Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:56, 22 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

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)[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 Patapsco913

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Patapsco913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: NEWBLPBAN DS

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notice

Discussion concerning Patapsco913

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

Statement by Patapsco913

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Levivich (Patapsco)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

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

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

Statement by SMcCandlish, on Patapsco913

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Patapsco913

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crawford88

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

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Crawford88

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Crawford88

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

Statement by Crawford88

Statement by GRuban

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Crawford88

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

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

Race and intelligence

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Race and intelligence

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

@Ivanvector: I don't think the special contributions method works very well. It seems to me that there are a lot of false positives in this list of edits: [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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (R&I)

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

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

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

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

Statement by 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Paleo Neonate – 05:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Race and intelligence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, this is an interesting request. On the face of it, there isn't a whole lot of IP activity to ban and it does seem like a targeted request. However, race and intelligence has been a contested area for a long time and has been plagued by long term SPAs and their sock and meat puppets. I don't think there is consensus (in the RfC) for banning IPs outright but this might be worth visiting after the RfC closes. --regentspark (comment) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude_IP_accounts. IvanVector has now closed this as no consensus. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the content of this IPs edits but, historically, it has been very hard to deal with a particular group of editors in this area. Polite SPAs who stay within the bounds of AGF but consistently push fringe views was what lead to the arbcom cases in the first place. Identifying IPs is hard and dealing with unidentifiable fringe pushers can be frustrating and complicated and I'm not averse to banning IPs from a contentious and problematic talk page like this one. Or, as suggested above, perhaps this needs to go back to arbcom. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
(edit conflict) has Ivanvector closed the discussion. I would like a firm argument as to why we haven't reached the point for the AE admins to file a request for a second review of the original case on WP:ARCA with ජපස, NightHeron, 2600:::, Sirfurboy, Dlthewave, ArtifexMayhem, Levivich, Jweiss11, SMcCandlish, Grayfell, PaleoNeonate as parties. Handing this off to ArbCom is starting to sound really good to me. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: [[29]] It underwent a review in 2012 --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As several of you have already observed, I closed the discussion as "no consensus", as in, it's not clear a consensus either way was established or was going to emerge. I don't really have any comment on the merits of the proposal, but in my opinion, universally banning IP editors from all possibility of contributing to an article without clear evidence of ongoing disruption requires a much more substantial consensus than what was evident in that discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple extra points (for free no less):
- @ජපස: the IP editor's contributions can be seen at Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44, more or less. There are some edits by other users there but it's mostly just that one editor on that range, since about mid-February (I only looked at the last 50 edits). It is true that you cannot ping them (effectively, at least), but mitigating that technical difficulty is on them, not us.
- There is presently just the one IP editor participating at Talk:Race and intelligence. If they're being disruptive they can be blocked.
- I don't know how we can "force" an IP editor to create an account, but in my opinion doing so would not be against the "no consensus" close. "No consensus" = nothing was decided. It would be highly unusual though.
- "Anyone can edit" is the third pillar of Wikipedia. If we don't have a very good reason to prevent IP editors from editing, we don't.
- Dlthewave is correct about the timeline: I closed the talk page discussion after this AE request was opened. I don't necessarily agree that this request does not constitute forum-shopping, as requests for closure are normally listed at requests for closure, not here, but you all can form your own opinions on this point.
-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

GlassBones

GlassBones is blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin action) for breach of topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 18 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 GlassBones

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning GlassBones

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

Statement by GlassBones

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

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

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

One minor point - I have no clue what the "sock" comment about me means, but if that was intended to be an insult 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)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GlassBones

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

This report shows ~~three~~ two clear topic ban violations. All three diffs are of edits in the post-1932 American politics topic area. Chelsea Manning leaked classified information from the US government, which was acknowledged in the first diff. The Fox News edit changes language regarding Fox News's reporting on the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations. — Newslinger talk 21:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Edited: — Newslinger talk 22:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support indefinite block. GlassBones has just 407 edits, and over a dozen warnings on their talk page, many of them for edits on American political topics. The editor's defect rate is unacceptably high. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - After reading GlassBones's 18 March comments, I still support an indefinite block. The 18 March comments attempt to redirect blame to other editors in the topic area. GlassBones has not explained why they ignored the unavoidable Template:Editnotices/Page/Fox News notice to change sentences referring to two US political parties and two post-1932 US presidencies in violation of their topic ban. Considering the querulous tone of the "I continue [...] they edit" paragraph in the 18 March comments, I have no confidence that GlassBones will abide by their topic ban unless it is enforced with a block. For the record, the term "sock" refers to sockpuppetry. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly ambivalent on the Manning diffs, but the Fox News one is unequivocally a violation. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Black Kite: GlassBones' previous account is BattleshipGray, as stated at the top of their talk page (and to note, they are not evading the block there). Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed that. My main point stands, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think GlassBones has any intention of abiding by the topic ban. They are unreceptive to explanations and advice, to put it mildly. Compare this discussion on Awilley's page, where Awilley and myself tried to advise and assist them, and this on GlassBones' own page, where we can see it's all Snooganssnoogans' fault. See also this recent comment where they defend their edit to Fox News (mentioned in JzG's report above) with "I edited a news article - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language." We have told them so many times what American politics covers. I see in their response above that they have failed to notice the big fat yellow box at the top of Talk:Fox News which warns of active arbitration remedies (in extra big bold all caps) per the discretionary sanctions for post-1932 politics of the United States. (Added note 22:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC): these American politics discretionary sanctions are also mentioned in the edit notice that appears when one goes to edit the article itself.) I suggest a long block — at least three months. If other admins want an indef, I won't oppose that either. Bishonen | tålk 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see any mitigating circumstances to a clear breach of a topic ban, nor any apparent realisation of what the topic ban entails. Unless some contrary view gains traction in the next 24 hours, I'm prepared to indef GlassBones at that point. --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked GlassBones indefinitely as a normal admin action, as ARBAPDS only allows a maximum of 1 year. If they can convince an uninvolved admin that they will abide by their sanctions and edit productively at some point in the future, it won't need the bureaucracy of an AE appeal to grant an unblock. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is any doubt that the scope of the topic ban was explained to GlassBones, I think I was pretty explicit about it here. I don't object to a long block since the main thrust of this user's editing, even post-topic ban, seems to be axe-grinding and score-settling. ~Awilley (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an indef block --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only the edit about Fox seems relevant here. The edit [30] arguably achieved more neutral content by removing less neutral language that had restored by another editor. None the less, despite the good intentions, this is a violation of the topic ban. Since the party is prepared to take an extended topic ban from everything to do with politics altogether, I think that would be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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

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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 template {{Userlinks}} also notifies editors on the mobile interface (correct me if I'm wrong).~~ And yet again, PainMan has not participated in this AE request. --qedk (t 心 c) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASunCrow&type=revision&diff=946632949&oldid=946592795

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.

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)[reply]

Comment Some editors below are making extraordinarily broad and negative characterizations of my editing that are not based in fact. Bishonen, at the risk of drawing more complaints about "bludgeoning", I respectfully request that you withdraw the following statements:

That my editing is "characterized by 'in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales' or, per Number 57, 'Their entire existence on Wikipedia appears to be about pushing their political viewpoint.'" What happened to WP:AGF here? And how did you get from a dispute over one word on the Unplanned to this characterization of my entire existence on Wikipedia? Are you really familiar enough with my editing history to make that kind of a characterization? Certainly, Doug Weller's complained-of actions--pulling material out of a lede that I believed violated WP:UNDUE and removing attacks from an advocacy organization from two BLPs--don't justify that conclusion. Your comment about how my editing in controversial areas is "practically all of [my] editing, possibly excepting some religious BLPs) isn't accurate, either. If you look at my last 500 edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SunCrow&offset=&limit=500&target=SunCrow), you'll see that they include edits to Great Vowel Shift, Independence Day: Resurgence, Korla Pandit, Mark Stuart, Dog's Eye View, Mario Elie, Johnny Crawford, List of presidents of the United States by net worth, Daniel Radcliffe, and Tracy Chapman. Please help me out here. Which of these articles is controversial? I especially take issue with the broad-brush characterizations that my editing in controversial topics is a "net negative for the encyclopedia" and that my "bludgeoning style on talkpages wears out and wearies constructive editors". I have made more than 25,000 edits to the encyclopedia, and have collaborated with many other editors--including some whose POV is very different from mine. With respect, I don't believe that my record reflects your assertions at all. My entire existence on Wikipedia is about contributing to the encyclopedia by cleaning up content that needs it, adding sources to content that needs them, removing unsourced and unnecessary content, and promoting accuracy and fairness. Fairness isn't what I'm seeing in this discussion. SunCrow (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

My few experiences with SunCrow have been bad. Two years ago SunCrow changed the lead for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [39] I did some work on the section concerning a major statement it made, and then added one sentence to the lead (which at that point made no attempt to summarise the article).[40] SunCrow reverted my attempt to start improving the lead and add some balance[41] with the edit summary "removed material from lede that is adequately addressed below and is not notable enough to be placed in the lede". Not only is it obvious that we'd have barely no lead if it didn't contain material well addressed in the body of the article, the text was about the organisation's Nashville Statement which is clearly notable, read its article.

I ran into him recently at Alan Sears where they removed a comment on a book by Sears[42] with the edit summary "remove POV material sourced to advocacy organization website", ie the SPLC. SunCrow objected at Talk:Alan Sears#Citation to SPLC Website arguing that the SPLC is " an advocacy group whose ideology is diametrically opposed to that of ADF (the organization Sears founded). I removed the material sourced to that website, but Doug Weller reinstated the material. I don't see this as a close call. The SPLC website isn't a reliable source for this page." I pointed out that we can use such groups so long as they are attributed and that they could raise this at RSN (where as we know its been discussed always with the same result, we can use it attributed).

That was in January. On March 9th SunCrow removed text attributed to the SPLC[43] from David Barton (author) with the edit summary "not notable or reliable", whatever that meant, which I later restored. They used the same "notability' argument when removing a statement that Barton lectures at Glen Beck's Book University, "source does not establish notability".[44] Their edits on all three of these articles were basically whitewashing - not every edit, some were probably justified, but that was the basic result, and they seem to have a serious problem with understanding what sort of sources we can use and the concept of "notability". Or in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales. Any topic ban should be wider than just abortion. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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[45][46]). 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).[reply]

Adding: Black Kite, SunCrow is interested in many controversial areas, compare also Doug Weller's experience and opinion detailed above, so I'm not sure what kinds of partial sanctions we could well institute. Topic bans from BLPs, American politics, and abortion? As Doug puts it, their editing is characterized by "in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales", or, per Number 57, "Their entire existence on Wikipedia appears to be about pushing their political viewpoint." If it seems extreme to go to an indef (which can't be used as an AE sanction anyway, but would have to be a standard admin block) from JzG's complaint, how about a limited block, such as six months? Their current editing in controversial topics (=practically all of their editing, possibly excepting some religious BLPs) is indeed a net negative for the encyclopedia. Their bludgeoning style on talkpages wears out and wearies constructive editors, whose time and patience is Wikipedia's most precious resource. (There she goes again, just like a broken grammophone record.) As an example, see the RfC at Talk:Ilhan Omar, with SunCrow's repetitiousness and self-quoting. I make it five separate editors who are separately told by them to ""please review the policy language at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures". Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Looking at their editing history, I would agree with Bishonen that a wider sanction might be worthwhile. Their entire existence on Wikipedia appears to be about pushing their political viewpoint. Judging by this from 2018, it seems somewhat surprising that they are still here. Number 5 7 18:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this editor from the issue mentioned above by Number57, where they were trying to label a statement backed up by multiple reliable sources as "POV" [47], and wanted to change a section to "make it clear that whether or not homosexuality ... is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior is not a matter of science, but of opinion." [48]. The warning posted at the time after this went to ANI was "unless they stop their disruptive editing - which includes erroneously labeling articles, parts of articles, or users POV and edit-warring - they risk being blocked. This seems to be the same problem - and frankly when you look at "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.", it is utterly obvious that the sentence - and the source - are referring to the mother and the claim that it doesn't, because it doesn't take account of the foetus, is ludicrous. Obviously it has been two years since the previous issue, unless I'm missing something, and so I am minded to look at partial sanctions rather than blocking, but I remain to be persuaded by other arguments. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find SunCrow's attempted rebuttal unconvincing and indicative of the confrontational behaviour that the request complains of. I have previously seen arguments such as "The encyclopedia should not take a position on the abortion issue", but we all know that it must: Wikipedia takes the position of uncontested mainstream scientific viewpoints as described in the best sources, by design. There is plenty of MEDRS-compliant evidence that carrying a child to term entails a greater risk than safe abortion. That is a matter of statistical fact, not of opinion. Allowing SunCrow to continue to edit in controversial topics will result in a net negative for the encyclopedia, and I support sanctions that prevent that. --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find JZG's diffs concerning, and SunCrow's "rebuttal" even more so. The entire affair smacks of someone who is unable to recognize and work with our fundamental principle that when reliable sources reach a consensus on something, we report that thing as fact (the relevant policy is WP:YESPOV). You don't have to agree with the sources, or the policy, to be a productive force on Wikipedia; but you have to be able to work with it, and SunCrow doesn't seem able. I would ban them from AP2 and abortion, at the very least. Ideally, the TBAN would be from anything related to religion or politics; but that's wider than the mandate we have at AE; so, whatever comes closest. And SunCrow should note that the next step after such a wide sanction is likely to be an indefinite block. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that 2018 ANI thread and what's transpired since, I am quite honestly astonished that there hasn't already been an indef issued. I believe the time has come to change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I would not object to that. But we can't indef them as a discretionary sanction, it's against the rules. You, or any of us, can do it as a regular admin action. Or else one year as a DS and the rest of the indef as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 23:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, yes, it would generally be done either just as a normal admin indef, or one year AE and then a normal block thereafter. I'm leaving some time in case anyone strongly objects, but if not, I am entirely planning on doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is time for an indef block of User:SunCrow. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] 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-4] 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.

[emedicine-5] 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.

[Genevra-2012-6] Pittman, Genevra (23 January 2012). "Abortion safer than giving birth: study". Reuters. Archived from the original on 6 February 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2012.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 549: / Line 549: @@
 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)
+::'''Comment''' Some editors below are making extraordinarily broad and negative characterizations of my editing that are not based in fact. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], at the risk of drawing more complaints about "bludgeoning", I respectfully request that you withdraw the following statements:
+:::That my editing is "characterized by 'in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales' or, per Number 57, 'Their entire existence on Wikipedia appears to be about pushing their political viewpoint.'" What happened to [[WP:AGF]] here? And how did you get from a dispute over one word on the ''Unplanned'' to this characterization of my entire existence on Wikipedia? Are you really familiar enough with my editing history to make that kind of a characterization? Certainly, [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller's]] complained-of actions--pulling material out of a lede that I believed violated [[WP:UNDUE]] and removing attacks from an advocacy organization from two BLPs--don't justify that conclusion. Your comment about how my editing in controversial areas is "practically all of [my] editing, possibly excepting some religious BLPs) isn't accurate, either. If you look at my last 500 edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SunCrow&offset=&limit=500&target=SunCrow), you'll see that they include edits to [[Great Vowel Shift]], [[Independence Day: Resurgence]], [[Korla Pandit]], [[Mark Stuart]], [[Dog's Eye View]], [[Mario Elie]], [[Johnny Crawford]], [[List of presidents of the United States by net worth]], [[Daniel Radcliffe]], and [[Tracy Chapman]]. Please help me out here. Which of these articles is controversial? I especially take issue with the broad-brush characterizations that my editing in controversial topics is a "net negative for the encyclopedia" and that my "bludgeoning style on talkpages wears out and wearies constructive editors". I have made more than 25,000 edits to the encyclopedia, and have collaborated with many other editors--including some whose POV is very different from mine. With respect, I don't believe that my record reflects your assertions at all. My entire existence on Wikipedia is about contributing to the encyclopedia by cleaning up content that needs it, adding sources to content that needs them, removing unsourced and unnecessary content, and promoting accuracy and fairness. Fairness isn't what I'm seeing in this discussion. [[User:SunCrow|SunCrow]] ([[User talk:SunCrow|talk]]) 16:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Doug Weller====

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