Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Result concerning PainMan: it seems they do use the Android app exclusively |
|||
Line 534: | Line 534: | ||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
||
====Statement by SunCrow==== |
====Statement by SunCrow==== |
||
[[user:JzG|Guy]]'s request for enforcement is deeply misleading.<br>The dispute in question centers around one sentence in the [[Unplanned]] article. The sentence currently reads as follows: |
|||
:Anna North of ''Vox'' criticized the film for depicting abortion as very dangerous and noted that [[Abortion in the United States#Safety of abortions|abortion is significantly safer than childbirth]].{{ r | Vox | p=1 | q=Meanwhile, Sisson and others question whether the approach of ''Unplanned'' is really so different from that of the protesters it decries. In the film, the peaceful Coalition for Life members distance themselves “from the pictures of bloody fetuses, but then the movie itself is a larger piece of propaganda that's so bloody and so reliant on fetal imagery,” Sisson said. Indeed, the film includes many scenes of blood gushing through tubes and onto women's clothes, painting a picture of abortion as extremely dangerous. In fact, according to one recent study, complications occur in about 2.1 percent of abortions, with major complications — defined as hospitalizations, surgeries, or transfusions — happening in 0.23 percent. The procedure is significantly safer than childbirth. }}<br> |
|||
I brought my concerns to the talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned#Safety_issue) in an effort to build consensus. The issue is that an assertion that abortion is safer than childbirth can only be considered accurate if one assumes that the safety of the fetus is not part of the equation. To be clear, my goal was not to remove the sentence, but only to edit it so that the contention it includes is made in the speaker's voice and not in the encyclopedia's voice. I proposed four (4) different solutions, each of which has been rejected.<br> |
|||
At present, the dispute centers on one word. I believe that the word "noted" should be changed to "asserted", and have attempted to make that change on several occasions.<br> |
|||
[[user:JzG|Guy's]] responses on the talk page included snark and insults, as follows: |
|||
:"{{u|SunCrow}}, not an option for you, perhaps, but the reality-based contingent don't have an issue with it". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944349685&oldid=944326147) |
|||
:"The actions of anti-abortionists actually contribute to the statistic that the anti-abortionists dislike so much". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944517552&oldid=944449573) |
|||
:"{{u|PaleoNeonate}}, good luck persuading some of the people active here that the fetus does not feel pain - or that the unjustly convicted black man does". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944552454&oldid=944519976) |
|||
:"{{u|SunCrow}}, your issue is with the real world not with Wikipedia". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=945122367&oldid=945122105) |
|||
:"{{u|Doctorx0079}}, it's necessary as long as a couple of editors insist on trying to turn fact into conjecture through handwaving". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=945132386&oldid=945132100) |
|||
Guy's assertion that I have "repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change" is--with the exception of the part about no consensus--false. The disputed sentence does not contain a medical fact. Also, I am not attempting to push a POV, but to make the encyclopedia neutral and balanced in a topic area that is highly charged and controversial. While I have pushed hard to edit this particular sentence and I acknowledge there is no current consensus to change it, the edit I am attempting to make is correct and in line with [[WP:NPOV]]. The encyclopedia should not take a position on the abortion issue, and the current version of the disputed sentence does exactly that. My attempts to gain consensus should be taken into account as well.<br> |
|||
I have repeatedly confronted Guy about his obnoxious and insulting behavior on the [[Unplanned]] talk page, with no results. Guy has made no effort to hide his own POV on the talk page, and routinely insults both the ''Unplanned'' film, the pro-life movement, and editors who disagree with him. So I find the accusation of POV-pushing to be, quite frankly, hypocritical. When I realized that he was an administrator, I was dismayed. (How did that happen?) Once this issue with content is resolved, I intend to address Guy's conduct issues through the appropriate Wikipedia channels. I generally prefer not to question others' motives, but I make an exception when others are questioning mine. I believe Guy is simply attempting to push me out of this topic area because I do not give in to his POV or to his bullying.<br> |
|||
With regard to [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen's]] comments below: I would challenge Bishonen to provide a basis for asserting that I am a "tendentious editor" or to withdraw that assertion. Furthermore, my contention about Guy comparing people who disagree with him to racists was true (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944552454&oldid=944519976). For a good example of someone "bludgeoning" a talk page, please see Guy's behavior in this talk page section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned#%22Who_performs_abortions%22<br> Does Bishonen have an issue with that?<br> |
|||
Finally, it should be noted that my history on Wikipedia is clean. I have never been banned from anything.<br> |
|||
I do not believe that a sanction is appropriate. Thank you. [[User:SunCrow|SunCrow]] ([[User talk:SunCrow|talk]]) 18:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
Revision as of 18:27, 21 March 2020
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Patapsco913
Closing as No Consensus. This has been open for over 2 weeks and has gone without new comments for a couple of days. Currently there are 2 admins (including the OP) who have expressed a preference for no action, 1 who has expressed a preference for Option 1, 2 who expressed a preference for Option 2, and 2 who haven't expressed a preference that I can see. I will log a warning and make it clear to Patapsco913 that poorly sourced edits/original research for categorizing people as Jewish will result in a formal sanction, and there are multiple admins here (myself included) who are able to place that unilaterally without the formality another thread here. ~Awilley (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Patapsco913
I originally imposed a flexible ban from BLPs [6], giving the following reasoning:
(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)
Discussion concerning Patapsco913Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Patapsco913Bradley S. Jacobs. If you look at the history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_S._Jacobs&action=history I was reverting numerous edits which turned out to be 15 sockpuppets Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aussietommartin. I did not think it controversial stating that he was from a Jewish family since both his parents had Jewish funerals (both stating “Shiva will be observed… or “Shiva will be held”). As far as the warnings received from User:Coffee, User:TheSandDoctor, and User:Oshwah. I think it started with my edit on Edward Kosner where I added he was from a "Jewish family" with two citations. I could have used the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115654273560545904 "Mr. Kosner grew up as the precocious only child of a marginally middle-class Jewish family." but it was behind a paywall so I left it out since others cannot see it. It was requested to be removed via OTRS for "Concerns of undue weight, and request for removal." I do not know what the OTRS request was about but it seems that it involved more than Edward Kosner. I then received a warning from User:Coffee on my talk page User talk:Patapsco913#Discontinue violations of BLP. User:TheSandDoctor and User:Oshwah then briefly chimed in support of Coffee. When I queried about what standards are required to list someone as Jewish, I was told that they would tell me later after he reviewed all my edits which he started https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Coffee&offset=20200116185617&target=Coffee and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Coffee&offset=20191225102214&target=Coffee I disagreed with his standard which I rehashed based on his edit comments as "In order to document a subject as ethnically Jewish, I have to have at least 3 unquestionably reliable sources describing the subject as ethnically Jewish. In order to document a subject as religiously Jewish, I have to have at least 3 unquestionably reliable sources showing that they self-identify as a practitioner of Judaism and that the fact they practice Judaism is part of their notability." This would seem to preclude adding any Jewish designation on most biographies. As I understand it, this is not the standard that wikipedia uses. Maurice Kremer. I did not think this was controversial since he died in 1907 and was a founding member of Congregation B'nai B'rith (now the Wilshire Boulevard Temple) and there are reliable sources that state he is Jewish (see talk page for Kremer). I changed it from "raised in a Jewish family" to "Kremer is Jewish" to try to alleviate Coffee's synthesis concerns so I really did not add anything. I then posted on my talk page that when I look over the contributions by the various Jewish wikiprojects Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Women, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture, I did not see that strict standard being followed. I posted on Wikipedia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 37#Identifying who is Jewish to get some clarity. Eventually Coffee's edits (where he was removing Jews from lists some of which he first cleared all supporting references in their biography) became a discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316#Coffee removing Categories and Lists Inappropriately. Several editors seem to have disagreed with this strict standards either on the Wikiproject Judaism or the Noticeboard or my talkpage (Sir Joseph, Dialectric, Debresser, Cullen328, Levivich, Bus stop, Johnbod, Jayjg) although you should read their comments yourself. The fundamental problem I see is that there is not a standard for identifying someone as Jewish. Some believe it is contentious to be Jewish (which i do not agree). I stated on the ANI: " I think the problem is that there is not a clear consensus on when we can identify if someone is Jewish and what kind of sourcing we need. I cannot find anything directly on point in the various discussion boards. As Jewish can be both ethnic and religious (generally Judaism is the term for the religion), it crosses several lines. If a source says they are Jewish (e.g. Jewish Women's Archive, the The Jewish Encyclopedia, or the Jewish Virtual Library), can we include even if it is not relevant to their notability. If a subject's parents are both Jewish, is the subject? If one had a Jewish funeral and burial, are they Jewish? If one is born to a Jewish family, are they Jewish? If the subject is an atheist but of Jewish heritage, are they Jewish (Woody Allen, Albert Einstein)? If one becomes a bar mitzvah, are they Jewish? These nuances should be explained in the biography just like we say that someone is of Italian descent." The standard that I think we should follow is that which was left on my on my talk page by Jayjg (who is very active in Jewish topics) that "All one needs is to follow Wikipedia policy: that is, find a reliable source indicating that the individual is Jewish. Two or more sources would, of course, be better, particularly for living people." I admit this was a mistake I made with many of my edits thinking that stating that someone was from a "Jewish family" was better than stating that someone "is Jewish" and that was original research (which I could remedy) and which is what I did when I re-edited Maurice Kremer (see User talk:Patapsco913#Other business people you might be interested in). I have not been editing any biographies to a great degree since then nor have I touched the edits Coffee made since I do not have a clear standard to go by. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich (Patapsco)Kevin (whom I thank for bringing this here for review) wrote, "I see that there have been several previous notes and warnings about BLP issues.", and then as an example, uses the warning Patapsco913 received for edits to Maurice Kremer. Kremer died in 1907; not a BLP. The article Maurice Kremer states that he is a founder of Congregation B'nai B'rith, now Wilshire Boulevard Temple, the oldest Jewish congregation in Los Angeles. The two sources in the article were [12] and [13]. When Patapsco913 was warned on his user page, he provided more sources establishing Kremer's (very obvious) Jewish identity, such as the article "LA's first Jew" by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency [14] (note: Kremer is not LA's first Jew; but is mentioned in the article as one of the first seven). Here's another one. There are more such sources. There was nothing wrong with categorizing Kremer as an American Jew. It was not a BLP violation – it's not even a BLP – and all of this Kremer stuff happened back in December, before that long AN thread, which I had hoped would have clarified this issue for everyone. The warning was improper, and relying upon that warning in issuing this sanction was improper. The only other alleged problem since Kremer in December (correct me if I'm wrong) are Patapsco913's edits to Bradley S. Jacobs. Patapsco said that Jacobs was "born into a Jewish family", and named his parents (Charlotte and Albert), citing to his parents' obituaries [15] [16]. Kevin said that those sources don't say that the parents are Jewish, but he is incorrect; the obituaries clearly establish that Jacobs' parents were Jewish. There's a Star of David on both the obituaries. The funeral home in both is a Jewish funeral home (it even has "Sinai" in the name). It announces shiva hours, a Jewish funeral rite. Charlotte's obituary talks about how she sat shiva for her mother for a year (the traditional period is 7 days, so this is very devout Judaism). Charlotte's obituary was published in The Jewish Voice & Herald [17]. As I said on Patapsco's page, these are Jewish biographies of people who are receiving Jewish funeral rights from a Jewish funeral home, and we're not sure if they're Jewish? Of course these sources establish that the parents were Jewish. So, Patapsco wrote "born to a Jewish family", and a more-accurate construction would be "born to Jewish parents" (similar to what our article Sergey Brin says). But that is not a BLP violation; it's semantics–a content dispute. Whether Jacobs's Jewish heritage is WP:DUE in his biography is, similarly, a content dispute. It should be resolved by means of a talk page discussion or RFC; not by a TBAN from BLPs. Whether Jacobs should be in Category:American Jews or Category:Americans of Jewish descent is also a content issue to be resolved in the usual way. It's not a BLP violation to pick one or the other. I tend to think that, for Jacobs, his ethnic background is not DUE, and he should be in Category:Americans of Jewish descent and not Category:American Jews, but that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees with me is committing a BLP violation or should be TBANed from BLPs. In this case, I think it is the administrators, and not Patapsco, who got it wrong. One of the big disconnects is that "Jewish" is an ethnoreligious group, and not just a religion. That means that if your parents are Jewish, you will generally be considered Jewish, and people of Jewish heritage continue to be Jewish even if they don't follow the Jewish religion. This is the predominant view of Jews throughout the world (based on survey by Pew and others), and that is also the consensus view of reliable sources about Jewish identity. It's what our own articles on the topic say as well. Those who treat "being Jewish" as a religious belief that requires explicit self-identification do not understand Jewish identity, and frankly, shouldn't be policing the topic area. Contra to Awilley's comment below, I am not aware of any sourcing restriction in place regarding the sourcing of people as Jewish. But even if there is such a restriction, Kremer's sources would certainly pass it, and whether it's DUE in Jacobs' case is the stuff of content disputes, not BLP violations. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC) @Awilley and JzG: Any editing restriction would have to be limited to the DS area of BLPs, right? I'd ask you to look at the evidence again and note that Patapsco has made, at most, one bad BLP edit, and this doesn't justify an editing restriction. There's this idea that he was warned multiple times, but he wasn't. Those previous warnings were not merited, and most of them weren't even to BLPs. Nevertheless, in response to the concerns brought up on his talk page, Patapsco added additional sourcing to these articles, or did not reinstate the objected-to edits. You can see this for yourself by looking at every article that was discussed in this AE report or on Patapsco's talk page:
If there are other articles with problems that aren't on this list, I apologize for missing them, but I'd ask that the evidence be looked at closely, because there isn't a pattern of BLP problems here, but rather a problem of bad warnings. The only BLPs are Kosner (sourced to his own autobiography), and Jacobs, the arguable case. It's understandable, if a user receives four bad warnings on his talk page, he may not pay attention to the fifth, even if the fifth was merited. But one mistake doesn't merit anything more than a reminder–not even a warning. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Re Statement by Sir JosephI echo Levivich's statement. Does an obituary of a Jewish person have to say, "the death of a Jew?" As per BLUE, it mentions sitting SHIVA, more importantly, which Levivich missed it also mentions "no flowers" which is also something in Jewish mourning rituals. It's as if there was an article about someone which mentioned "she took communion" but didn't explicitly say "she is Catholic." Someone who takes communion is Catholic (I think I got that right) and someone who sits shiva is Jewish. I just want to add that if there is a source, then we should treat being Jewish as any other religion, even if other's disagree, as some in the AN thread said. It is no different than any other fact, if we have RS, then it's good for Wikipedia, as long as it's notable. You don't need extra sourcing just because it's Jewish, as Coffee said (I should note that I, and others, are still waiting for the answer to the question, "How is being Jewish contentious" which Coffee never answered, but that's an aside). Also, since you did bring up the AN, I should point out that consensus was against Coffee's actions in the mass removals and his edits, AFAIR. I am also not sure how someone who died decades ago has BLP concerns. Regardless, I don't see anything actionable here. Finally, just to clarify or theorize to Levivich Charlotte didn't sit Shiva for a year, after the death of a parent, a Jew is in mourning for a year, see Aveilus for more information. Which itself is more proof that we are dealing with an observant or at the least very traditional Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish, on Patapsco913I also agree with Levivich, pretty much word-for-word. I'll add that this is very unlike the Statement by (username)Result concerning Patapsco913
|
Crawford88
Crawford88 is topic banned indefinitely from Indian and Pakistani subjects, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed no less than six months from now. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Crawford88
Notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Discussion concerning Crawford88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Crawford88Statement by GRubanDiff 1, the source cites a tweet from a journalist: "Tanushree Pandey @TanushreePande· Feb 24 This is a riot! Protesters from both sides heckling & thrashing media persons." So it does, actually, back the statement. --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Crawford88
|
Race and intelligence
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Race and intelligence
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Article and talkpage where enforcement is requested
- Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
At Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude IP accounts and the result of Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Dispute_resolution diff there seems to be some strong arguments made that this area should not be subject to IP editing for fear of sockpuppetry and its attendant abuses. Some commentary indicated that "community input" was needed, but as these pages are under DS, I request an administrator to step in and force the issue. Allowing IP editing on the talkpage is entirely disruptive and is additionally causing issues with respect to measuring consensus and being able to track history as one particular user is using a dynamic IP that changes essentially constantly. Previous requests to semi-protect the page were rebuffed at WP:RfPP since it was beyond their remit. I believe that judicious application of this remedy here via WP:AE would help in these disputes. It might also help to apply it to additional related pages, but I'll leave that to others to propose in due time. jps (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: I sympathize with the exhaustion, but please understand that this sort of behavior is very taxing on the editors who are trying their level best to figure out how to navigate the minefield. When there are WP:SEALIONs who hide behind dynamic IPs, it really shuts down the ability for us to do the normal work that has to be done (as witnessed by the close of the WP:DR). The user in question refuses to get a user account so we can keep track of the ongoing issues, so it would be good to force the issue. We don't need more IP disruption. jps (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: I'm sorry that it is a section's worth of material, here, but the concept is pretty clear. How does one begin to document the problems with an IP account when the IP changes sometimes over the course of less than one day? Why should this particular talkpage be open to IP editing? What is it gaining us? I can point to what the frustrations and difficulties are. Is it a "targeted" request? Only inasmuch as the IP refuses to get an account. But the IP could get an account and edit away. I'm not asking for autoconfirmed protection here. We just want to keep track of who is saying what! jps (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @El C: I sympathize with the exhaustion, but please understand that this sort of behavior is very taxing on the editors who are trying their level best to figure out how to navigate the minefield. When there are WP:SEALIONs who hide behind dynamic IPs, it really shuts down the ability for us to do the normal work that has to be done (as witnessed by the close of the WP:DR). The user in question refuses to get a user account so we can keep track of the ongoing issues, so it would be good to force the issue. We don't need more IP disruption. jps (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I don't think the special contributions method works very well. It seems to me that there are a lot of false positives in this list of edits: [25] I feel like I'm in a catch-22 situation here where the admins are annoyed because I'm not providing a lot of evidence, but I'm having a hard time finding a way to actually collect the evidence. We're talking about an article under discretionary sanctions so if this isn't avoiding WP:SCRUTINY, what is it? jps (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so it looks like a lot of admins, with the possible exception of @RegentsPark: are coalescing around the idea of asking for a clarification from arbcomm. I wonder if arbcom might be open to making a decision by simple motion? Question for the admins: is there any debate here about whether WP:DS gives WP:AE the remit to do things like semi-protect talkpages? My interpretation was that this is in line with what standard discretionary sanctions are supposed to entail, but reading the admin discussion makes me wonder whether there is some confusion about this. On the other hand, maybe y'all are just too tired with the conflict and want arbcomm to step in and do some housecleaning? My basic point is, I think it best if an admin who thinks arbitration is needed would be the one to pose the problem to them because I am still unclear what exactly y'all think about this. Is it that you feel your hands are tied or is it that you don't have the necessary information to move forward? jps (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the enforcement request placed at the talkpage
[26].
Discussion concerning Race and intelligence
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Mr rnddude
This is forum-shopping. There is insufficient support for ejecting IP editors from being able to comment on Talk:Race and intelligence, and IP editors are already restricted from being able to edit the article. JPS's proposal failed to gain adequate traction. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, we do not need autocratic measures. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich (R&I)
Ivanvector just closed Talk:Race and intelligence#Exclude IP accounts as no consensus. No comment on whether this should be an AE thing or an RFC or what, but I think it's worth noting, on the numbers, that proposal looks like it went 10 opposed, 9 support. But of the opposes, two editors are now TBANed and/or indef'd, 2 are IPs, 2 are non-EC SPA accounts, and 4 are registered EC accounts. Discount non-EC !votes and it's 9 - 4 in support. (I didn't !vote but I would have supported it.) I think there is already consensus to semi-protect the talk page. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Race and intelligence#Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Race and intelligence (esp. the close) are recent examples. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ivanvector and El C: I'm sorry but Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44 does not capture all recent IP contribs. For example, that range omits the following IP addresses, each of which have edited Talk:Race and intelligence, or the dispute resolution page I linked to above, and/or some other related page (like Heiner Rindermann), within the last two weeks:
- Special:Contributions/73.149.246.232
- Special:Contributions/99.48.35.129
- Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B103:9123:1079:DE3D:EFC6:DBAA
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B104:18E8:5017:B34A:213B:7FF
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B105:F5A1:A997:5864:C95E:CEE5
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B10E:C9DC:6534:B680:DCC4:B176
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B110:F899:1956:2391:D5E7:7747
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B114:998F:FCCA:1F19:F350:4F83
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B128:9F1B:21FF:5EF4:AEE0:D46A
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B12C:3F1:5D:BFBB:13A7:BC8F
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B151:D5C8:CD41:D6AC:F49A:96
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B165:30CA:C564:EA41:44BC:DC1
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB
- Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B169:3DC3:813F:ED9F:D586:BA78
At the DR request, 2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 stated that they were a different editor than 99.48.35.129 or 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB. That was three days ago, and 2600:1012's only contribs are to the DR page. I have no idea how many people these IPs are. Does anyone? How do we have a discussion like this? I'm not sure what AE can do, but the problem is definitely a real problem. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
30/500 protection would help. Just look at all the SPAs (I just tagged them) at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence. Same thing with the DR request–new IPs just popping up to join that conversation? This is like IPA, not just the article, but the whole topic area should be 30/500. Also, an editor who cannot use cookies would not be able to log in to JSTOR, Gale, PubMed, or any other website on the web, so that begs the question, if you can't register an account because your device doesn't support cookies (and what kind of device doesn't support cookies?), then you can't read any of the sources, either, unless you have print copies of all of them, and if you can't read the sources, then how can you participate in discussions about the sources? Also, what kind of device doesn't support cookies but supports PDFs? I'm not really buying this claim. Anyway, 30/500 helps IPA, it'll help here, too. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Dlthewave
- A quick procedural note:
JPSජපස filed this request at 10:48 17 March 2020, and Ivanvector closed the "Exclude IP accounts" talk page discussion at 12:08 17 March 2020. I'll comment later in greater detail, but I want to make sure this sequence is clear since it's relevant to the forum shopping/venue concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 18:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- We are seeing a certain amount of "civil POV pushing" from IP(s) at the R&I article. This type of behavior is difficult to demonstrate through a set of diffs; I know it's tedious, but I would encourage folks to read through the Global variation of IQ scores: proposal opened by the IP. Note that every time an editor raises concerns about the heavy use of Hunt and Rindermann sources, the IP dismisses them by citing a recent RSN discussion which concluded that they are reliable. Although this is technically true, they're ignoring the fact that the closer also stated that these sources must be treated as fringe since there is no evidence that their views are widely accepted. The IP doesn't seem willing to accept this consensus; they even stated
"There was not a consensus at RSN that these sources are fringe"
after this was pointed out to them. It's very difficult to work with an editor who doesn't accept other editors' NPOV concerns and insists that we use the "best available" sources even when those sources do not represent a mainstream view. Dispute resolution is not an option since the volunteers at that noticeboard are unwilling to work with an unregistered editor. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, the consensus I'm referring to is here:
"... The discussion indicated that there is a lack of sources supporting or opposing the notion that the views in these books are fringe, though when a viewpoint does not have wide support, we do treat it as fringe, and do not give it undue weight. That is, we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted."
This is from the closing statement at RSN. The IP frequently selectively quotes other parts of the closing statement to support their view that Hunt and Rindermann are the some of the best sources on the topic, while ignoring these final sentences.
- Ivanvector, the consensus I'm referring to is here:
- Regarding DRN, please see the recent close by Robert McClenon. The request was declined for several reasons but registering an account seemed to be a firm requirement for future requests by the IP editor(s).
- There were apparently two different 2600 IP editors who participated at DRN: The one who made the initial request and a second who commented. I would suggest that we treat the second IP with the same level of scrutiny as a brand-new registered editor whose first edit was a detailed description of a dispute at DRN. –dlthewave ☎ 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
I agree with Levivich's analysis. This is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS situation (more precisely, a false failure to come to consensus). As a long-term though very intermittent patroller of this and related "race" articles, I know from long experience that the majority of input from anons there is not constructive and that their unconstructive input is frequent. I mean seriously 100 archive pages? The amount of editorial time wasted on trolls and socks and meat is probably the reason the article is in such not-exactly-FA-material shape. When sockpuppeteers are forced to create new accounts to do what they do, it's much easier to patrol them (if a new account's first edit is to run to this article and make posts that say the same things as the last 10 socks of Mikemikev that we blocked, we have a tidy WP:DUCK situation). If an anon who insists on remaining one is dead certain there's a policy/sourcing issue to raise about this article, they can do so at the appropriate WP:Noticeboard, which will also have sufficient uninvolved watchlisters to address the matter if legitimate, or get a disruptive socker blocked all the more quickly. But that article's talk page (very recent attention notwithstanding) is a backwater playground for trolling sockpuppets and has been for years. That's not what article talk pages are for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Sirfurboy
Having been summoned by In actu (talk · contribs)'s ping, I must confess I am confused by: "I would like a firm argument as to why we haven't reached the point for the AE admins to file a request for a second review of the original case on WP:ARCA." What was the original case we are referring to? I don't think it was anything I was involved in unless you are referring to the AfD.
As I am here though, El_C (talk · contribs) says: "I think (any) :2600 IPs should be seen as a single individual in the context of this topic area." 2600::/16 is about half of the ARIN IPv6 address space![27], and in this case conflates at least two editors. The recent IP editors to this or related pages are:
- 2600:1004:B1::/40 - A good faith editor on a dynamic IP who has stated he cannot use cookies.
- 2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 - seen only at Dispute Resolution.[28] Definitely an SPA, acted like a Sprayitchyo sock.
- 2605:8d80:660::/42 - All edits from this range on this subject appear to be Sprayitchyo socks.
- 73.149.246.232 - an IP user who got heavily involved in the AfD to the point of looking like an SPA but edits appear in good faith.
- 99.48.35.129 - seen only at Dispute Resolution. SPA that weighed in to support Sprayitchyo socks.
Sprayitchyo is a problem, and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) makes a good case about past issues from other IP trolls, but let's be clear that we can identify "2600:1004:b1::/40" from the others, and the actual number of IP editors on this article at this time is at most 5 and almost entirely just the one editor. We cannot selectively allow one IP editor so the community must decide whether the loss of edits from one editor who has acted in good faith is acceptable in pursuing closing down of other IP socking issues. I make no !vote on that. I said before I would not take a side on this issue, and I will not do so now. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
I will respond on behalf of DRN. We haven't had a position of coordinator for more than a year, and I cannot recall Nihlus ever actually mediating a dispute anyway. I closed a dispute request by an unregistered editor, concerning Race and Intelligence, for various reasons, including that at least two editors said that they did not think that DRN was in order, as well as that it is more difficult to conduct dispute resolution with an unregistered editor whose IP address changes. There are at least two unregistered editors in Race and intelligence, one using various IPv6 addresses in the 2600.1004.* range, and one using IPv4 addresses in either the 99.* range or the 73.* range.
Also, I think that there was conflation of Dispute Resolution, which is a policy and a general process, and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is a specific forum for carrying out the process. Some of the administrators here at Arbitration Enforcement said that the parties should be using Dispute Resolution rather than dragging their disputes to a conduct forum. I think that 2600.1004 thought that they had been told to go to DRN, which is only one of the forums for dispute resolution. DRN is voluntary. All of the dispute resolution processes are voluntary, except for Request for Comments, which has the advantage that it is binding.
I would prefer to work with editors who have names and so whose handles do not change. However, if there is a dispute where editors and administrators agree that DRN involving one or more unregistered editors with dynamic IP addresses in blocks is the best way to resolve the dispute, I am willing to act as the mediator, at least if I have an administrator backing me up, that is, ready to intervene so that intervention is not necessary.
User:Ivanvector? User:RegentsPark? User:Sirfurboy?
Do at least two editors have a content dispute where they agree that moderated dispute resolution at DRN is the best way to resolve the dispute? Are they willing to abide by the usual rules? Or is this not really about DRN after all? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- It appears, now that I have reviewed this dispute, that this specific filing is not about DRN. To restate, I would prefer that parties to mediation at DRN be registered editors, because shifting IPs are a complication; there isn't an absolute rule against unregistered editors participating in moderated dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- However, the issue in this case appears to be whether to semi-protect a talk page due to disruption by unregistered editors. Semi-protecting a talk page can be done as an extreme measure, but is an extreme measure, and almost certainly is not needed in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Recommendation by Robert McClenon
Multiple attempts to resolve this dispute by the community and by the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement have been unsuccessful. I concur with the recommendation that the Arbitration Committee needs to be asked to open a full case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PaleoNeonate
"Anyone can edit" is the third pillar of Wikipedia
Anyone can also create an account and banned editors no longer have the right to edit. SPI and CheckUser, already being clunky and labor-intensive, are not allowed with IP addresses. —PaleoNeonate – 05:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Nihlus
I am not sure why my name was brought up by Robert McClenon alongside an unnecessary and erroneous attack on my performance. The DRN removed the coordinator role long ago; although I would say the role should return as it is seemingly a mess at the current moment. I have no comments on this case as I am not familiar with its history. Nihlus 14:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Race and intelligence
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Not this again! El_C 17:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ජපස: have you tried weighing local consensus on this? You are asking me to review a lot of material here. This is not a well-documented request. El_C 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: could you link to this RfC, please? El_C 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, regentspark. I would decline the request at this time as forum shopping. El_C 18:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: the next step should have been WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, not AE. El_C 18:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ජපස: but by forcing the IP to get an account, we are effectively reversing the closing admin's decision. They are an integral part of the conversation.
Maybe they support granting your request, in which case I withdraw my objection.El_C 18:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- On further thought, perhaps the sanction of forcing the IP to identify isn't the worse idea. If they are difficult to identify, that could be taxing for the already troubled topic area. El_C 18:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- No objection on simply referring this to the Committee, either. El_C 18:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your guidance, Ivanvector. If the IP isn't really that difficult to identify, then this request is a non-starter. El_C 19:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ජපස: but by forcing the IP to get an account, we are effectively reversing the closing admin's decision. They are an integral part of the conversation.
- Hmm, this is an interesting request. On the face of it, there isn't a whole lot of IP activity to ban and it does seem like a targeted request. However, race and intelligence has been a contested area for a long time and has been plagued by long term SPAs and their sock and meat puppets. I don't think there is consensus (in the RfC) for banning IPs outright but this might be worth visiting after the RfC closes. --regentspark (comment) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude_IP_accounts. IvanVector has now closed this as no consensus. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the content of this IPs edits but, historically, it has been very hard to deal with a particular group of editors in this area. Polite SPAs who stay within the bounds of AGF but consistently push fringe views was what lead to the arbcom cases in the first place. Identifying IPs is hard and dealing with unidentifiable fringe pushers can be frustrating and complicated and I'm not averse to banning IPs from a contentious and problematic talk page like this one. Or, as suggested above, perhaps this needs to go back to arbcom. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Took a look at the edits by the IP in question and I think we should implement closing the talk page to IP editors proposal. Perhaps they are genuinely not a sock but the content, the "am I doing this right" (Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Dispute_resolution), the politeness,.. Like I say above, this area has been plagued by polite SPAs and the only reasonable way to AGF is to attach a moniker to each and every editor. --regentspark (comment) 19:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: It does not follow from a "no consensus" RfC that the community has explicitly declined to protect the talk page. Regardless, the suspicion that we are dealing socks is a valid one, this is a contentious area that already has discretionary sanctions authorized by arbcom, so we should be able to apply talk page protection and I would prefer that we do just that rather than pass the buck to arbcom. My guess is everyone who regularly contributes to R&I has a pretty good idea whose socks we are dealing with (I have my own suspicions) but, as PaleoNeoate points out, SPI is unlikely to be of help. In some cases "an encyclopedia that anyone with an account can edit" is not a bad idea. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Took a look at the edits by the IP in question and I think we should implement closing the talk page to IP editors proposal. Perhaps they are genuinely not a sock but the content, the "am I doing this right" (Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Dispute_resolution), the politeness,.. Like I say above, this area has been plagued by polite SPAs and the only reasonable way to AGF is to attach a moniker to each and every editor. --regentspark (comment) 19:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the content of this IPs edits but, historically, it has been very hard to deal with a particular group of editors in this area. Polite SPAs who stay within the bounds of AGF but consistently push fringe views was what lead to the arbcom cases in the first place. Identifying IPs is hard and dealing with unidentifiable fringe pushers can be frustrating and complicated and I'm not averse to banning IPs from a contentious and problematic talk page like this one. Or, as suggested above, perhaps this needs to go back to arbcom. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude_IP_accounts. IvanVector has now closed this as no consensus. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) has Ivanvector closed the discussion. I would like a firm argument as to why we haven't reached the point for the AE admins to file a request for a second review of the original case on WP:ARCA with ජපස, NightHeron, 2600:::, Sirfurboy, Dlthewave, ArtifexMayhem, Levivich, Jweiss11, SMcCandlish, Grayfell, PaleoNeonate as parties. Handing this off to ArbCom is starting to sound really good to me. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy: [[29]] It underwent a review in 2012 --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- As several of you have already observed, I closed the discussion as "no consensus", as in, it's not clear a consensus either way was established or was going to emerge. I don't really have any comment on the merits of the proposal, but in my opinion, universally banning IP editors from all possibility of contributing to an article without clear evidence of ongoing disruption requires a much more substantial consensus than what was evident in that discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- A couple extra points (for free no less):
- @ජපස: the IP editor's contributions can be seen at Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44, more or less. There are some edits by other users there but it's mostly just that one editor on that range, since about mid-February (I only looked at the last 50 edits). It is true that you cannot ping them (effectively, at least), but mitigating that technical difficulty is on them, not us.
- There is presently just the one IP editor participating at Talk:Race and intelligence. If they're being disruptive they can be blocked.
- I don't know how we can "force" an IP editor to create an account, but in my opinion doing so would not be against the "no consensus" close. "No consensus" = nothing was decided. It would be highly unusual though.
- "Anyone can edit" is the third pillar of Wikipedia. If we don't have a very good reason to prevent IP editors from editing, we don't.
- Dlthewave is correct about the timeline: I closed the talk page discussion after this AE request was opened. I don't necessarily agree that this request does not constitute forum-shopping, as requests for closure are normally listed at requests for closure, not here, but you all can form your own opinions on this point.
- -- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- A couple extra points (for free no less):
- My analysis of the talk page discussion is that consensus was not established. I don't think there's anything for AE to do with this, but if the editors bothered by IP participation feel strongly about it, a proposal to enact a 30/500 general sanction for the article could be made at WP:AN (I have WP:GS/IPAK in mind when I say this, although I don't think that applies to talk pages either). To Sirfurboy's analysis I agree: geolocation of the first "good faith" IP range is several thousand miles away from the two suspected sockpuppet ranges, and both are in areas where geolocation is generally reliable, and I don't see any indication of proxy abuse. The "good faith" editor's range does appear to be /40 although it's advertised in WHOIS as /44, but WHOIS is unreliable for CIDR. I should say I have not checked any of these addresses, I'm going by publicly available info. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: "the volunteers at [DRN] are unwilling to work with an unregistered editor" - WTF? IP editors are editors and have disputes needing resolution too. Nihlus is the current DRN coordinator, perhaps they can comment on this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Robert McClenon, I was hoping that was a miscommunication or exaggeration (the "no IP editors at DRN" sentiment). I think based on what you're saying that this is a matter that Arbcom should handle as a case. Several community discussions have failed to resolve the issue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ජපස: in my opinion it is well within admin discretion to semiprotect a talk page, DS or no. However it is an extreme solution. In 3 years as an admin I've semi'd a Talk: page 5 times, never for longer than one day (I just checked). Indefinitely semiprotecting a talk page should require a much more firm consensus. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Robert McClenon, I was hoping that was a miscommunication or exaggeration (the "no IP editors at DRN" sentiment). I think based on what you're saying that this is a matter that Arbcom should handle as a case. Several community discussions have failed to resolve the issue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: "the volunteers at [DRN] are unwilling to work with an unregistered editor" - WTF? IP editors are editors and have disputes needing resolution too. Nihlus is the current DRN coordinator, perhaps they can comment on this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- An RfC on the matter has already closed without a consensus to enact such a remedy. AE is not here to do things the community has explicitly declined to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think the conditions are correct to semiprotect the talk page. However, I disagree with Seraphimblade that
AE is not here to do things the community has explicitly declined to.
The whole reason we have arbitration enforcement, that is a partial delegation to sysops of ArbComs extraordinary powers, is to solve issues the community cannot tackle on its own or declines to tackle. However, owing to all the complexities I would join in suggesting a close that suggests or actually brings this to ARCA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
GlassBones
GlassBones is blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin action) for breach of topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning GlassBones
I think GlassBones either doesn't accept the topic ban (which is pretty much what he says on his Talk page), or he is so determined to continue his feuds, most notably with Snooganssnoogans) that this overrides whatever deterrent effect it might have. I suspect that nothing short of a lengthy block will stop this. Awilley and Bishonen may also have a view on this. Guy (help!) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GlassBonesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GlassBonesI edited the article about Fox News - a news organization - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language. Further, I see nothing in the article's editing message warning about it being protected as a US political article. I don't understand how this could be construed as violating the topic ban regarding post-1932 US politics.GlassBones (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I continue to have an issue with the double standard that has been applied to me compared to other editors who are allowed to run roughshod over Wikipedia with their edit warring, incivility such as undoing without comment or with flippant insulting answers like "nonsense" or "conspiracy theory" or "fringe", harassment of other editors, and battleground behavior when it comes to making sure their POV is reflected in all articles they edit. One minor point - I have no clue what the "sock" comment about me means, but if that was intended to be an insult then it was for naught. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for articles about history, physics, chemistry, biology, sports, geography, and a plethora of other topics. The one glaring area where Wikipedia falls short is in articles about US politics, which have a decidedly liberal bias that sadly is apparently just fine with the folks who run Wikipedia. In any event, if I am allowed to continue editing I can certainly stay even further away from US politics and just edit other articles. GlassBones (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning GlassBones
|
PainMan
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning PainMan
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- PainMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 03:33, 19 March 2020 Edits John Mitchel, a prominent Irish nationalist activist
- 03:35, 19 March 2020 Further edit to John Mitchel
- 03:51, 19 March 2020 Edits Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848, an Irish nationalist uprising against British rule
- 09:14, 19 March 2020 Edits Land War, which is again about Irish nationalism
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 20:25, 1 March 2020
You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Already subject to discretionary sanctions, see above section.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions makes it clear it isn't just limited to articles relating to The Troubles, but covering Irish nationalism in general.
- @In actu: I guess it depends how you define "broadly construed". As the discretionary sanction in the case says it covers Irish nationalism in general. While The Troubles definitely started in the 1960s they can't really be seen in isolation. In the 20th century alone before the Troubles there was the 1916 Easter Rising, 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence, 1939-1940 S-Plan, 1942-1944 Northern campaign (Irish Republican Army) and 1956-1962 Border campaign (Irish Republican Army), and Irish opposition to British rule didn't start in the 20th century. I wouldn't object to this being closed with a clear message to PainMan as to the extent of the topic ban, if his edits are seen as a good faith mistake. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
- I realize it may be contentious whether these articles fall under "The Troubles, broadly construed" so I'll leave this for more comments,
but in my opinion each of these edits is a clear violation of the topic ban and an AE block of no less than one month is warranted.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- Partially struck. Not linked above AFAIK but the ban discussion is here. The pages presented as evidence of disruptive editing were Operation Flavius, Battle of the Bogside, Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Special Constabulary, and ETA (separatist group). All but the last of these fall within the scope of the ban as worded, and the last would not even if the scope were expanded. The disruptive behaviour was repeatedly changing "Taoiseach" to "Prime Minister of Ireland" (or variations) against consensus, and edit warring, across all of the articles. Since the topic ban PainMan has evidently respected it despite a series of outbursts on 9 March ([31], [32], [33]) and again yesterday ([34], [35], [36]). The pages they've edited since do not fall under that scope per other comments here, and they don't seem to be repeating the same disruptive behaviour, so I don't see the benefit of extending the topic ban and do not support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC))
- I think this is purposeful skirting of the ban conditions by editing topics which are contentious and related to the topic area, just not directly, although one can easily say: The Troubles -> irish nationalism, hence construed. I see two options here: 1) extend the ban to the entire remedy area of TT (found in the case) which includes British and Irish nationalism (et al.), and 2) AE block. I say the edits definitely violate the spirit of the TBAN, and maybe also its letter. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- To me, The Troubles started in the 1960s. So, the edits are not within the bounds of the topic ban. However, they weren't a great idea. I would extend the topic ban to all of Irish nationalism and not block --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- This looks to me to be clearly against the spirit of the topic ban, but not the letter of it. Accordingly I think the topic ban should be extended to match the extent of the DS authorisation (The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed) with a warning to PainMan that any further boundary testing will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- According to our own article on the subject,
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) were an ethno-nationalist[13][14][15][16] conflict in Northern Ireland during the late 20th century
(emphasis added). I do not see these edits as violations, though I agree they're skirting rather close. Given that they were not apparently contentious or any type of misconduct, I would not extend the topic ban based upon them, but I would certainly warn PainMan that there will be no hesitation to do so if there's any trouble. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC) - The text of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles #Standard discretionary sanctions separately names three areas:
"all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed."
So I concede that the sanction applied on 1 March 2020, "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" doesn't strictly cover the other areas, although that may have been the admin's intention, and certain the spirit of the restriction, as Thryduulf so clearly reasons. I agree that an explicit extension of the topic ban to "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" would be a reasonable response to this request. That should then solve the issue one way or another. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so.
The templateAnd yet again, PainMan has not participated in this AE request. --qedk (t 心 c) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC){{Userlinks}}
also notifies editors on the mobile interface (correct me if I'm wrong).- @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've just looked at their contributions list, and it seems they only edit using the Android app so we can't be certain they've seen the notifications or talk page messages. They do not have an email set so that option isn't available, and I'm not certain what else we can do? Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so.
- I've never commented in one of these things before but I think it's also worth considering these edits to Charles Boycott, another topic related to Irish nationalism, which I just reverted because I saw them as mostly detrimental. I don't want to get any further involved though ... I only have that article on my watchlist because I found his life story fascinating. Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place. Graham87 05:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Graham says he saw them as "detrimental", not "disruptive". You have to remember not every English speaker shares the same idiomatic usages, and the phrase "a land agent for the Earl Erne" sounds archaic to me. Graham, who is Australian, might well find that a very odd use of a definite article. You wouldn't write "a land agent for the King George". Taking into account the overlinking, I have to agree with Graham that those edits were not an improvement to the article, and don't improve my confidence that PainMan's contributions outside of the strict range of their current topic ban are likely to be a net positive. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
SunCrow
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 SunCrow
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- SunCrow (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/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 2020-03-05 Changes a statement of fact to "asserted that abortion is significantly safer than childbirth"
- 2020-03-08 pointed out --> asserted (same content)
- 2020-03-09 noted --> asserted
- 2020-03-13 noted --> assertted
- 2020-03-21 noted --> asserted
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- DS alert from Doug Weller, 2020-02-28 [37]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
SunCrow is an active participant at talk:Unplanned, arguing from a hard-line anti-abortion POV. There is ongoing discussion of SunCrow's desire to change the statement noting that abortion in the US is safer than childbirth, to the status of assertion. There is no consensus for this change, but SunCrow has now made the change on at least five separate occasions.
The content has a piped link to abortion in the United States, which includes, inter alia, the following:
- In the US, the risk of death from carrying a child to term is approximately 14 times greater than the risk of death from a legal abortion.[1] The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation.[2][3][4]
References
- ^ Raymond, E. G.; Grimes, D. A. (2012). "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 119 (2, Part 1): 215–219. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823fe923. PMID 22270271.
...The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions...The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion.
- ^ Bartlett LA; Berg CJ; Shulman HB; et al. (April 2004). "Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 103 (4): 729–37. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000116260.81570.60. PMID 15051566.
- ^ Trupin, Suzanne (27 May 2010). "Elective Abortion". eMedicine. Archived from the original on 14 December 2004. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
At every gestational age, elective abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term.
- ^ Pittman, Genevra (23 January 2012). "Abortion safer than giving birth: study". Reuters. Archived from the original on 6 February 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
In rebuttal to this, SunCrow states ([38]): It is NOT a documented fact. As I have repeatedly stated, it is a documented assertion that depends entirely upon the perspective of the person making the statement. It assumes that the safety of the fetus is not being taken into account, which implies that one has taken a position on the underlying issue of abortion.
This is a personal religious or philosophical perspective, whereas the fact that abortion is safer than childbirth in the US is a fact noted in many WP:MEDRS compliant sources (and the wording quoted above was a response to endless argumentation from anti-abortion and abortion-rights proponents on the talk page of the abortion article).
So: SunCrow is repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change.
In fact according to this revert by Symmachus Auxiliarus, At least two of the “rewording” changes have been discussed and had no consensus. There is no reason to change the wording substantially here, unless we doubt the expertise of the interviewee. These changes appear to do that, and also removes factual statements uncontested by medical experts she reports
.
Redux: SunCrow's personal opinion of abortion and those who perform it is driving content edits against consensus, and this is disruptive. Guy (help!) 12:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning SunCrow
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 SunCrow
Guy's request for enforcement is deeply misleading.
The dispute in question centers around one sentence in the Unplanned article. The sentence currently reads as follows:
- Anna North of Vox criticized the film for depicting abortion as very dangerous and noted that abortion is significantly safer than childbirth.[1]: 1
I brought my concerns to the talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned#Safety_issue) in an effort to build consensus. The issue is that an assertion that abortion is safer than childbirth can only be considered accurate if one assumes that the safety of the fetus is not part of the equation. To be clear, my goal was not to remove the sentence, but only to edit it so that the contention it includes is made in the speaker's voice and not in the encyclopedia's voice. I proposed four (4) different solutions, each of which has been rejected.
At present, the dispute centers on one word. I believe that the word "noted" should be changed to "asserted", and have attempted to make that change on several occasions.
Guy's responses on the talk page included snark and insults, as follows:
- "SunCrow, not an option for you, perhaps, but the reality-based contingent don't have an issue with it". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944349685&oldid=944326147)
- "The actions of anti-abortionists actually contribute to the statistic that the anti-abortionists dislike so much". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944517552&oldid=944449573)
- "PaleoNeonate, good luck persuading some of the people active here that the fetus does not feel pain - or that the unjustly convicted black man does". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944552454&oldid=944519976)
- "SunCrow, your issue is with the real world not with Wikipedia". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=945122367&oldid=945122105)
- "Doctorx0079, it's necessary as long as a couple of editors insist on trying to turn fact into conjecture through handwaving". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=945132386&oldid=945132100)
Guy's assertion that I have "repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change" is--with the exception of the part about no consensus--false. The disputed sentence does not contain a medical fact. Also, I am not attempting to push a POV, but to make the encyclopedia neutral and balanced in a topic area that is highly charged and controversial. While I have pushed hard to edit this particular sentence and I acknowledge there is no current consensus to change it, the edit I am attempting to make is correct and in line with WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia should not take a position on the abortion issue, and the current version of the disputed sentence does exactly that. My attempts to gain consensus should be taken into account as well.
I have repeatedly confronted Guy about his obnoxious and insulting behavior on the Unplanned talk page, with no results. Guy has made no effort to hide his own POV on the talk page, and routinely insults both the Unplanned film, the pro-life movement, and editors who disagree with him. So I find the accusation of POV-pushing to be, quite frankly, hypocritical. When I realized that he was an administrator, I was dismayed. (How did that happen?) Once this issue with content is resolved, I intend to address Guy's conduct issues through the appropriate Wikipedia channels. I generally prefer not to question others' motives, but I make an exception when others are questioning mine. I believe Guy is simply attempting to push me out of this topic area because I do not give in to his POV or to his bullying.
With regard to Bishonen's comments below: I would challenge Bishonen to provide a basis for asserting that I am a "tendentious editor" or to withdraw that assertion. Furthermore, my contention about Guy comparing people who disagree with him to racists was true (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unplanned&diff=944552454&oldid=944519976). For a good example of someone "bludgeoning" a talk page, please see Guy's behavior in this talk page section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned#%22Who_performs_abortions%22
Does Bishonen have an issue with that?
Finally, it should be noted that my history on Wikipedia is clean. I have never been banned from anything.
I do not believe that a sanction is appropriate. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning SunCrow
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- SunCrow's tendentious edit warring deserves a topic ban from abortion. Especially when combined with bludgeoning the talkpage (e.g. repeatedly accusing JzG of "comparing people who disagree with you to racists", which is pretty far-fetched[39][40]). Speaking of bludgeoning, SunCrow appears as an aggressive and tendentious editor altogether. I was writing up a BLP warning to them a couple of days ago for repetitive bludgeoning of an RfC on Talk:Ilhan Omar, but I hung fire as they were apparently just at that time diverted away from the RfC to quarrelling on Talk:Unplanned instead. Perhaps we need to consider a wider sanction. Bishonen | tålk 17:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC).