Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:43, 3 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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oldstone James

Oldstone James unblocked and topic-banned from editing or commenting on anything related to the subjects of 'race & intelligence' and 'pseudoscience', broadly construed, for a period of 12 months --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made it clear to OldstoneJames that the ban does extend to the Creationism topic area. El_C 21:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Oldstone James blocked indefinitely again (by RexxS) for immediately contravening their topic ban on this very page. El_C 01:03, 2 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: Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by Oldstone James

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Guerillero

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

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

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

Statement by Guy Macon

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Grayfell

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

Statement by ජපස

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by PaleoNeonate

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

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

Statement by JzG

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

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

Statement by Dlthewave

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

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 5)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Oldstone James

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

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

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

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

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

Call for close

Pretty much everyone has said what they wanted to say, and we shouldn't leave OJ hanging. Could someone uninvolved please evaluate the consensus make a decision, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

Result of the appeal by Oldstone James

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

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

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

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

RexxS, I was just about to say something very similar. El_C 13:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I don't think that we do the project any favours by allowing appeals to sit undecided for lengthy periods. Given User:Guerillero's "I would suggest that any unblock come with a topic ban from R&I.", I believe a rough consensus may exist to replace the block with a topic ban from the areas covered by race and intelligence and pseudoscience, broadly construed. If this proposal isn't contested within the next 24-hours, I'll unblock and apply the topic bans (unless somebody beats me to it). --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Seconded, feel free to close this up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zarcademan123456

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 27 February 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 Zarcademan123456

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Zarcademan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

Zarcademan123456 changes confiscated --> expropriated in countless West Bank villages/towns, in spite of the fact that the source (=ARIJ) says "confiscated". Examples:

09:40, 22 February 2020 change confiscated --> expropriated
09:44, 22 February 2020 change confiscated --> expropriated
21:14, 22 February 2020 After s/he is told to stop, s/he continues with edit-line: "according to google "confiscate" means the action of taking or seizing someone's property with authority; seizure. "a court ordered the confiscation of her property" "expropriation" means the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit. "the decree provided for the expropriation of church land and buildings" by using "confiscation" instead on "expropriation" is a bias that denies Israel its legitimacy as a state"

22:37, 22 February 2020 edit line: "(put the word "confiscate" in quotations because of the loaded political connotations (the accepted term is "expropriations", as noted in the wikipedia page land expropriations in the West Bank)"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

blocked 22 December 2019 with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
blocked 28 December 2019 with an expiration time of 2 weeks (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)

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

Alerted, 28 August 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Comment: I understand that Zarcademan123456 does not like the word "confiscated" (According to Zarcademan123456: "by using "confiscation" instead on "expropriation" is a bias that denies Israel its legitimacy as a state")
Nevertheless, the source (=ARIJ) use the word "confiscated", when Zarcademan123456 changes "confiscated" to "expropriation" over lots of West Bank villages/towns, without any source, then they are being highly disruptive, IMO. We cannot go around changing things in the IP area just because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that some editors here claim that "confiscated" is equal to "expropriated", when Zarcademan123456 explicitly have stated multiple times that they consider them unequal, and that "confiscated" is implies a more critical attitude to Israel than "expropriated", and that is the reason why they change the words in dozens of articles. (See my diffs above, and Zero0000's diffs below.)
If we all are allowed to change words according to "what we like", then that will open for complete anarchy in the I/P area, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:EdJohnston I'm fine with closing this report, IF (and it' a big IF!) Zarcademan123456 has understood that he cannot change wording because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", nor can he continue making up stuff (like what I undid here). I tried to make him understand this, (both on my talk page, and on his), but he totally ignored me, and continued making the same changes to dozens of articles. Hence this report. Zarcademan123456 hasn't really been editing since I filed this report, but if closing it without action it taken as a sign that he can continue what he was doing, then I fear we will be back here on AE in no time, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Zarcademan123456

first of all, if this is the wrong place to post this i apologize. while i continue to disagree with the term "confiscate" Nableezy is absolutely correct...the occupation (I prefer disputed territories, but one must pick one's battles, lol) began during the war, not afterZarcademan123456 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Besides these edits, the user has introduced factual errors in a huge number of article. For example, this is just false. The occupation began during the war not after, and the reason for the change is to not include that the territory remains occupied. The user has been doing this to every article about a village or settlement in the West Bank, and cleaning up after his or her edits is becoming less of a joy, especially as he or she persists without offering even the semblance of discussion. nableezy - 23:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I take that back, the user responded on my talk page just now. So forget my comment here. nableezy - 23:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

I see no problem with the word 'expropriate'; it's more commonly used for government intervention, as is the case here. Bringing someone to WP:AE over semantics like this is a bit much. We do not have to use the exact same words as sources if there are appropriate (or more appropriate as may be the case here) synonyms, although I seem to recall that this point has fallen on deaf ears when made to the complainant previously. Number 5 7 01:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

ARIJ might use the word confiscate, but they’re not the only source, and confiscate is definitely not the word used by the consensus of sources. I would provide links and examples to back that up, but this is so obviously a content dispute and thus not appropriate for determination at AE. Levivich (Talk) 01:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that Huldra is the editor who added “confiscate” to all these articles in the first place, and if you look at the articles’ histories, you can see various attempts to change it, combined with the usual edit warring we see in almost all PIA articles. And, as always, it’s very difficult to say definitely that one side in the edit war is right or wrong (not unlike the actual war). I don’t envy admin asked to regulate in these situations. How do we get PIA editors (on all sides) to edit collaboratively instead of this constant battleground? Levivich (Talk) 04:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

It is obvious that AE is not the right place to decide whether "confiscate" or "expropriate" is the best word in this circumstance. However, it is highly relevant to AE that Zarcademan123456 gave an explicitly political reason for going against the source on many occasions [5] [6] [7] [8]. This is disruptive editing. Zarcademan123456 must learn to seek consensus before undertaking changes to multiple articles that are likely to be disputed. Zero^talk 02:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levevich wrote "Also worth noting that Huldra is the editor who added “confiscate” to all these articles in the first place". Wow, Huldra used the same word that the source uses! Multiple times even! I'm shocked to the core. Zero^talk 08:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

By the look of it, the case turns upon the following behavioural issues:
- Edit warring: whether Zarcademan123456 carried on repeating the same change in multiple articles after the point they should have realised there was significant opposition.
- Misrepresentation of cited sources: substituting a term with a different meaning to the cited sources.
With regard to the latter, it has been asserted above that the terms "confiscation" and "expropriation" are equivalent. Sources such as [9] and [10] point out that there are important differences: both involve a change in ownership, but, with expropriation, compensation is usually paid and it is not necessarily carried out against the wishes of the original owner.
← ZScarpia 11:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier

I have noticed that this editor has a habit of making edits based on his own personal opinion rather than on sources; I mentioned that to him a couple times recently on his talk page. I have been nevertheless assuming good faith on his part up to now.Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (other user)

Result concerning Zarcademan123456

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

I guess the core question here is this: is Zarcademan123456 edit-warring or editing in defiance of consensus. The OP does not provide evidence of this. Guy (help!) 02:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a content dispute. We often paraphrase sources rather than quoting them exactly, and the best way to do that is a content decision. It is not up to AE to decide what wording an article should use. If the two here can't come to an agreement, an RfC may be the way forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has used language in edit summaries about 'deligitimization of the state of Israel' that appear to be pro-Israeli. In other words, the editor is showing they don't intend to edit neutrally. Though the actual change of 'confiscate' to 'expropriate' might be a matter of word choice, the reasons for the change seem to be to promote the Israeli view of these activities. The legitimacy of the state of Israel is not a matter for our articles to resolve or for Wikipedia to have an opinion on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked to see if Z was continuting this type of edit after the filing of User:Huldra's complaint. I didn't notice any. Also relevant are the talk threads at User talk:Nableezy#expropriate vs. confiscate and User talk:Zarcademan123456#changes to west bank articles. He promised that 'I will cease with the changing of the terms'. It seems to me that the editor might have got the point. Certainly the block record is concerning, but we can keep an eye on further events. This AE might be closed with no admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with no action per my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mbsyl

Mbysl blocked one month for repeated topic ban violations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 24 February 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 Mbsyl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision :; A BLP topic ban was imposed by Acroterion.

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

All of these are violations of the BLP topic ban, if not worse. For context, all of these are about the surviving stabbing victim of the 2017 Portland train attack. He was stabbed in the neck while confronting the attacker, who was shouting racist insults at strangers.

18 February 2020 to Talk:Rose City Antifa - Regarding the surviving victim, Mbsyl says that his "violence-against-speech helped contribute to people dying". There is no evidence of this callous claim.
18 February 2020 - Mbysl tries to cast doubt about the victim's reliability based on personal opinion.
20 February 2020 - Compares the victim to a Nazi.
21 February 2020 - Doubles down on Nazi comparison. Mbsyl says getting stabbed is somehow similar to a Nazi "stabbing minorities". Mbysl further says that this living person belongs to a "movement based around violence".
21 February 2020 to 2017 Portland train attack - This edit tries to paint the stabbing victim (who is definitely a WP:BLP1E) in a negative light by emphasizing the defense attorneys' unsuccessful court arguments, stripped of context.
23 February 2020 - Says on talk that More evidence that he is part of this new movement on the left that embraces tactics involving violence, intimidation, and doxxing. These are serious allegations about a living person which are unsupported by sources.
23 February 2020 - Similar doubling-down and further insinuations about the victims, including claiming that the victim's past unrelated protest activity can be fairly compared to "promoting drunk driving".

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 27 January 2020 by Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The attacker was recently found guilty on all counts. The victims were never, as far as I know, credibly accused of any crime related to this attack.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notifed at 01:00, 24 February 2020

Discussion concerning Mbsyl

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Mbsyl

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mbsyl

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

It appears that all of the edits by Mbsyl listed above violate the BLP topic ban imposed by Acroterion on 27 January. The wording of the ban makes it apply to living persons both in articles and on talk pages. I suggest a one-month AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with EdJohnston. El_C 03:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

PainMan

PainMan is indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:19, 1 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 PainMan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

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

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Alerted here at 10:27, 23 February 2020‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at 11:53, 25 February 2020

Discussion concerning PainMan

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by PainMan

Statement by (username)

Result concerning PainMan

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

PainMan I would be interested in a response from you. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnuniq and RexxS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at User talk:PainMan#Arbitration enforcement notification (diff) requesting a response from PainMan. Without an explanation and commitment to avoid such problems in a topic under discretionary sanctions, I would support an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that PainMan has been editing since the last notification, it will take quite an explanation to persuade me not to support an indefinite topic ban from the Troubles, broadly construed. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PainMan has edited since RexxS' ping above, so unless they respond here with a very convincing explanation here very soon then I will give them an indefinite topic ban from the Troubles. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PainMan, indeed, you cannot be compelled to participate, but failing to do so could result in sanctions, nonetheless. El_C 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher

Peregrine Fisher is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edits related to Race and intelligence, broadly construed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:57, 2 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 Peregrine Fisher

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Editors_reminded_and_discretionary_sanctions :

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

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

8 February:

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

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

14 February:

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

23 February:

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

26 February:

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

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

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

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

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

Accusing admins of bias at DRV:

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

19 January 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

-Dlthewave 26 February 2020

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

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

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

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

I am not subject to a prior AE warning. The AE log shows that a warning was issued and withdrawn within 40 minutes after the issuer reread the discussion.

I agree with Grayfell's opinion that a "consensus required" restriction would not be helpful here. The disruption lies within the consensus-building process itself: Although there may appear to be consensus to include hereditarian-POV content or restore the article to an older version, a thorough reading of the talk page and its archives will reveal that the "consensus building" discussions are full of non-policy-based aguments, fallacies and personal attacks. This is a classic case of false consensus and does indeed resemble the situation we dealt with a year ago at firearms-related articles.

I would encourage admins to independently evaluate the claim that it's disruptive or counterproductive to remove large amounts of long-standing content. The article has had large amounts of fringe content for many years and its removal is an improvement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: PF is aware that POV forking is a valid reason for deletion, I mentioned this on his talk page on 5 February (permalink) after he brought it up at AfD. He acknowledged.

The comment by My Very Best Wishes regarding discourse taking place in letters to the editor and popular science publications illustrates the need for a MEDRS-like sourcing restriction. A major issue with the article, which has been discussed on the talk page, is that it relies heavily on these primary sources instead of scondary sources that cover the overall discourse. If a letter to The New York Times really played a noteworthy role in scientific discourse, then it should be easy to find coverage in scientific sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[28]

Discussion concerning Peregrine Fisher

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Peregrine Fisher

I think what Doug Weller said about how Mankind Quarterly shouldn't be used despite our policies is informative. People do not agree with how our policies treat this subject. Jo Jo was in the middle of writing an elaborate SUPERVOTE, when Spartaz wrote a short SUPERVOTE and closed it. That's some good evidence that this article is not being looked at through the lens of policy, but something else.

Looks like I'm about to get topic banned even though I've only defended our policies, against people who ignore our policies. And AE voters seem to think that's the legit way to go. I don't see the AE voters listing a lot of policies that I've broken either. I bet if I had broken a bunch of policies, it wouldn't take 10 of you hemming and hawing before you ban me. The first AE voter would have said "they've been breaking policy X, so permanent topic ban. Done." Whatever. I'm frustrated.

Finally, I think people will read this and say "he likes Mankind Quarteryly". This is not true. Don't know barely anything about. It's peer reviewed, and people don't think it's reliable? I guess. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: not sure how I'm being pointy. It's not a fork, so I think that rules out POVFORK entirely. Maybe I'm missing something. @Liz: I don't think the article is evil, or that an article can be evil. But I feel that editors on the other side think it shouldn't be covered on wiki becuase it's an inherently bad (is that a better word?) subject to cover. That basically it shouldn't be covered regardless of our policies. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate that when JzG said I've been adding racist SYN, that's not true. Because I haven't added anything to the article. Just reverted giant against consensus deletions. I'm not that good of an advocate for myself, but if I were, I might say something like this on my talk page. 20:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I may get banned either way, but if you guys do something to protect this article, I'll ban myself. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was written later than what I wrote below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Pudeo

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

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

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

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

Just a point of order James R. Flynn (academic) isn't an environmentalist nor do I believe they have ever claimed to be so. Perhaps you meant something else? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP editor

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

Here are diffs of some of his large removals:

February 8: [29]
February 8: [30]
February 9: [31]
February 12: [32] (section blanking)
February 15: [33] (section blanking)
February 15: [34] (section blanking)
February 15: [35] (section blanking)
February 24: [36]
February 25: [37] (section blanking)
February 26: [38] (section blanking)
March 2: [39] (section blanking)

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

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

The person whose behavior is the main problem here is Dlthewave, not Peregrine Fisher. Dlthewave has already voted Delete in the AFD for this article, so as per Snowded's edit summary, he should await the outcome of the AFD instead of trying to delete the article one section at a time. Dlthewave was notified of the Discretionary sanctions here: [40]. 2600:1004:B107:64A3:ED2C:F2BD:D1B5:7B42 (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to be clear what Grayfell means by "improving this topic" in his comment below. What typically happens on this article is that someone makes an attempt at removing several paragraphs or an entire section that had been stable for years, and then after the removal is reverted, several more editors restore the removal without any regard for the talk page discussion about it. In this discussion, one of these editors explained why he considered it acceptable to edit war to restore the removals even though it was clear that consensus opposed him. As discussed here, when some of the editors restoring the removals were openly disregarding the talk page consensus, it seemed that the only way consensus could be upheld was with a huge multi-party edit war. (What happened instead was that the article was locked for three days.)

Grayfell is one of the editors responsible for this situation. As I described in my comment here, he has been one of the editors restoring these removals while refusing to participate in the talk page, when it was clear that a majority of editors on the talk page disagreed with him.

If Wikipedia is going to have an article on this topic at all, there is a minimum standard of stability and decorum that ought to be upheld. That includes avoiding a situation where talk page discussion becomes irrelevant, leaving edit wars as the only possible way to resolve disputes. 2600:1004:B15A:4656:E1D4:7A87:DF8B:277D (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please note that Dlthewave's section blanking has continued while this report is open. He is being evasive about his reason for the removals, such as arguing that nobody has provided a source showing the section is relevant to the article's topic, after I had provided five such sources in this discussion. 2600:1004:B12D:741A:C15B:1789:8738:CD03 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jweiss11

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

Statement by Grayfell

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

Peregrine Fisher uses superficially neutral language to request other people's attention, or he asks leading questions when the answer is obvious. As a few of examples, we have [41], [42], [43], and plenty more available. Judging by his user page, he seems to take pride in being antagonistic and lacking self-reflection. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion required restriction would make it even harder for anyone to improve this topic. The AFD showed that outside editors recognize the serious problems with our coverage of these topics, while a handful of WP:SPAs have congregated to defend the status quo. The talk page is already filled with wikilawyering and tedious rehashing of old issues. Forcing editors to discuss every change would drive away good-faith participation, and would be a tacit endorsement of the current state of the article.

Comparing Donald Trump to Race and intelligence is a mistake. The Trump article is a BLP, it has many new sources coming out every day, hundreds of times more page views, and hundreds more active editors. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

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

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

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

Statement by Mr rnddude

This is evidently a tactical attempt to remove opposition from the topic area. This is not the first time that Dlthewave has attempted this either, they have done the same thing to editors who hold an opposing viewpoint on "gun rights". Specifically, the incident that comes to mind is this which led to a sort of boomerang sanctioning of Dlthewave resulting in a userpage being deleted for polemics, as well as a warning to all parties involved.

For this specific incident, the article history shows three editors removing material (Dlthewave, Grey fell, and Horse Eye Jack) and another three editors reinstating those removals (Peregrine Fisher, Pudeo and AndrewNguyen). This is a multi-party editwar. I think Ferahgo's solution may be useful in that it addresses the underlying conduct issue which is edit-warring, and not opinion-having.

In actu - It's unclear to me what PF's !vote on a RfB has to do with their editing in this topic area (and yes, I am aware that PF is referring to the AfD for the article "Race and Intelligence"). There are several others opposing the RfB for the same reason, including one specifically citing PF's rationale as a reason to oppose. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave has left a message on my talk page indicating that the warning administered to Dlthewave, and also Springee, was rescinded by Sandstein.1 2 Mr rnddude (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I've taken a long break from that article and entire topic area, after watchdogging it for a while for trolls and vandalism and PoV pushing and such. Though a techie and civil liberties activist by profession for most of my working life (kind of by accident, really), I'm a cultural anthropologist by most of my educational background, and am in particular a critic of IQ tests and similar artifices as culturally biased. I'm more than well aware that "our" (especially everyday Americans' and to a slightly lesser extent Europeans') ideas of "race" are a social construct that don't align with genetic reality; I wrote WP:Race and ethnicity. So, I'm obviously not going to come at this from a "Let's suggest, or by shitty writing allow the reader to infer, that race X is more intelligent than racy Y" angle.

Yet I have to generally agree with Jweiss11 and Mr_rnddude. There's obviously an attempt here to gut any attempts to have WP cover the topic at all, and this AE is part of a strategy of opposition-elimination. This is an "unclean hands" AE report. If anything, I would reverse the T-ban suggestion, or at bare minimum have it cover both parties, if we were really going to T-ban land. I can agree with the generalized concern (not methods) of Dlthewave that we have a bit of a "he said, she said" article structure problem that is leading to a WP:WEIGHT issue, but that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The ongoing "censor this article at all costs" multi-pronged approach to trying to delete nearly all of it without consensus from within, while trying to delete the page itself (with an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE, no less – and never mind that we have another article, at History of the race and intelligence controversy that covers the same stuff (with a viewpoint divergence and some missing information but some additional information, and presumably would be the next target) is just not how we do things. WP has an actual responsibility to cover this topic, and to do it well. That the article is not yet doing it as well as we'd like does not mean "Hide the topic! Hide it now!" I means do it better. If that means banning people who insert racist bullshit, so be it. If that means banning people who cite predatory journals and far-right "news" and century-old pseudo-science as so-called sources, so be it. If that means banning people who intentionally skew things in an undue manner using reasonable sources manipulatively, so be it. But it does not mean banning people who revert mass-deletion of properly sourced content when all that is actually needed is some DUE massaging to put the material into perspective. Even getting to where the article is now has been a long and nearly constant consensus struggle, and we're not done yet by a long shot.

Honestly, I would prefer it if neither of these editors were T-banned, but just put on notice to dial it down and to stop revert-warring. I think the behavioral issues on both sides are remediable. Do not make massive changes to the article without consensus. But do not stonewall incremental improvements. If you want to add something, the onus is on you to source it properly and without OR (and to drop the stick if you can't do the real work). If you want to remove something, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the sourcing is inadequate or being misused (and to try to fix that before just nuking it, especially if it's just a DUE matter that has to do with wording, focus, attribution, position in the article, relation to other sources, etc.) Most of all – this is really obvious, folks – focus on fixing the overall UNDUE problem of giving equal "A says X, B says Y" time, and also on merging the content fork (possibly even PoV fork) at the "History of..." article. We absolutely do not need that as a separate page, and having it be one just doubles the difficulty of policing this topic area for PoV warring. PS: No, a literature review, especially a systematic review, in a reputable journal is not a primary source. If someone doesn't already understand that, they are not yet competent to be editing in a controversial science topic.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Ferhago's idea could be workable, if it really comes to that. Maybe it has. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

The issue at hand is not a particular content dispute, but a pattern of tendentious editing by Peregrine Fisher (PF for short). This includes treating Wikipedia as a battleground and an us vs them mentality. Here's a response to me, for example: "Coffman spoke the truth for you guys. There are no policy reasons to remove a secondary source, but you don't like the authors."[44]. (This statement also shows apparent confusion about the WP:UNDUE policy).

Here are more examples from PF's Talk page: "To put it bluntly, we probably need some edit warring to take to AE." [45], and "that's basically saying 'fine, we'll let the 4 win, then see if they will discuss things reasonably'. They wont."[46]. It's worth noting that these two diffs are taken from a discussion with the dynamic IP who is commenting above; in one such post, the IP offers his assistance to PF and notes that he's helped another editor to file an AE report pertaining to Grayfell: [47]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

I am not an expert in this topic, so I've just analyze a couple of randomly picked arguments. First, I analyzed the edits made on 23th of February. This revert restored the text removed under an od pretext ( rm off topic section, see talk page discussion): how can the section "Global variation of IQ scores" be irrelevant to the "Race and Intelligence" topic? The removed section is focused mostly on a comparison of IQ in sub-Sacharian Africa and Western countries, so it hard to see why it is "off-topic". Furthermore, the section was properly sourced, and the sources are of a very good quality. A couple "citation needed" tags are actually not needed, because the tagged sentences provide a brief summary of the subsequent text, which is properly sourced. Therefore, irrespective to the arguments presented on the article's talk page, restoration of the removed text was per se not a violation of our policy.

Second, I agree with Pudeo that dlthewave's vision of what primary sources are contradicts to our policy and guidelines. Our policy clearly says that peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. The sources that provide author's own thinking based on primary sources are secondary sources. An exceptions are editorial and op-ed materials published in newspapers or magazines. They are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. However, the same cannot be said about articles published in specialized peer-reviewed journals. It seems dlthewave's accusations are based, at least partially, on their own (incorrect) understanding of our sourcing policy. Thus, contrary to what dlthewave says, the Peregrine Fisher's statement: Peer reviewed journals are our gold standard. What's one awesome way to know if an opinion is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? When it's published in a peer reviewed journal directly follows from what WP:SOURCES say. I didn't go into details of that conflict, but a possibility cannot be ruled out that that poor understanding of the sourcing policy by dlthewave could be one of the reasons of that conflict.

Third. I frequently see that many edit wars are the result of usage of poor sources by one party, or by an opposition to inclusion of good sources by another party. In connection to that, I am puzzled by the fact that admins are too reluctantly applying sourcing restrictions similar to the ones proposed by Barkeep49. In my opinion, that is the first thing that should be done when a conflict starts in a serious topic where many good quality reliable sources are available, and "Race and Intelligence" belongs to that category. Indeed, if we prohibit usage of non-peer-reviewed journals, obscure newspapers, or popular magazines, the "Race and Intelligence" article will only benefit from that. In my opinion, that step alone will be sufficient to stop the conflict.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Whereas Mankind Quarterly looks more reliable than an average newspaper, it is by no means a good peer-reviewed journal. Its impact factor is very low, an average article is being cited very rarely by others. Therefore, if materials from better peer-reviewed journals contradict to what MQ says, the latter can be easily rejected.

Obviously, peer-reviewed journals is a very unhomogeneous set of sources, reliability of articles published in, e.g. Nature and e.g. Mankind Quarterly is just incomparable. However, the same can be said about any other category of sources (for example, newspapers). What makes peer-reviewed journals different is the mechanism of cross-references: you can always see how widely some article is being cited by peers, and if the citations contains criticism or support. That provides you with a tool to evaluate credibility and reliability of what peer-reviewed journals say. Journal ranking by impact factor is also a useful criterion. Although not a universal one, it is definitely better than nothing.

And, by the way, our guidelines always addressed the predatory journals issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guettarda

~~It's been 7 years since I touched that page or its talk page, so I wouldn't really consider myself involved, but it's probably better for me to post here.~~ Looking at that page, I've noticed that almost all the sources are from 2010 or earlier (probably because the page still mostly reflects Professor marginalia's massive re-write. This pre-dates massive developments in genetics, and the replication crisis in psychology.

I feel like a simple solution would be to impose a MEDRS-type standard for sourcing in this article. Purely historical information could be sourced by older material, but scientific content should be based on recent sources, preferably systematic reviews. That would eliminate a lot of the back-and-forth and the desire of editors to add their own interpretations to sources that are now decades old. While it's impractical to require a total re-write of what's there, we could impose a requirement on new additions. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I do not think WP:MEDRS applies automatically to the page because the subject does not belong to medicine. However, making MEDRS-type sourcing restrictions, specifically for this page, is entirely within the discretion by the admins. Personally, I think it would be a bad idea, precisely because human races have been considered a "social construct" in many sources and the discourse here resulted in letters by scientists sent to NYT, discussions in popular science and journalistic sources, etc., all of which should be included if we want to have a complete coverage and comply with WP:NPOV.

As about user Peregrine Fisher, some of their comments are clearly not good, however I do not think they rise to the level of a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested to make a sourcing restriction: "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions....". Questions:

Do something like New York Times qualify as a "reputable institution"? How about other reputable newspapers?
Do you know that WP:MEDRS discourage using peer reviewed scientific articles (unless they are reviews), and for a good reason?
"academically focused books" and "reputable publishers". What does it mean? Would everything published by "Moscow University Press" automatically qualify?

Here is my point. This is an editing restriction you are going to use to sanction contributors. This can be only something very clear and obvious for everyone. Even 1RR/3RR restrictions cause a lot of disputes. Someone may think in a good faith that the source was OK per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I am not involved with this topic and I don't recall interacting with PF but I have interacted with other editors here. This looks like a case where both sides are being problematic. I read this as PF is getting frustrated with editors who are trying to change long standing material without following BRD. Take this section blanking by Dlthewave earlier today [[48]]. Look at the history of the interaction. Dlthewave blanks the section here (26 Feb) [[49]]. PF restores (next edit) and starts a discussion [[50]]. Horse Eye Jack immediately reverts the restore. I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably claim that talk page consensus was established for that restoration. Several days later Jweiss11 restores the content to the previous stable state (2 March) [[51]]. This looks like a reasonable NOCON restoration. The discussion certainly has not resulted in a new consensus. Dlthewave places several tags in the newly restored section the decides to redeletes the whole thing [[52]] a few hours later. As part of this they also left a questionable warning on Jweiss11's talk page [[53]].

I absolutely see how an editor would be frustrated with interactions like this. Dlthewave's preferred version of the article may be correct but that doesn't mean they can ignore BRD and NOCON to in the face of opposition. Dlthewave may legitimately feel that PF's comments are problematic and may not mean this report to be a way to strategically remove someone who is opposing their desired changes. Regardless the optics are there and the effect would be the same. Dlthewave's second removal of long standing material in absence of consensus makes all editor interactions here worse, not better.

What's the solution? I'm not sure but it isn't to punish PF for their bad behavior and ignore the bad behavior of others. I'm not sure that PF's comments should warrant anything more than a warning to avoid personalizing, don't ascribe motives to others etc. Basically focus on content. They should not face a topic ban. Dlthewave, and others, needs to remember that CONSENSUS is policy. If they can't get consensus to make a change then they need to accept it and move on. Based on what I'm seeing as an outsider to this article, I think a consensus required structure for changes is needed here. I wouldn't want to see topic bans start first since I think both sides have legitimate complaints in the form of content policies (DUE, RS etc), how editors are making changes (following or ignoring BRD, NOCON) and to a lesser extent CIVIL/editor interaction issues that seem to have resulted from people ignoring BRD, NOCON etc. Springee (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DoubleCross

I'm not involved with this article/topic, but I agree with Jweiss11, Mr rnddude etc. that this AE was filed in an attempt to take out the opposition.

Also Liz, I believe Peregrine Fisher is saying that it's the "other side" that believes the article is "evil" (due to the controversial material in question). - DoubleCross (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Peregrine Fisher

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

It is increasingly hard to muster up the energy to wade into this mess when I don't know if the article in question will be gone tomorrow. I will say that no one involved here looks great, right now. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any appetite to topic ban Peregrine Fisher? I was on the fence, but this is a fairly obvious pointer that PF needs a vacation from the topic area. There is an argument for a topic ban for Dlthewave as well, but I have seen less evidence in this thread --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea Ferahgo the Assassin. I would be amenable to something like that. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mr rnddude: It looks like classic battlefield conduct to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder if a version of MEDRS for this area (and potentially other fringe areas) would be better suited for a RFC. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have an appetite, I'd definitely topic ban Peregrine Fisher. Bishonen | tålk 11:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The AfD 4th nomination has been re-closed as keep. I have not yet full examined this AE discussion in full so no comment on the two editors under discussion at this moment. However, in really thinking through the discussion I had been preparing to implement Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. as an individual arbitration enforcement action. I think such a restriction could be useful and could work in conjunction with a 24 Hour BRD cycle restriction. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read more into this request. In thinking about the 24 Hour BRD cycle more, I am opposed to such a sanction in this case. The AfD discussion made clear, both from those who supported keeping the articles and loudly from those who wished to see it deleted, that the content is troubling and needed changing. We should not be putting up barriers that make it harder to disrupt a status quo that has been identified as troubling by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having now had a chance to really dig in to the conduct issues presented in this case, I am in favor of a topic ban for Peregrine Fisher. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having watched this article for years I have to agree with Barkeep, a 24 hour BRD sanction wouldn't work. The idea about high quality sources sounds good but I can see problems with that. Is Mankind Quarterly the sort of source we want used? Our article describes it as "a peer-reviewed academic journal that has been described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal", an "infamous racist journal", and "scientific racism's keepers of the flame". I've left out the sources, if people want to see them they are there in the lead. I'd argue that peer-reviewed isn't always enough, and I don't want to get started on predatory journals. However, if this doesn't seem a problem or can somehow be avoided. I'd agree to it. Otherwise I'm with Guerillero. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, the diff provided by Guerillero above is problematic; PF seems to be unaware that POVFORK is a completely valid reason for deletion, but then appears to assume that deletion of an article via policy violates NOTCENSORED, which is clearly nonsense. Since I assume that PF is clearly not dim enough to believe that, that comment is being made deliberately and to make a point. I'm with Guerillero and co. here. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side question in this intricate, involved discussion about reliable sources: Peregrine Fisher, you say in your statement, "But a lot of editors feel in their gut that this article is evil." Do you feel that the Wikipedia article on this subject is evil? I don't even know how to adjudicate a dispute with an editor who thinks of any content in an encyclopedic articles as something "evil" or would put it in those terms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dey subrata

There was a consensus to uphold the block before this appeal became moot due to the block expiration --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:10, 3 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: Dey subrata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dey subrata (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Blocked for violation of WP:NOTVANDAL at this ANI discussion

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

Notification of that administrator

I am the one who posted this, so notification was not necessary. El_C 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dey subrata

Hello dear admin, to my understanding I have been blocked for addressing a user of disruptive edits as "vandalism" which was not the case per WP:NOTVANDAL. What I understood from the policies is that, edit war is not vandalsim and removal of materials from an article with misleading edit summary is disruptive edits but not vandalism. For multiple instances of removal of same thing from the article made me warned him but I've added an extra phrase of "is a vandalism", which I should not have done as per policies. I've also gone through WP:VANDTYPES, and understood what can be called as vandalism. I have read them very carefully and understood what type and when an edit can be called as vandalism. I have also gone through WP:GF and understood its policies and most importantly how to demonstrate good faith and dealing with bad faith and to avoid accusing other user of bad faith without clear evidence. I have also read the WP:DE policies along with the WP:GF to better understand disruptive edits and assume good faiths. Along with these important policies I have even taken time to go through the important guidelines of WP:LGL and WP:EQ to understand and enrich my editing behaviour and to avoid conflicts infuture. I apologies for my mistake out of misunderstanding of a VANDTYPE policy. I hope my block can now be revoked and I can assure you a fair and justified approach from my side, I will not make any mistake by tagging any disruptive edits as vandalism in future. Dey subrata (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

It took a while to get a response that introspective from Dey subrata. No objection to an unblock, though I'll deffer to the judgment of my peers rather than do so myself, at this time. El_C 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel, I think you're being unduly harsh here. El_C 00:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aman Kumar Goel

"I have been blocked for addressing a user of disruptive edits as "vandalism""

So now after failing to prove my edits as vandalism per 2 rejected unblock requests by Dey Subrata which he attempted to remove, he is now trying to misrepresent my edits as "disruptive edits" even after getting warned on ANI by Black Kite that "continue to confuse "disruptive editing" with "edits I don't agree with", I will block them", and now we are here. I don't see encyclopedia will benefit from this editor given the total inability to understand any problems. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 00:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dey subrata

Statement by DBigXray

I had commented about the ANI thread of this case. And I have collaborated with Dey, on a few articles. Based on their appeal, I think they have understood the problem. I support an unblock, since the block has served its purpose.--⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 19:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Dey subrata

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

Small note: I have not personally interacted with Subrata or El_C (w.r.t. sanctions on Subrata), whereas I've made edits to the article in a non-administrative capacity. If any administrator feels my comment should be in the section above (due to INVOLVED), feel free to move it without any need to inform me. I am of the opinion that the block was OK, the unblock requests reflect why the block was good imo (the original block could have been shorter) and the editor in question also asked DBX to proxy-edit for them (but I think that's with good intentions), probably unaware of policies, still another reason this was a good block. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uninvolved in the latest issue, although I'm not going to suggest a decision anyway. However this may be relevant; an ANI thread from December 2019 highlighting Dey subrata previously misusing talkpage warnings, for which I warned them on their talkpage here. Further, the editor's reply to me in the latter link (" I will assume to be not bothered any more"), and in the ANI thread ("Be careful while playing victim card") suggest a certain intractability on such issues. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 72-hour block is extremely reasonable given the noise that I saw on ANI. I have looked at the most recent ANI again and the issues are more than inappropriately calling good-faith edits vandalism. For example, this revert had edit summary "Misleading edit summary and editwar" when the reverted edit had summary "Per clear consensus on Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Removing_Kapil_Mishra_photo" (which might be totally wrong, I don't know, but is the opposite of misleading) and where there was no recent apparent edit warring, and certainly none previously by the editor who was reverted. The short block is very reasonable given the inappropriate claims of vandalism etc. in an area under discretionary sanctions and this page should not be used to micro-manage such an outcome. Dey subrata should wait for the block to expire. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The block seems reasonable to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray

Declined with prejudice. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:10, 2 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 DBigXray

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DBigXray (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 :

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

29 February: Participates in a new ANI thread by deflecting from the concerns raised about an editor editing similar subjects.
29 February: Posts a lengthy misleading reply on the above ANI thread which still didn't concerned him and even after the thread was closed. See WP:BATTLE, WP:STICK. Falsely claims in the thread that "there was no clear consensus to remove" pictures, even though there was clear consensus to remove the pictures per the section at that time and so far only DbigXray and Dey Subrata disagree with removal.
29 February: Adds WP:OR on main article and misrepresents source by claiming "most of whom were Muslims" and links to this website even though source makes no mention of "muslims". Failed to recognize this misrepresentation of source even when it was discussed on talk page per this section and clearly mentioned to him by other users.[54] See WP:IDHT and WP:CIR.
29 February: Leaves a 3RR warning on a user's talk page who made only 1 revert. See WP:BATTLE.
29 February: Leaves a 3RR warning on a user's talk page who never made single revert on this article. See WP:BATTLE.
1 March: restores pictures of 2 politicians by providing a misleading summary and also going against nearly unanimous agreement held on on talk page to remove both pictures.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [55]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On February, he had been already through a very lengthy ANI for same harassment and obtuse attitude,[56] and has been also warned recently for battleground mentality on his talk page that a topic ban from Indian subjects will be enforced if battleground mentality continued.[57] Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 00:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EL C: Given this area is always experiencing disruption from various editors, I have provided diffs that are recent and does not involve content dispute but instead prove the existence of widespread misconduct of the user which involves editing against consensus, edit warring, template abuse, deceptive editing, misrepresentation of sources, and so much many other issues which make it clear that the misconduct has been deliberate. If you look carefully at the recent ANI thread, which was closed by you, I am sure that you will find that DBigXray had enough warnings regarding his misconduct, and there have been enough reports. Are we really setting a precedent that a person is allowed to engage in all of those policy violations? If not, then why it makes any sense to let off DBigXray infinite times over same misconduct issues which he is repeating for years? Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 03:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User talk:DBigXray#AE notice

Discussion concerning DBigXray

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 DBigXray

Diff 1, 2, are a disply of blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ABF from Aman.kumar.goel. I shared my observations and Aman.kumar.goel seems to be unhappy that my opinion is not in line with his.
Diff 3 is a content dispute. It is me adding another source for something that was already sourced and yet removed. here are the sources that I had already added in the article. Since I have been wrongly accused of WP:OR here are the quotes from the already existing ref.

Guardian

They killed or burned alive Muslims who could not escape and the victims were largely unprotected by the police. At least 37 people, almost all Muslims, were killed and many others beaten half to death.

CBS News

local reports suggest the majority of the dead and injured are Muslims.

Time

the official number of those killed has reached 42, a majority of them Muslims

Firstpost

Of the deceased, 15 were Muslims and 10 were Hindus

Wire

The Wire has identified 30 persons among the deceased, including from a list released by GTB Hospital and those released by the news agency PTI

[Diff 4 and 5] The article on riot was placed on 1RR DS on 29 Feb. After which the editors reverting this article were alerted with the std Template:uw-3rr. (There isn't a special 1RR template) So I added a line at the end informing User My Lord about 1RR Who had already made [58] [59] [60] [61] [62], 5 reverts of edits by other editors, on a page with 1RR, and all of these reverts were controversial and were being discussed on the talk page.
[diff 6] There is no "unanimous agreement" or "clear consensus" on those threads to remove the picture, yet My_Lord removed them saying so in edit summary. so the image was restored.

Since the day the article North East Delhi riots was started, I have been subjected to a concerted harassment campaign, that I believe is being managed off wiki using social media groups. These people have a common trait that they have a clear Pro-Right wing bias, and they consider anything not aligned with Pro-Right wing as biased and something that needs fixing.

Of late I have been on receiving end of harassment that includes sending abusive, derogatory, disparaging comments/emails some of which also included death threats. I had to get my talk page locked and emails disabled. Other editors who are more familiar with WP:WIKILAWYERING have tried filing frivolous cases such as one on WP:COI and now this WP:AE. I hope some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is handed down to the filers of this case for harassing me and wasting everyone's time.

Lepricavark, has been extremely prejudiced against me (based on his comments attacking me in past 2 week), and I have been avoiding any interaction with them and ignoring them. But my ignoring them, is not stopping them from repeatedly pinging me and trying to get involved in discussion threads I am active on.

responding to additional comments by editor filing complaint (Aman Kumar Goel)

Filer asks a rhetorical question "Are we really setting a precedent that a person is allowed to engage in all of those policy violations?" And I note that he could not gather even 1 diff that is not frivolous.

I have been editing in topics, covered under wP:ARBIPA and BLP ACDS, despite repeated harassment campaigns where folks I had content dispute with, tried to weaponize ANI, AE, AN, and all other noticeboards, by hauling me to these drama boards, in attempts to get me blocked or topic banned. In almost all of these threads I note a common line that says something along the lines of "DBX has got too many (frivolous) warnings and (frivolous) cases filed against him, He must be blocked/banned immediately (at the drop of the hat). This new case is also along the same lines. And I note that every time these threads have been closed with no action and often with the filers warned. Despite all of these attempts to get back at me, I am proud, that I have been able to maintain a sparkling clean blocklog, even though I am editing on topics that are minefields infested with POV warriors. I hope my clean block log speaks for itself and I note that it is something that this filer lacks

Since I have been repeatedly harassed I request some sort of WP:BOOMERANG, at the very least something that prevents User:Aman.kumar.goel from continuing this "Let's harass DBX" campaign further. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply to El C

El C I just want the admins to know that I have been on the receiving end of an enormous harassment campaign, and I strongly believe this frivolous case is part of it. These cases are an emotional and time drain on me. And I have no reasons to believe this will stop here. Any decision by the admins that can reduce this harassment of me at admin boards, from continuing further will be welcomed by me.⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 08:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

I was part of the ANI thread mentioned above, and I think obtuse attitude is an excellent description of DBX's conduct throughout that farce of a discussion. It may very well be that El C is 100% correct in his assessment of DBX's actions at North East Delhi Riots, but I think it would be a disservice to the community if an admin closed this request, with or without prejudice, without explaining why the above diffs aren't problematic. If the contributions are decent, show us. (And quite frankly, the original research mentioned above was irresponsible, so there's that for starters). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, DBX's contribs have indeed spoken for themselves quite a lot lately, but not in the affirmative. Maybe this case is different, maybe it isn't. The original research certainly wasn't great. If nothing else, hopefully this thread will result in DBX being made aware that when they use a source to validate a claim made in an article, the source should actually contain the information in question. This is especially true in this case given that DBX has taken on a self-appointed role as gatekeeper of the article. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems clear that this request will be closed with no action (which may well be the appropriate outcome, unapologetic OR notwithstanding), it should be noted for the record that DBX's comments about myself and their interactions with me are completely false. It is unfortunate that their work at the riots article has apparently given them the freedom to make personal attacks and cast aspersions with impunity. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

DBigXray has been doing the lion's share of the work in handling requests, complaints etc. at Talk:North East Delhi riots, which has turned out to be a highly sensitive topic. As I was tied up with RL work throughout last week, I had admired from the sidelines the diligence and patience with which he dealt with all the discussions.

I don't see the kind of substained misconduct that requires AE intervention. There are some content issues on which DBX might have gone overboard in giving warning messages. That is about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spasiba5

I wonder why I was pinged. Anyway, at this link Talk:North East Delhi riots#Islamophobia as a cause for riots, we can see he has cited references which do not mention Islamophobia (it was he who cited them). Here he removed what precipitated the riots. Here he reverted me by re-inserting a snapshot of Kapil Mishra, but in his edit summary, he wrote, "Expanding article", probably to circumvent the 1RR rule (he had already re-inserted that image, see here). As Lepricavark says, DBigXray has indulged in a lot of "Original Research" - for example, this, which Lepricavark reverted. He keeps adding the words, "most of who were Muslims". This is another edit for the same. At this link Talk:North East Delhi riots#Ishrat Jahan arrest, we can see that he doesn't want Ishrat Jahan's arrest to be mentioned, so I replied that then even Kapil Mishra should not be mentioned in the article (Ishrat is a Muslim)!—Spasiba5 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DBigXray

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

I, for one, think DBigXray's contributions lately have been pretty damn decent, especially on the minefield that is the North East Delhi riots. Recommend closing this request, with prejudice. El_C 00:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, I think DBigXray's contributions speak for themselves, in the affirmative. This complaint seems to be premised on distorting that with a few carefully-placed diffs, that nonetheless often do not show what they claim to — i.e. misconduct worthy of AE sanctions. El_C 03:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, I'm not sure what else you are referring to, but I do disagree about the "self-appointed gatekeeper" label, expressed in the negative. Note that DBigXray has actually suffered a fair bit of abuse in the past 2 days — abuse for which they have comported themselves admirably, I challenge. El_C 03:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, I'm of the opinion that the filer ought to be, at the very least, admonished for initiating this complaint. El_C 07:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I missed that while on Vanamonde93's talk page. Spasiba5 was way out of line. El_C 12:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Considerable" abuse might be an understatement. Serious enough to be reported to the WMF is correct. Sorry, I can't go into details although the offwiki websites attacking him have been noted elsewhere. I note the warnings and the 3RR block on the OP. Close with prejudice. Doug Weller talk 06:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DBigXray has been exposed to a harassment campaign, as Doug Weller says. I hope there's something the WMF can do here. I believe I'm not supposed to post links to the off-Wikipedia attacks, but I'll send them by e-mail to anybody who asks. They are very illustrative, and I don't doubt that they have brought some new users here for the specific purpose of harassing DBigXray. (I'm not accusing Aman.kumar.goel of being one of these users; they have been here since 2018.) Compare also this post on Vanamonde93's talkpage, which I reverted — I saw red when I read the header, and the so-called "article" the user linked to. (That user, Spasiba5, has not arrived recently for the exclusive purpose of attacking DBigXray either, but they have certainly taken up the cause with enthusiasm.) Oh, and I reject this request for sanctions with prejudice. No misconduct worthy of AE sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm very comfortable that I have not seen anything warranting formal AE sanctions in DBX's actions on the article's talk page. Importantly, beyond that, over 90% of his edits have been commendably positive, facing full-on against the sewer hose. I too am aware of the off-wiki efforts made against him. I don't see anything the WMF can do, and there's relatively limited efforts we can do, other than quickly close here and pull our fair share at the locus. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ContentEditman

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 ContentEditman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Xenagoras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ContentEditman (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: Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) : 24-hr BRD cycle enacted on Tulsi Gabbard. "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts."

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

03:02, 22 February 2020 fully reinstated a challenged [63] major change to a BLP without explaining it or discussing it on talk page. Large parts of that material had already been challenged before this incident on talk (alternatively see also one exemplary diff).
17:56, 23 February 2020 regards the same material as above. Again fully reinstated a challenged [64] [65] major change to a BLP without explaining it or discussing it on talk page.

The user's edit history on the talk page [66] shows that he never discussed the material which I challenged before or after I reverted it on 02:39, 22 February 2020. I gave detailed explanations about my objections (diff) to that material before and after I reverted it and I notified [67] user ContentEditman about his problematic edits and asked him to self-revert [68], but to no avail. Xenagoras (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: et al.: in the meanwhile, ContentEditman and MrX have written about my objections to their material. ContentEditman wrote, "As I said before MrXs edits were well written and supported. You, Xenagoras, said it violated just about every rule at Wikipedia. When I asked you to explain what and how it violated you never responded with anything supporting your claims." [69] ContentEditman refers to his edit [70], which was his reply to my edit [71]. It appears to me that ContentEditman did not notice my previous objections which can be read among my earlier comments on the article talk page [72]. Xenagoras (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months [73].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User ContentEditman twice falsely accused me of edit warring [74] [75] and requested me to use the talk page (which I always do [76]) although he never discusses his reverts himself.

I am not sure if the following is appropriate to be described here. If not, please advise me where to put it. User MrX supported [77] user ContentEditman in his ignoring of my objections to the challenged material, which is perhaps related to MrX also fully reinstating 22:01, 22 February 2020‎ the same challenged [78] [79] material as described above and ignoring my objections (diff) to it (see above and [80] and [81]). Xenagoras (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, regarding your remark [82] about my 02:08, 1 February edit: My preceding edit was 74 hours earlier on 00:19, 29 January (diff list) and added one ref and one sentence to the lead. Then MrX made a major change via an edit series which affected several sections on 13:24, 31 January. My follow-up edit to MrX on 1 Feb aimed at creating WP:EDITCONSENSUS (see also WP:BRB) by analyzing what MrX changed and his edit summaries and trying a different edit to see whether that will be accepted, and by using clear edit summaries myself. It was an edit to create a compromise among the wishes of MrX, Humanengr, myself and other editors. My 1 Feb edit partially restored material from several editors, moved some content (to address weight objections) and added several sources with refs to satisfy MrX' requests for better sources [83], [84], [85]. After my 1 Feb edit, MrX and me had a discussion about the material for the article lead. Then ContentEditman fully reinstated MrX' article version on 21:16, 1 February. After that I continued the discussion with MrX and ContentEditman, which resulted in me again adapting to objections on 13:44, 2 February. MrX followed with his adaptions on 14:21, 2 February. Xenagoras (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I didn't reply because the other editor's last paragraph said "Stop." which seemed to indicate that they wished not any further interaction. I replied today. Xenagoras (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, you wrote, "to prove a BRD violation you need to provide two diffs of ContentEditman adding/removing the same material twice without discussing on the talk page." [86] Please have a look at the list of their edits and comments below. The WP:BRD discretionary sanction violation is not the only problem. When viewing MrX' and ContentEditman's edits together it appears they circumvent the WP:1RR discretionary sanction. Viewed together, they made the same changes four times inside 52 hours.

talk history of ContentEditman.
21 February 14:03 MrX made a major change via an edit series.
22 February 03:02 ContentEditman fully restores MrX' changes.
22 February 22:01 MrX fully re-restores his own changes.
23 February 17:56 ContentEditman fully re-re-restores MrX' changes.

As his talk history shows, ContentEditman did not explain his first restore and he did not discuss my objections (see also [87] which links to there, and [88]). Other editors had objections as well. And he didn't explain or discuss my objections [89] at his second restore either. All he did was writing, "Saying someone is violating policy means noting if you do not articulate what they have violated. MrXs edits seem well written and supported, even on the TALK as well." [90] ContentEditman displayed a similar pattern several weeks earlier:

31 January 13:24 MrX made a major change via an edit series.
1 February 21:16 ContentEditman fully restores MrX' changes with "discussing" via, "a lot of what you added was promotional and not fitting for a WP:BLP." [91]
2 February 14:21 MrX partially re-restores his own changes.

Xenagoras (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

ContentEditman notification.

MrX also received a notification.

Discussion concerning ContentEditman

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 ContentEditman

I did not violate the 1rr as you can see even by even Xenagoras listings above. I also have posted several times on the TALK page for this and other topics. Xenagoras was even asked to articulate his so called visitations but never did. He on the other hand has a history of edit warring and not editing in good faith. There is an active complaint against him now here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xenagoras_-_WP:NOTHERE I believe this falls under WP:boomerang and maybe Xenagoras should, at minimum, be topic blocked from American Politics. He also seems to be WP:CANVAS on this topic when he did not get his way on the TALK page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xenagoras#Your_spamming_via_WikiMedia_Email ContentEditman (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (2)

Feb 21 MrX makes a series of edits
Feb 22 02:39 Xenagoras reverts
Feb 22 03:02 ContentEditman restores
Feb 22 03:46 another editor re-reverts
Feb 22 22:01 MrX re-restores
Feb 23 16:51 Xenagoras re-re-reverts
Feb 23 17:56 ContentEditman re-re-restores

Same article Jan 31–Feb 2:

Jan 31 MrX makes a series of edits to the lead
Feb 1 02:08 Xenagoras reverts
Feb 1 21:16 ContentEditman restores
Feb 2 13:44 Xenagoras re-reverts
Feb 2 14:21 MrX re-restores

WP:BRD should be followed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

As far as I know, I have not violated the page editing restrictions and I'm not aware that anyone else has, at least not recently. At first blush, I don't think Xenagoras' evidence supports the second restriction being violated by ContentEditman.

Levivich's list of diffs merely shows some reverts. It does not make the case that an editing restriction was violated. WP:BRD is an essay; the editing restriction says "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit."

My comment on ContentEditman's page, which I guess you could describe as "support", was made because Xenagoras has a habit of trying to resolve content disputes by posting scary sounding warnings and templated warnings on multiple editors' talk pages.[92][93][94][95][96][97]

Curiously, Xenagoras accuses me of ignoring his objections (posted a few hours ago while I was sleeping!).[98] In fact, it is a compilation of complaints that I have already thorough responded, having made 44 comments on the talk page in the last month.[99] - MrX 🖋 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Per Levivich, the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed material, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. And now that's clear, everyone can go to the talk page and settle this nicely please. I hope we don't need to start wielding cudgels at what is really quite an early stage here. Guy (help!) 14:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ContentEditman

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

I agree with Levivich. The onus on retention is on those wishing to introduce new changes. Anyway, if ContentEditman is failing to communicate, then sanctions, up to and including a topic ban are on the table. Will wait until ContentEditman responds to this complaint. El_C 08:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich and El C: However, I think Levivich's timeline is misleading. He states that Mr.X "made a number of edits on January 31", but actually, much of that was a revert of material added by Xenagoras and Humanengr between 29 and 31 January. This flips the issue and makes Xenagoras' edit the re-instatement, which I'm guessing is exactly why they waited 25 hours from the 31 January edit before making it. As usual with AP, no-one looks great here, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than one to make an edit war, and here, I don't see a clear case of one against many. This appears to be a content dispute. We have ways to settle those if those involved can't come to agreement, but ideally, those ways should include neither "Engage in an edit war" nor "Drag someone to AE." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about User talk:Xenagoras#Your spamming via WikiMedia Email. I note that Xenagoras did not reply. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual there are no clean hands here. To prove a BRD violation you need to provide two diffs of ContentEditman adding/removing the same material twice without discussing on the talk page. The diffs provided by the OP only show instances of ContentEditman restoring edits made by others. Usually this kind of mistake is made because an older editor who has been in the topic area for a long time has conflated the "BRD" rule with the "Consensus required" rule. But that clearly can't be the case here, since User:Xenagoras is a new user who registered this account in August 2019, and AFAICT hasn't made any significant contributions that are separated more than 1 degree from the subject of Tulsi Gabbard.
There is obviously an ongoing content dispute and a slow kind of edit war that includes a mix of outright reverts and partial reverts. I would warn ContentEditman about gaming 1RR since they made 3 reverts on 3 consecutive days. It also disturbs me that, digging into this diff, editors are trying to make political hay out of a home-schooled teenager endorsing the views of her activist parents (gasp!) while de-emphasizing the fact that she later rejected those views. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Peregrine Fisher

Vexatious litigation. Bishonen | tålk 02:46, 3 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: Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: "You are indefinitely banned from making any edits related to Race and intelligence, broadly construed."

Happened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Peregrine_Fisher Lot at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Race_and_intelligence

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

Notification of that administrator: [100]

Statement by Peregrine Fisher

Please read the comments by Jweiss11, Ferahgo the Assassin, Mr rnddude, SMcCandlish, Paul Siebert, Guettarda, My very best wishes, Springee, DoubleCross, and IP 2600. Over 75% felt that a topic ban was inappropriate, and some sort of article restriction would be the best way forward. Also, 100% of uninvolved editors agreed with this. It seems like the admins did not base their decisions on what was said in the AE process. I would like the topic ban to be lifted, and some sort of extra sanctions put on the article to prevent edit warring. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by qedk

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Peregrine Fisher

Result of the appeal by Peregrine Fisher

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

Peregrine Fisher, your case was just determined by six uninvolved admins. And no, they did not base their decision on the input from other users, because that is not how AE works. You're perhaps thinking on WP:AN and/or WP:ANI. It's just vexatious litigation to immediately appeal at the same board — especially to make an appeal that presupposes admins can't or won't read. (I assure you we read the input from other users, and that it's often helpful. But the uninvolved admins make the call independently.) I will close it as such. To have a chance to have the restriction lifted, I strongly recommend you to wait six months before appealing again, and to make a point of editing constructively in other areas in the meantime, so that you have that to point to in an appeal. Bishonen | tålk 02:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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: [101] [102] [103] and more in the history of Bradley_S._Jacobs
Previous final warning by administrators for the same issue [104]

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 [105]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I originally imposed a flexible ban from BLPs [106], 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 [107] [108] 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.[109] 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. [110]
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]

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#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.

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.

[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 774: / Line 774: @@
 {{u|Doug Weller}}, I didn't reply because the other editor's last paragraph said "''Stop.''" which seemed to indicate that they wished not any further interaction. I replied today. [[User:Xenagoras|Xenagoras]] ([[User talk:Xenagoras|talk]]) 15:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
+{{u|Awilley}}, you wrote, "''to prove a BRD violation you need to provide two diffs of ContentEditman adding/removing the same material twice without discussing on the talk page.''" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=943731230&oldid=943727586 ] Please have a look at the list of their edits and comments below. The [[WP:BRD]] discretionary sanction violation is not the only problem. When viewing MrX' and ContentEditman's edits together it appears they circumvent the [[WP:1RR]] discretionary sanction. Viewed together, they made the same changes four times inside 52 hours.
+*[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=ContentEditman&page=talk%3ATulsi_Gabbard&max=500&server=enwiki talk history] of ContentEditman.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&type=revision&diff=941925733&oldid=941862960 21 February 14:03] MrX made a [[WP:CAUTIOUS|major change]] via an edit series.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=942023256 22 February 03:02] ContentEditman [[WP:BRDD|fully restores]] MrX' changes.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=942146030 22 February 22:01] MrX fully re-restores his own changes.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=942271808 23 February 17:56] ContentEditman fully re-re-restores MrX' changes.
+As his talk history shows, ContentEditman did not [[WP:UNRESPONSIVE|explain]] his first restore and he did not [[WP:EPTALK|discuss]] my [[Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#Request_for_discussion|objections]] (see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=942016052&diff=prev ] which links to [[Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#Problems_per_19_Jan,_2020|there]], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=942017026&diff=prev ]). Other editors had objections as well. And he didn't explain or discuss my objections [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=942261990&diff=prev ] at his second restore either. All he did was writing, "''Saying someone is violating policy means noting if you do not articulate what they have violated. MrXs edits seem well written and supported, even on the TALK as well.''" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=942272625&diff=prev ]
+ContentEditman displayed a similar pattern several weeks earlier:
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&type=revision&diff=938480741&oldid=938412225 31 January 13:24] MrX made a major change via an edit series.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=938700579 1 February 21:16] ContentEditman fully restores MrX' changes with "discussing" via, "''a lot of what you added was promotional and not fitting for a WP:BLP.''" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=938700821&diff=prev ]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&diff=938813197&oldid=938809614 2 February 14:21] MrX partially re-restores his own changes.
+[[User:Xenagoras|Xenagoras]] ([[User talk:Xenagoras|talk]]) 20:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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