories have to be definitional. If there are no secondary sources identifying someone as Jewish (or Catholic or Pastafarian or anything) then the category is inappropriate even if we can reliably show that they were born to Jewish parents. This is warrior behaviour and is sufficient to justify a sanction. Guy (help!) 09:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, option 1 has the advantage of being entirely in line with normal Wikipedia best practice but I still think a category should not be added unless it is definitional. If some secondary source mentions in passing that someone is culturally Jewish (i.e. born of a Jewish mother) but they are not observant and never talk about it themselves, we should not be adding a category. Guy (help!) 12:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a fair bit of time over the years removing these kinds of designations from articles, I'm no fan of their seemingly unending addition to articles. Nevertheless, in this specific case, the fact is Jews are an ethnic group, so WP:ETHNICRACECAT (which specifically uses Category:Jewish musicians as an example) applies. That means that any arguments about "religion being notable etc." miss the mark, that the bar is no higher than a couple of reliable sources, and that, for better or worse, ethnicity (unlike religion) is typically a matter of ancestry and/or cultural background (not belief). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly obvious case of IDHT, confusing the AN discussion about lists they hadn't edited with their actual edits and blatant disregard for WP:BLP, despite the clear warnings given to them. This cannot be allowed to continue ad nauseam. I agree wholeheartedly with JzG that the "warrior behavior" Patapsco913 has displayed for months (and even years) in this topic area, has to be stopped.

In addition, "You do not have a source that he is not jewish" is an extremely worrying sign that Patapsco913 simply does not understand how verification works nor WP:BURDEN, which states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (emphasis in the orginal)
The response to Awilley further shows the user continues — after months of warnings — to believe that low quality sources and use of various forms of original research are acceptable for claims in BLPs. They never are, and attempts to justify asking others to prove the negative based on their frustration shows a lack of the temperament required when dealing with such a sensitive topic area.
While I understand the points raised by Jayjg, this issue is much broader than the user simply adding ethnic descriptions or categories (albeit Patapsco913 appears to know how to define purely ethnic identification); indeed, it includes many such edits that have been to attempt to define people as religiously Jewish by synthesizing source material (this edit, which made presumptions not stated in the source explicitly, is an example of this).
Based on all of this, it is my belief that we should look at the whole of a person's conduct in a topic area when deciding to issue a sanction. As such, I believe one is heavily warranted here. I think a 12 month restriction, with the standard enforcement procedures, is the best route to go here to prevent further disruption. Lastly, I want to note that WP:CANVASSING is not permitted in any manner; this is especially so if it is directed at people whom the user believes are biased in their favour. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily as a sitting arbitrator I wouldn't comment here, since the issue might come before the Committee, but this has been open for a week now and needs progress, and there are important principles involved, so I'll go ahead. I agree with everyone that we can't be describing a living person, or for that matter a deceased person, as "Jewish" without a solid reference that he or she is or was Jewish. General references to Jewishness in the person's or the person's family's background are not sufficient; on the other hand, there does come a point where the evidence is overwhelming that the person is or was Jewish, especially for historical rather than living persons, even if the exact words "he is/was Jewish" do not appear. I think Patapsco913 has been trying in good faith to get these things right, but sometimes has misjudged where the line separating sufficient from insufficient sourcing, on this sometimes sensitive point, should be drawn. My suggestion going forward is that Patapsco913 only add a reference to an article subject's Jewishness is the sourcing is crystal-clear, and that otherwise he should post to the article talkpage or ask a trusted editor for a second opinion. If Patapsco will do these things, can we agree that a topic-ban should not be necessary? Also, even if the consensus were that a topic-ban is warranted, am I right that all the BLP issues involve disputed claims of Jewishness? If that is the case, at most a limited topic-ban from adding references to that specific topic would seem sufficient, and a very broad topic-ban from all editing about living or recently deceased people would seem to be overbroad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes sense. Can I boil this down into specific proposals?
  - Option 1: Patapsco913 may only categorize article subjects as Jewish if those people are explicitly referred to as such in reliable WP:Secondary or Tertiary sources; otherwise they should post to the article talkpage or ask a trusted editor for a second opinion.
  - Option 2: Patapsco913 is prohibited from categorizing article subjects as Jewish.

In option 1 I took the liberty of tweaking User:Newyorkbrad's suggestion to make it more specific. (Specifying secondary sources eliminates ambiguity about using stuff like genealogy sites, marriage records, census records, etc.) But I'm by no means married to that language.

~~My first preference would be Option 1 with whatever tweaks people think are needed, but I won't oppose option 2 if that's where the consensus leans.~~ ~Awilley (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) I now support "no action" per [18]. ~Awilley (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC) I think the commitment Patapsco made above is good enough that a formal sanction isn't necessary at this time. Also note that Kevin (the admin who initiated this) also thinks this can be dropped. ~Awilley (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support option 2 as a bare minimum, though I would be more inclined to support a ban from racial, ethnic and religious classification, i.e. a traditional topic ban from the generalized subject area. A BLP ban would seem standard in a situation where a user is intentionally causing disruption in a BLP because they refuse to abide by the policy. The issue is a fundamental, common-sense sourcing issue. It strongly comes across as a serious competence issue or a willful disruption issue in BLP settings. The user has been unwilling to listen to reason and policy explanations and has in fact explicitly rejected them. NYB's counterargument seems to be that the user is simply obsessed with classifying people as "Jewish", to the extent that they will reject BLP policy. I don't see this as a particularly convincing mitigating factor when the problems are so willful and straightforward. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Swarm in supporting Awilley's option #2, wherein Patapsco913 is restricted from categorizing or describing article subjects as Jewish, broadly construed. I believe this is a decent administrative compromise, and will address the issue at hand. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Swarm and TheSandDoctor: (or others in agreement with them) Could you point to some examples of recent edits that lead you to conclude that this stringent a restriction is necessary? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Newyorkbrad, here are two diffs. Special:Diff/940254355 appears to be reading purely between the lines whilst not being supported by what is actually written in jweekly, and Special:Diff/943104971 is the diff that Kevin banned Patapsco913 for in the first place, where he demanded someone prove a negative while re-adding doubiously sourced content. This is evidence of a clear continuation of a long-lasting editorial pattern of behavior that is not acceptable and further failure to get the point. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford88

Crawford88 is topic banned indefinitely from Indian and Pakistani subjects, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed no less than six months from now. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Crawford88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Crawford88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

03:48, 3 March 2020 Adds the claim that people protesting India's citizenship amendment act also threatened journalists during recent riots in Delhi. The cited source [19] does not support the claim; Crawford's edit was entirely original research.
03:16, 3 March 2020 Removes content describing the cited source as an opinion piece from an unreliable source. Source in question [20] is the Huffington Post; the header describes the piece as "news".
03:35, 3 March 2020 says he is copy-editing the article; actually adds content, which is contradicted directly by the source supporting the material he said he was copy-editing [21]. (For clarity; source says the person accused of the shooting wasn't arrested; Crawford added content saying he was, while stating he was copy-editing.
23:51, 8 March 2020 If the previous diffs weren't bad enough, there's this one, which is essentially reverting historical revisionism back into the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

01:03, 18 May 2018 Topic-banned from anything related to India, for egregious original research.
Blocked twice for violating said topic ban.

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 01:03, 18 May 2018 by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Crawford88 is not a prolific editor; these represent a substantive portion of their recent contributions. I happened to notice these, but their low activity makes it likely for other contributions to go unnoticed, and that's a problem because of their tendency to significantly embelish what the sources say. Their recent talk page contributions (such as [22], [23], [24]) may not be sanctionable in and of themselves, but bear out a pattern of ignoring source material and editing based on a personal POV instead. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen is correct, Crawford88 did indeed add a source supporting their edit in diff three; my complaint is more that a) they're doing more than copy-editing (could be innocent, I've forgotten pieces of edit summaries before) and b) they've clearly not read the stuff they're editing. Still, not near as bad as the other diffs. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, That's a tweet that a tweet cited by this article is replying to. It's really far removed from the article itself; moreover, using twitter as a source for this sort of information is quite as bad as making it up. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Crawford88

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 Crawford88

Statement by GRuban

Diff 1, the source cites a tweet from a journalist: "Tanushree Pandey @TanushreePande· Feb 24 This is a riot! Protesters from both sides heckling & thrashing media persons." So it does, actually, back the statement. --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it's a good source, mind, but Vanamonde's/Bishonen's comments that Crawford's edit is not supported by, or even maliciously opposed to, the source are strictly incorrect. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Crawford88

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

Looks like a broadly-construed topic ban from the IPA topic area is but a formality. El_C 21:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with El C, even though I see a problem with Vanamonde's comment on diff 3: in the same diff, Crawford added a source that said the person was arrested. It may be a bad source, but it's still not quite the same thing as merely maliciously contradicting a source. Am I missing something there? On the other hand, diff 1 is just egregious: it does maliciously contradict the source. Note also that the user doesn't appear to have learned anything from their previous, time-limited, topic ban; this one should be indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 16:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I support an indefinite WP:ARBIPA topic ban. I don't see the "Tanushree Pandey" mention by GRuban but even if it is in the source, the whole thrust of the article is that journalists were threatened by pro-CAA mobs. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite TBAN is appropriate given the deceptive nature of the edits. Even if this is merely inexperience, he needs to learn his craft in less contentious areas of the project. Guy (help!) 14:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pectore

Pectore is topic banned indefinitely from Indian and Pakistani subjects, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed no less than six months from now. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Pectore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Pectore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

Communication is critical to an area under discretionary sanctions. Pectore has repeatedly removed content or reverted other editors with blank or inadequate edit-summaries, and neglected to explain their edit either immediately on the talk page or after it had been challenged. Recent examples include the following;

28 February 2020; modifies contentious label, no edit summary
28 February 2020 Deletes content, blank edit-summary
29 February 2020, reverts the same content out using rollback, without an edit-summary.
29 February 2020 Removes content added in good faith with the summary "rvv". For completeness, that edit was before the editor being reverted was blocked (and later unblocked) for sockpuppetry; [25].
2 March 2020 Removes content adequately supported per WP:CITELEAD; no edit summary.
5 March 2020 Reverts contentious infobox back into the article; no edit summary.
7 March 2020 Reverts poorly sourced content back into the article; no edit summary.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not previously sanctioned.

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; Notified on 2 July 2019 by NinjaRobotPirate; notified again on 29 February 2020 by DBigXray.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pectore: Thanks for that statement, but I think you're missing the main point I am making; I'm not necessarily challenging your reasons for those reverts; I am saying that we have no way of knowing what those reasons are, and the removed content does not make it bloody obvious. You have also not addressed the last two edits, which were the most egregious, and which you still have not discussed with either Doug Weller or myself, despite being active elsewhere. Your desire to revert without explanation is doubly surprising given your articulate statement here; you're capable of explaining your reasons, but have not deigned to do so where it's necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pectore: That response is uttrely inadequate. You are obligated to explain every edit you make in a contentious area. Now you're not only suggesting you don't have to, but are accusing me of vandalism into the bargain? Your precise reasons for those reverts are also besides the point; the fact is you didn't provide those reasons where you should have, and still don't see that that was a problem. Talk page discussion is supposed to take place as a means of avoiding edit-warring, and you're arguing you didn't have to discuss anything until edit-warring has occurred. I'm going to leave this to uninvolved administrators now, but your approach needs recalibration. El C, take a look at this, if you would. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Pectore

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 Pectore

I'm a prolific editor, who has been editing Wikipedia on and off for over a decade with: multiple DYK's across South Asian topics under my belt, over 6,000 edits (on areas relating to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka), and have never been blocked. Now given the issues raised here, I definitely realize that I made some mistakes by not providing edit summaries, especially in controversial subjects and I also agree that I need to discuss more. I will be more careful in this subject area from now on and avoid repeating this kind of conduct.

Regarding the evidence provided by Vanamonde:

2&3 - Saffron Terror- The claims regarding edits on Saffron Terror (diffs 2 and 3) are very perplexing. I deleted content literally duplicated in the article. In a version I reverted Arif Qasmani was mentioned under the "incidents" header and under the "2007 Samjhauta Express bombings" sections.
4 - OpIndia - I had clearly discussed on the talk page after making edits, including with the requesting admin. [26] [27] whereas the user I had reverted did not engage until after reverting me twice. In fact I had written discussion posts on Talk:OpIndia 7 times in a 24 hour period and never came close to 3RR.
5 - Clear content dispute and violation of WP:BLP that I reverted.

That said, happy to use more edit summaries going forward as that appears to be the theme of this complaint. I generally hold myself to 1RR and am an active participant in many contentious talk pages, including ones mentioned above.Pectore^talk 04:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde - The point you are attempting to make is entirely unclear. Regarding diffs 1, 6, and 7, I fail to see what are "egregious" about them. They are merely pages on my watchlist where I perceived that the last edit was wrong. (1) appeared to be reverting a Pakistani nationalist editor, (6) was reverting what I perceived to be vandalism based on incorrect reading of the sources (of which consensus is against you), and (7) appeared to be a notable case as Ahmed Deedat is quite well known. On re-evaluating (7), I think the edit I made was incorrect as Doug noted in a later revert the link was dead. I reverted those pages once, if I reverted twice then I would have posted like I did on Talk:OpIndia. As I noted above I provide ample justification on talk pages such as Talk:OpIndia when I engage in multiple reverts.

To address your note around edits "which you still have not discussed"; I prefer to conclude this discussion before editing on those pages. I had previously been under the impression that talk pages are the place for discussion if multiple reverts are made (rather than edit summaries) and I've posted on all the talk pages where I engaged in multiple reverts. As mentioned happy to use more edit summaries going forward.Pectore^talk 17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I am confused which of Vanamonde's diffs you are referring to here at this point, number 6? If so, I just mentioned above what "I perceived to be vandalism" in the moment; not that the edit itself was vandalism. Regardless, I see why an edit summary was required there and on all edits on contentious pages.Pectore^talk 19:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde your response is a clear misrepresentation of my comments. Quotes like "happy to use more edit summaries going forward", "Regardless, I see why an edit summary was required there and on all edits on contentious pages", and "I made some mistakes by not providing edit summaries, especially in controversial subjects and I also agree that I need to discuss more" exemplify my view towards edit summaries and discussion on talk pages. Thanks.Pectore^talk 20:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Pectore

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

~~Looks like a broadly-construed topic ban from the IPA topic area is but a formality, again.~~ El_C 03:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Weighing the evidence in light of Pectore's substantive statement. El_C 04:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pectore, don't label good faith edits as vandalism — that is a personal attack. Please do better. Your revert was still unexplained, which you still need to account for. El_C 17:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now in support of an IPA topic ban (not just Indian media), broadly construed, per Bishonen's evidence. El_C 01:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: yes, I agree — that is what I had in mind. Ditto for the request directly above, for that matter. El_C 15:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a software feature that automatically prompts for an edit summary when one inadvertently fails to include one. I suggest that Pectore agree to turn this on, as one aspect of resolving this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed that Pectore has been getting away with ignoring the need for edit summaries for so long. They reverted a warning from Vanamonde about this issue on their page as early as 2018, with one of their few actual edit summaries: "Remove bad faith trolling". Quite remarkable if put against their supposedly recent discovery of the same issues raised here: "given the issues raised here, I definitely realize that I made some mistakes by not providing edit summaries, especially in controversial subjects". Belated, and belatedly civil. But OK, as long as they stick to it from now on (and consider NYBrad's suggestion), we're good(-ish) on that score. I'm more concerned about another matter: Pectore's systematic whitewashing of OpIndia,[28][29][30] which I find in itself deserving of a topic ban and/or a partial block from the article, especially when put together with this edit to Anti-Hindu sentiment, which re-inserts badly sourced text which had been removed by Doug Weller. I'm not really impressed by their defence above of diff 4, the OpIndia one ("I had clearly discussed on the talk page after making edits"). Yes, they wrote for instance, "Whether they have published "fake news" belongs in the reception section of the article."[31] Really? Their talkpage input is as tendentious as their article edits. Unless there are objections, I'm planning a partial block from OpIndia and its talkpage. No prejudice against a wider topic ban. I may propose one myself once I've read more deeply. Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, having read some more, I will also suggest a topic ban from Indian media, see the discussion of the user's OpIndia editing above. Here are some further tendentious media edits:

29 Feb: Misrepresentation of source, compare Vanamonde's reply.
2 March: This edit at The Wire (India), is quite egregious. "Alt left"? That's not a thing but a mere smear (not analogous to the alt right), see this article section. And it's certainly not supported by the source.
Early March: Talk:OpIndia. Throughout the section "Observation regarding the Previous Note - This description is highly biased", Pectore attempts to posit an equivalence between OpIndia and Altnews.in as hating on each other with neither of them being accredited as fact checkers. Wrong, as AltNews.in is accredited as a fact-checker. Compare our well-sourced article Altnews.in.
4 March: This removal at Swarajya (magazine), repeated here on 7 March, is very concerning, as the source, AltNews.in, is accredited as a fact-checker per above. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Is a topic ban from Indian media adequate? El_C is now supporting an IPA topic ban and I think that would be cleaner and warranted given the evidence and Pectore's above (6) was reverting what I perceived to be vandalism based on incorrect reading of the sources. I support an IPA topic ban but am unclear about the time frame. It is often best to make it indefinite and remove it after six months if there is an adequate response in an appeal at that time. Is that the proposal? If so, I support it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will support an IPA topic ban also, John; perhaps you're right that "Indian media" isn't enough. And yes, indefinite. I think it's important that sanctioned editors don't just go away and wait out, say, a six-month ban and then go on as before, having learned nothing. As usual, indefinite doesn't mean infinite; it means they must appeal, normally after no less than six months, and show in the appeal that they are able and willing to edit constructively going forward. One important way of showing that ability and willingness is editing helpfully in other areas during the ban. Do you agree, El C? Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I would also go for a IPA topic ban --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Sotuman

Appeal is declined --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved 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: Sotuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction: Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notification record

Statement by Sotuman

I am currently subject to a topic ban that was put in place on 20 February 2019 by User:Bishonen. After waiting for the prescribed time period (3 to 6 months), and performing the constructive edits that I said I would, I feel that it is a good time for the ban to be removed.

It is my wish that the committee take as much time as required to deliberate over this topic ban appeal. I am in no hurry and am thankful that this ban and surrounding conversation has tempered my spirit and forced me to be more patient and considerate of my fellow Wikipedia editors. Please advise as soon as you have news for me.

The background information is located at four main locations, listed below in roughly chronological order, with most recent at bottom.

Talk:Flood_geology

User_talk:Sotuman/Archive_1

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#Topic_ban_violation_by_Sotuman

User_talk:Sotuman/Archive_2

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive307#Block_appeal

Please see my current talk page

Responses by Sotuman to Statements

@Vanamonde93: You mentioned that you would like me to demonstrate that I understand "...what it was [I] did wrong, and why [I'm] unlikely to make the same mistake again". Please read on my talk page and advise further.

@JzG: You have read into what I wrote, which you are not welcome to do.

@El C: Fear is the opposite of good faith.

@RexxS: A person doesn't need to make a huge amount of edits to improve Wikipedia: see WP:Wikignome. Also I am SotuMAN, you can use the pronouns he, him, his. 'They' is a plural pronoun, and I'm just one person. Sotuman (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I'll leave the evaluation of the appeal to uninvolved admins. Just a technicality: I have told Sotuman that it's not ArbCom that will review an AE request, as he apparently believes, and that he'd need to go to ARCA for that, etc, yada, yada, see my response to him on my page. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by JzG

As I read it, this appeal is a promise to advance the same POV but more politely. Thanks, but no thanks. Guy (help!) 16:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Perhaps Sotuman feels that he is right. The point, however, is that he was wrong according to the rules of the community and does not acknowledge it for a fact. Shakespeare attributed This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. to a scoundrel. So, it does not matter if Sotuman is right according to WP:THETRUTH or some objective, universal justice, applied by a disinterested observer, but that he was wrong according to the norms and values of our community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sotuman

Result of the appeal by Sotuman

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

@Sotuman: I like to see evidence that a sanction is no longer necessary before I support lifting it. You've linked a number of discussions related to the placing of the sanctions on you, but you haven't explained what it was you did wrong, and why you're unlikely to make the same mistake again; and absent such a statement, I would be opposed to lifting any sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I've read through Sotuman's lengthy talk page post, and it evades my question entirely. I have no confidence that we're not going to see a resumption of the problems that led to this sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sotuman's original ban notice is at: User talk:Sotuman/Archive 2#Original Notice of Topic-Ban. The wording of the ban was: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from Flood geology and related pages." This was an AE ban issued by User:Bishonen under the authority of WP:ARBPS. See User talk:Sotuman/Archive 2 for some past discussions. I find a great deal of wikilawyering there, and see many attempts by other editors to explain the concept of a topic ban.

One of the posts in a previous ban appeal (from 2019) was this one by User:Boing! said Zebedee.

Decline appeal. The topic ban looks valid to me, and having read the indicated user talk page content and the appeal here (which does not really address the reasons for the ban), I see no justification in ending it or modifying it. (But what I do see is a failure to understand Wikipedia's approach to balance, NPOV, verifiability, etc - eg "there should be equal weight given to different but complementary views regardless of how many people hold to one view or the other, especially since Wikipedia has no way to accurately assess such quantities" is fundamentally misunderstanding how evidence works.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In the discussions back in 2019, it appeared that Sotuman was keen on inserting his personal understanding of Flood geology into Wikipedia. This is the kind of thing that the WP:ARBPS sanctions were intended to deal with I agree with Boing's overall opinion of the last ban appeal. Unless there has been a major change in Sotuman's approach to Wikipedia editing since his last appeal (one which he could document through his contribution history) I wouldn't favor lifting the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline as written. Concur with my 2 colleagues above — it's just too vague, making Guy's fear a real possibility. Which, indeed, would not be good enough. El_C 16:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given Sotuman's edits over the six months prior to this appeal – all 36 of them – I'm left wondering why they want the topic ban lifted. As the appeal doesn't explain why, I'm minded to decline it as unnecessary. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline: The quibbles from Sotman give me no confidence that they are ever likely to become a productive member of a collaborative community. FWIW, use of the singular they as an epicene pronoun has been a feature of the English language for the last 600 years. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I've seen nothing the convinces me that Sotuman understands why the topic ban was imposed, and I am not convinced that they will not just return to exactly the same behaviour. I'm not even sure they are understanding any of the reasons people are giving for declining the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha88

Moksha88 is warned for canvassing. Bishonen | tålk 11:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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 Moksha88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Moksha88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

8 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Brihaspati to WP:RSN § OpIndia and Swarajya
8 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Pectore to WP:RSN § OpIndia and Swarajya
8 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Ms Sarah Welch to WP:RSN § OpIndia and Swarajya
13 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Apollo1203 to WP:RSN § Swarajya
13 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Actionjackson09 to WP:RSN § Swarajya
13 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of ThaNDNman224 to WP:RSN § Swarajya
13 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Sacredsea to WP:RSN § Swarajya

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)

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15 November 2019 by Brihaspati (then known as Harshil169)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The 8 March 2020 messages consist of the following, with minor variations:

Question about WP:RS
Hello, I hope you are well. I'm concerned about the arguments raised here. I read WP:RS, and bias is clearly not a reason for sources to be blacklisted in Wikipedia, even if it is a bias against Wikipedia. In fact, there's an entire article devoted to Criticism of Wikipedia which has reliable sources. No examples are provided of a lack of editorial oversight or inaccurate reporting, so it seems the discussion is based more on retaliation than reason. Blacklisting sources without sound reasoning risks NPOV which worries me. In your experience, what's the best way to refute these assertions?

The above message is inappropriate, because it presents an argument to the recipient ("No examples are provided of a lack of editorial oversight or inaccurate reporting"), states an opinion on the discussion ("it seems the discussion is based more on retaliation than reason"), and was directed at specific editors instead of a neutral venue.

The 13 March 2020 messages consist of the following:

Worth a Look
Hello, I hope you are well. I'm concerned about the arguments raised here. I think there's confusion about whether WP:DOX applies here and whether Swarajya fails to meet WP:RS criteria, especially since little evidence has been presented in the discussion over the past week. Take a look at these policies and chime in when you get a chance.

The above message is inappropriate, because it directly asks the recipient to participate in the discussion ("chime in when you get a chance"), suggests a position ("I think there's confusion...") relative to the consensus of the discussion, and was directed at specific editors instead of a neutral venue.

@Bishonen, El C, and RexxS: Thank you for your helpful feedback. I have rewritten my report here as a warning, and posted it to User talk:Moksha88 § Inappropriate canvassing on India-related discussions. In hindsight, I should have submitted this to the administrators' noticeboard as this incident is one of many canvassing incidents (on- and off-wiki) ~~motivated by~~ related to Wikipedia's coverage of the 2020 Delhi riots. In the future, I will ensure that an editor is sufficiently aware of the relevant policies and guidelines before submitting an AE report about them. I noticed that El_C posted an administrator note about canvassing in WP:RSN § Swarajya. With that note and the warning to Moksha88, this report is probably settled for now. — Newslinger talk 23:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switched "motivated by" to "related to" after Moksha88's clarification. The discussion does affect the 2020 Delhi riots article, but there is not enough evidence to discern motive. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/945320444

Discussion concerning Moksha88

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 Moksha88

@Bishonen, El C, RexxS, and Newslinger: Thank you all for giving me the benefit of the doubt. My posts were to clarify a question I had about what I saw on the noticeboard, and as El_C mentioned, I was not made aware that what I posted initially was in violation of the canvassing policy. Newslinger, to be clear, I have no connection with the 2020 Delhi Riots article as evidenced by my lack of edits there. I will avoid posting on the noticeboard thread in question and pledge to be more mindful of this policy for future edits. Moksha88 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

As they have not been warned I think only a warning is in order. But I also have to say that this is part of a wider pattern with a group of people both on and off wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Moksha88

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

Newslinger, I don't mean to split hairs, but I can't find that the editor has previously been given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict. The link you provide is merely for a DS alert, which, as it states, "does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date".
Also, have you or anybody you know of warned Moksha88 about canvassing, and told them to stop? I don't see it on their talkpage — I don't think you've posted there before your notification about this request. Do they know canvassing is not allowed? Bishonen | tålk 12:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Warn for canvassing — indeed, that key step seems to be missing. Somewhat puzzling such a warning was not issued on the 8th (unless it was and I, too, am just not seeing it). El_C 14:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although Moksha88 has been editing (lightly) since 2006, I can confirm that nowhere in their talk-page archives does "canvas" appear, so it looks like they have never been warned. As we can't be certain that they were aware of WP:CANVASS, I propose giving an "only warning" about canvassing. They've certainly been around long enough to understand that. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence

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 Race and intelligence

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article and talkpage where enforcement is requested: Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude IP accounts and the result of Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Dispute_resolution diff there seems to be some strong arguments made that this area should not be subject to IP editing for fear of sockpuppetry and its attendant abuses. Some commentary indicated that "community input" was needed, but as these pages are under DS, I request an administrator to step in and force the issue. Allowing IP editing on the talkpage is entirely disruptive and is additionally causing issues with respect to measuring consensus and being able to track history as one particular user is using a dynamic IP that changes essentially constantly. Previous requests to semi-protect the page were rebuffed at WP:RfPP since it was beyond their remit. I believe that judicious application of this remedy here via WP:AE would help in these disputes. It might also help to apply it to additional related pages, but I'll leave that to others to propose in due time. jps (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I sympathize with the exhaustion, but please understand that this sort of behavior is very taxing on the editors who are trying their level best to figure out how to navigate the minefield. When there are WP:SEALIONs who hide behind dynamic IPs, it really shuts down the ability for us to do the normal work that has to be done (as witnessed by the close of the WP:DR). The user in question refuses to get a user account so we can keep track of the ongoing issues, so it would be good to force the issue. We don't need more IP disruption. jps (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'm sorry that it is a section's worth of material, here, but the concept is pretty clear. How does one begin to document the problems with an IP account when the IP changes sometimes over the course of less than one day? Why should this particular talkpage be open to IP editing? What is it gaining us? I can point to what the frustrations and difficulties are. Is it a "targeted" request? Only inasmuch as the IP refuses to get an account. But the IP could get an account and edit away. I'm not asking for autoconfirmed protection here. We just want to keep track of who is saying what! jps (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I don't think the special contributions method works very well. It seems to me that there are a lot of false positives in this list of edits: [32] I feel like I'm in a catch-22 situation here where the admins are annoyed because I'm not providing a lot of evidence, but I'm having a hard time finding a way to actually collect the evidence. We're talking about an article under discretionary sanctions so if this isn't avoiding WP:SCRUTINY, what is it? jps (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the enforcement request placed at the talkpage

[33].

Discussion concerning Race and intelligence

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 Mr rnddude

This is forum-shopping. There is insufficient support for ejecting IP editors from being able to comment on Talk:Race and intelligence, and IP editors are already restricted from being able to edit the article. JPS's proposal failed to gain adequate traction. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, we do not need autocratic measures. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (R&I)

Ivanvector just closed Talk:Race and intelligence#Exclude IP accounts as no consensus. No comment on whether this should be an AE thing or an RFC or what, but I think it's worth noting, on the numbers, that proposal looks like it went 10 opposed, 9 support. But of the opposes, two editors are now TBANed and/or indef'd, 2 are IPs, 2 are non-EC SPA accounts, and 4 are registered EC accounts. Discount non-EC !votes and it's 9 - 4 in support. (I didn't !vote but I would have supported it.) I think there is already consensus to semi-protect the talk page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Race and intelligence#Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Race and intelligence (esp. the close) are recent examples. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector and El C: I'm sorry but Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44 does not capture all recent IP contribs. For example, that range omits the following IP addresses, each of which have edited Talk:Race and intelligence, or the dispute resolution page I linked to above, and/or some other related page (like Heiner Rindermann), within the last two weeks:

At the DR request, 2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 stated that they were a different editor than 99.48.35.129 or 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB. That was three days ago, and 2600:1012's only contribs are to the DR page. I have no idea how many people these IPs are. Does anyone? How do we have a discussion like this? I'm not sure what AE can do, but the problem is definitely a real problem. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

A quick procedural note: ~~JPS~~ ජපස filed this request at 10:48 17 March 2020, and Ivanvector closed the "Exclude IP accounts" talk page discussion at 12:08 17 March 2020. I'll comment later in greater detail, but I want to make sure this sequence is clear since it's relevant to the forum shopping/venue concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 18:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I agree with Levivich's analysis. This is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS situation (more precisely, a false failure to come to consensus). As a long-term though very intermittent patroller of this and related "race" articles, I know from long experience that the majority of input from anons there is not constructive and that their unconstructive input is frequent. I mean seriously 100 archive pages? The amount of editorial time wasted on trolls and socks and meat is probably the reason the article is in such not-exactly-FA-material shape. When sockpuppeteers are forced to create new accounts to do what they do, it's much easier to patrol them (if a new account's first edit is to run to this article and make posts that say the same things as the last 10 socks of Mikemikev that we blocked, we have a tidy WP:DUCK situation). If an anon who insists on remaining one is dead certain there's a policy/sourcing issue to raise about this article, they can do so at the appropriate WP:Noticeboard, which will also have sufficient uninvolved watchlisters to address the matter if legitimate, or get a disruptive socker blocked all the more quickly. But that article's talk page (very recent attention notwithstanding) is a backwater playground for trolling sockpuppets and has been for years. That's not what article talk pages are for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Race and intelligence

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

Not this again! El_C 17:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: have you tried weighing local consensus on this? You are asking me to review a lot of material here. This is not a well-documented request. El_C 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: could you link to this RfC, please? El_C 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, regentspark. I would decline the request at this time as forum shopping. El_C 18:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: the next step should have been WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, not AE. El_C 18:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: but by forcing the IP to get an account, we are effectively reversing the closing admin's decision. They are an integral part of the conversation. ~~Maybe they support granting your request, in which case I withdraw my objection.~~ El_C 18:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, perhaps the sanction of forcing the IP to identify isn't the worse idea. If they are difficult to identify, that could be taxing for the already troubled topic area. El_C 18:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on simply referring this to the Committee, either. El_C 18:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance, Ivanvector. If the IP isn't really that difficult to identify, then this request is a non-starter. El_C 19:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I think (any) :2600 IPs should be seen as a single individual in the context of this topic area. Until we have definitive evidence to the contrary, it is on them. For them to account for. I'm just not sure there's much that should be done otherwise. El_C 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is an interesting request. On the face of it, there isn't a whole lot of IP activity to ban and it does seem like a targeted request. However, race and intelligence has been a contested area for a long time and has been plagued by long term SPAs and their sock and meat puppets. I don't think there is consensus (in the RfC) for banning IPs outright but this might be worth visiting after the RfC closes. --regentspark (comment) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude_IP_accounts. IvanVector has now closed this as no consensus. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the content of this IPs edits but, historically, it has been very hard to deal with a particular group of editors in this area. Polite SPAs who stay within the bounds of AGF but consistently push fringe views was what lead to the arbcom cases in the first place. Identifying IPs is hard and dealing with unidentifiable fringe pushers can be frustrating and complicated and I'm not averse to banning IPs from a contentious and problematic talk page like this one. Or, as suggested above, perhaps this needs to go back to arbcom. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) has Ivanvector closed the discussion. I would like a firm argument as to why we haven't reached the point for the AE admins to file a request for a second review of the original case on WP:ARCA with ජපස, NightHeron, 2600:::, Sirfurboy, Dlthewave, ArtifexMayhem, Levivich, Jweiss11, SMcCandlish, Grayfell, PaleoNeonate as parties. Handing this off to ArbCom is starting to sound really good to me. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As several of you have already observed, I closed the discussion as "no consensus", as in, it's not clear a consensus either way was established or was going to emerge. I don't really have any comment on the merits of the proposal, but in my opinion, universally banning IP editors from all possibility of contributing to an article without clear evidence of ongoing disruption requires a much more substantial consensus than what was evident in that discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple extra points (for free no less):
- @ජපස: the IP editor's contributions can be seen at Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44, more or less. There are some edits by other users there but it's mostly just that one editor on that range, since about mid-February (I only looked at the last 50 edits). It is true that you cannot ping them (effectively, at least), but mitigating that technical difficulty is on them, not us.
- There is presently just the one IP editor participating at Talk:Race and intelligence. If they're being disruptive they can be blocked.
- I don't know how we can "force" an IP editor to create an account, but in my opinion doing so would not be against the "no consensus" close. "No consensus" = nothing was decided. It would be highly unusual though.
- "Anyone can edit" is the third pillar of Wikipedia. If we don't have a very good reason to prevent IP editors from editing, we don't.
- Dlthewave is correct about the timeline: I closed the talk page discussion after this AE request was opened. I don't necessarily agree that this request does not constitute forum-shopping, as requests for closure are normally listed at requests for closure, not here, but you all can form your own opinions on this point.
-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GlassBones

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 GlassBones

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GlassBones (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:ARBAPDS :

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

2020-03-13 Commenting on the politics surrounding Chelsea Manning
2020-03-13 More on Chelsea Manning
2020-03-17 Removing content on the political bias of Fox News

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2020-02-14 1RR on AP2
2020-02-18 Blocked for violating 1RR sanction
2020-03-03 1RR raised to Topic ban for 1 year on AP2
2020-03-10 Blocked 72h for violating topic ban

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict by Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (see above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think GlassBones either doesn't accept the topic ban (which is pretty much what he says on his Talk page), or he is so determined to continue his feuds, most notably with Snooganssnoogans) that this overrides whatever deterrent effect it might have. I suspect that nothing short of a lengthy block will stop this. Awilley and Bishonen may also have a view on this. Guy (help!) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGlassBones&type=revision&diff=946062655&oldid=944947664

Discussion concerning GlassBones

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 GlassBones

I edited the article about Fox News - a news organization - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language. Further, I see nothing in the article's editing message warning about it being protected as a US political article. I don't understand how this could be construed as violating the topic ban regarding post-1932 US politics.GlassBones (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's clear to me that the Admins believe I have violated the post-1932 politics ban, I am willing to indefinitely stay away from anything even remotely close to US politics. I still don't get why folks here think that Fox News is somehow a political organization when it's a news organization, but so be it. I also will stay far away from articles about USA Today, New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, and every other news organization, as someone may also construe those news organizations as political. I can stick with editing historical articles and other absolutely, positively non-political articles.

I continue to have an issue with the double standard that has been applied to me compared to other editors who are allowed to run roughshod over Wikipedia with their edit warring, incivility such as undoing without comment or with flippant insulting answers like "nonsense" or "conspiracy theory" or "fringe", harassment of other editors, and battleground behavior when it comes to making sure their POV is reflected in all articles they edit.

One minor point - I have no clue what the "sock" comment about me means, but if that was intended to be an insult that it was for naught.

Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for articles about history, physics, chemistry, biology, sports, geography, and a plethora of other topics. The one glaring area where Wikipedia falls short is in articles about US politics, which have a decidedly liberal bias that sadly is apparently just fine with the folks who run Wikipedia.

In any event, if I am allowed to continue editing I can certainly stay even further away from US politics and just edit other articles. GlassBones (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GlassBones

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

This report shows ~~three~~ two clear topic ban violations. All three diffs are of edits in the post-1932 American politics topic area. Chelsea Manning leaked classified information from the US government, which was acknowledged in the first diff. The Fox News edit changes language regarding Fox News's reporting on the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations. — Newslinger talk 21:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Edited: — Newslinger talk 22:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support indefinite block. GlassBones has just 407 edits, and over a dozen warnings on their talk page, many of them for edits on American political topics. The editor's defect rate is unacceptably high. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly ambivalent on the Manning diffs, but the Fox News one is unequivocally a violation. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just looked at this (pre-topic ban) edit. I would support an indef. To be honest, looking at their early edits I'd also suggest there's a very significant chance that they're a sock anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think GlassBones has any intention of abiding by the topic ban. They are unreceptive to explanations and advice, to put it mildly. Compare this discussion on Awilley's page, where Awilley and myself tried to advise and assist them, and this on GlassBones' own page, where we can see it's all Snooganssnoogans' fault. See also this recent comment where they defend their edit to Fox News (mentioned in JzG's report above) with "I edited a news article - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language." We have told them so many times what American politics covers. I see in their response above that they have failed to notice the big fat yellow box at the top of Talk:Fox News which warns of active arbitration remedies (in extra big bold all caps) per the discretionary sanctions for post-1932 politics of the United States. (Added note 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC): these American politics discretionary sanctions are also mentioned in the edit notice that appears when one goes to edit the article itself.) I suggest a long block — at least three months. If other admins want an indef, I won't oppose that either. Bishonen | tålk 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see any mitigating circumstances to a clear breach of a topic ban, nor any apparent realisation of what the topic ban entails. Unless some contrary view gains traction in the next 24 hours, I'm prepared to indef GlassBones at that point. --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is any doubt that the scope of the topic ban was explained to GlassBones, I think I was pretty explicit about it here. I don't object to a long block since the main thrust of this user's editing, even post-topic ban, seems to be axe-grinding and score-settling. ~Awilley (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an indef block --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 564: / Line 564: @@
 I edited the article about Fox News - a news organization - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language. Further, I see nothing in the article's editing message warning about it being protected as a US political article. I don't understand how this could be construed as violating the topic ban regarding post-1932 US politics.[[User:GlassBones|GlassBones]] ([[User talk:GlassBones|talk]]) 21:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 :Since it's clear to me that the Admins believe I have violated the post-1932 politics ban, I am willing to indefinitely stay away from anything even remotely close to US politics.  I still don't get why folks here think that Fox News is somehow a political organization when it's a news organization, but so be it.  I also will stay far away from articles about USA Today, New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, and every other news organization, as someone may also construe those news organizations as political. I can stick with editing historical articles and other absolutely, positively non-political articles.
 I continue to have an issue with the double standard that has been applied to me compared to other editors who are allowed to run roughshod over Wikipedia with their edit warring, incivility such as undoing without comment or with flippant insulting answers like "nonsense" or "conspiracy theory" or "fringe", harassment of other editors, and battleground behavior when it comes to making sure their POV is reflected in all articles they edit.
 One minor point - I have no clue what the "sock" comment about me means, but if that was intended to be an insult that it was for naught.
 Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for articles about history, physics, chemistry, biology, sports, geography, and a plethora of other topics.  The one glaring area where Wikipedia falls short is in articles about US politics, which have a decidedly liberal bias that sadly is apparently just fine with the folks who run Wikipedia.
 In any event, if I am allowed to continue editing I can certainly stay even further away from US politics and just edit other articles. [[User:GlassBones|GlassBones]] ([[User talk:GlassBones|talk]]) 12:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards