Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) →Crawford88: adding notification |
→Result concerning Crawford88: topic ban likely to be the order of the day |
||
Line 733: | Line 733: | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*Looks like a broadly-construed [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from the [[WP:ARBIPA|IPA topic area]] is but a formality. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* |
Revision as of 21:00, 8 March 2020
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dey subrata
There was a consensus to uphold the block before this appeal became moot due to the block expiration --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
I am the one who posted this, so notification was not necessary. El_C 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Dey subrataHello dear admin, to my understanding I have been blocked for addressing a user of disruptive edits as "vandalism" which was not the case per WP:NOTVANDAL. What I understood from the policies is that, edit war is not vandalsim and removal of materials from an article with misleading edit summary is disruptive edits but not vandalism. For multiple instances of removal of same thing from the article made me warned him but I've added an extra phrase of "is a vandalism", which I should not have done as per policies. I've also gone through WP:VANDTYPES, and understood what can be called as vandalism. I have read them very carefully and understood what type and when an edit can be called as vandalism. I have also gone through WP:GF and understood its policies and most importantly how to demonstrate good faith and dealing with bad faith and to avoid accusing other user of bad faith without clear evidence. I have also read the WP:DE policies along with the WP:GF to better understand disruptive edits and assume good faiths. Along with these important policies I have even taken time to go through the important guidelines of WP:LGL and WP:EQ to understand and enrich my editing behaviour and to avoid conflicts infuture. I apologies for my mistake out of misunderstanding of a VANDTYPE policy. I hope my block can now be revoked and I can assure you a fair and justified approach from my side, I will not make any mistake by tagging any disruptive edits as vandalism in future. Dey subrata (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by El_CIt took a while to get a response that introspective from Dey subrata. No objection to an unblock, though I'll deffer to the judgment of my peers rather than do so myself, at this time. El_C 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Aman Kumar Goel" So now after failing to prove my edits as vandalism per 2 rejected unblock requests by Dey Subrata which he attempted to remove, he is now trying to misrepresent my edits as "disruptive edits" even after getting warned on ANI by Black Kite that " Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dey subrataStatement by DBigXrayI had commented about the ANI thread of this case. And I have collaborated with Dey, on a few articles. Based on their appeal, I think they have understood the problem. I support an unblock, since the block has served its purpose.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Dey subrata
|
ContentEditman
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning ContentEditman
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Xenagoras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ContentEditman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) : 24-hr BRD cycle enacted on Tulsi Gabbard. "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts."
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 03:02, 22 February 2020 fully reinstated a challenged [1] major change to a BLP without explaining it or discussing it on talk page. Large parts of that material had already been challenged before this incident on talk (alternatively see also one exemplary diff).
- 17:56, 23 February 2020 regards the same material as above. Again fully reinstated a challenged [2] [3] major change to a BLP without explaining it or discussing it on talk page.
The user's edit history on the talk page [4] shows that he never discussed the material which I challenged before or after I reverted it on 02:39, 22 February 2020. I gave detailed explanations about my objections (diff) to that material before and after I reverted it and I notified [5] user ContentEditman about his problematic edits and asked him to self-revert [6], but to no avail. Xenagoras (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: et al.: in the meanwhile, ContentEditman and MrX have written about my objections to their material. ContentEditman wrote, "As I said before MrXs edits were well written and supported. You, Xenagoras, said it violated just about every rule at Wikipedia. When I asked you to explain what and how it violated you never responded with anything supporting your claims." [7] ContentEditman refers to his edit [8], which was his reply to my edit [9]. It appears to me that ContentEditman did not notice my previous objections which can be read among my earlier comments on the article talk page [10]. Xenagoras (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months [11].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
User ContentEditman twice falsely accused me of edit warring [12] [13] and requested me to use the talk page (which I always do [14]) although he never discusses his reverts himself.
I am not sure if the following is appropriate to be described here. If not, please advise me where to put it. User MrX supported [15] user ContentEditman in his ignoring of my objections to the challenged material, which is perhaps related to MrX also fully reinstating 22:01, 22 February 2020 the same challenged [16] [17] material as described above and ignoring my objections (diff) to it (see above and [18] and [19]). Xenagoras (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Black Kite , regarding your remark [20] about my 02:08, 1 February edit: My preceding edit was 74 hours earlier on 00:19, 29 January (diff list) and added one ref and one sentence to the lead. Then MrX made a major change via an edit series which affected several sections on 13:24, 31 January. My follow-up edit to MrX on 1 Feb aimed at creating WP:EDITCONSENSUS (see also WP:BRB) by analyzing what MrX changed and his edit summaries and trying a different edit to see whether that will be accepted, and by using clear edit summaries myself. It was an edit to create a compromise among the wishes of MrX, Humanengr, myself and other editors. My 1 Feb edit partially restored material from several editors, moved some content (to address weight objections) and added several sources with refs to satisfy MrX' requests for better sources [21], [22], [23]. After my 1 Feb edit, MrX and me had a discussion about the material for the article lead. Then ContentEditman fully reinstated MrX' article version on 21:16, 1 February. After that I continued the discussion with MrX and ContentEditman, which resulted in me again adapting to objections on 13:44, 2 February. MrX followed with his adaptions on 14:21, 2 February. Xenagoras (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller , I didn't reply because the other editor's last paragraph said "Stop." which seemed to indicate that they wished not any further interaction. I replied today. Xenagoras (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, Doug Weller. Xenagoras (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Awilley , you wrote, "to prove a BRD violation you need to provide two diffs of ContentEditman adding/removing the same material twice without discussing on the talk page." [24] The WP:BRD discretionary sanction violation is not the only problem. When viewing MrX' and ContentEditman's edits together, it appears they circumvent the WP:1RR discretionary sanction by making the same changes four times inside 52 hours. Please have a look at the list of their edits/restores (marked bold) and comments (marked italic) below. The list contains pertinent article talk and user talk interactions between Xenagoras / ContentEditman and between Xenagoras / MrX. Several other editors also raised objections against the edits of ContentEditman / MrX. At 23 February 18:01, after two full restores, ContentEditman talked the only time [25]. If anyone has problems with the content or layout of the following list, please advise me how to improve it.
- talk history of ContentEditman.
- 21 February 14:03 MrX made a major change via an edit series.
- 22 February 01:55 Xenagoras talks. (links to previous talk [26]).
- 22 February 02:04 Xenagoras talks.
- 22 February 02:17 MrX talks.
- 22 February 02:36 Xenagoras talks to MrX. (links to previous talk [27]).
- 22 February 02:39 Xenagoras reverts. (edit summary links [28] which links previous talk [29]).
- 22 February 03:02 ContentEditman fully restores.
- 22 February 03:21 MrX talks.
- 22 February 03:46 SharabSalam re-reverts.
- 22 February 03:53 SharabSalam talks.
- 22 February 04:22 SharabSalam talks.
- 22 February 05:23 Xenagoras talks to ContentEditman (notifies about WP:REVEXP).
- 22 February 22:01 MrX re-restores.
- 23 February 16:48 Xenagoras talks. (links to WP:RSN [30])
- 23 February 16:51 Xenagoras re-re-reverts. (edit summary links [31] which links WP:RSN [32]).
- 23 February 17:05 MrX talks.
- 23 February 17:56 ContentEditman re-re-restores.
- 23 February 18:01 ContentEditman talks.
- 25 February 17:54 Xenagoras talks to ContentEditman (notifies about discretionary sanctions, policy violations, asks for self-revert).
- 2 March 04:23 Xenagoras talks. (request for discussion about all unanswered objections).
- 2 March 18:01 ContentEditman talks.
As his talk history shows, ContentEditman did not explain his first restore and he did not discuss my objections (see also [33] which links to there, and [34]). Other editors had objections as well. And he didn't explain or discuss my objections [35] at his second restore either. All he did was writing, "Saying someone is violating policy means noting if you do not articulate what they have violated. MrXs edits seem well written and supported, even on the TALK as well." [36] ContentEditman displayed a similar pattern several weeks earlier:
- 31 January 13:24 MrX made a major change via an edit series.
- 1 February 21:16 ContentEditman fully restores MrX' changes with "discussing" via, "a lot of what you added was promotional and not fitting for a WP:BLP." [37]
- 2 February 14:21 MrX partially re-restores his own changes.
Xenagoras (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Awilley:, @El C:, et al.: I updated the chronology list above to be more detailed about edits/reverts/restores and pertinent article talk and user talk interaction between Xenagoras / ContentEditman and Xenagoras / MrX. I hope this gives more clarity about what occurred. If anyone needs more info or wants the list changed, please advise me. Xenagoras (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Seraphimblade , after Zezen responded [38] on my talk page to my email, I recognized from their words, especially their last paragraph, "Stop." , that I made a mistake in my way of communicating with Zezen that bothered them. From this I assumed, Zezen was so bothered by me that they wished not any further interaction with me. Today I apologized [39] to Zezen, which they accepted. From Zezen's response to my email I also learned on the WP:CANVASS page which Zezen linked, why Wikipedia defines that my email was a mistake. I was not yet familiar with dispute resolution procedures and was not aware that an unsolicited invitation to participate in a discussion is not an allowed way to get an uninvolved editor to give their opinion on a stuck dispute. I acknowledge my mistake, which is why everybody can until today still read about it on my talk page. When I sent that email, on another article I was in a stuck dispute with MrX and WMSR, which seemed unsolvable by both discussion [40] and complaint 1 [41] and complaint 2 [42]. After reading a lot about the ways of dispute resolution, two weeks ago I started my first RfC as a way to solve a content dispute elsewhere. My first RfC ended with a rough consensus [43]. And today I am here to attempt to solve another stuck dispute by asking uninvolved administrators to asses the situation. I am asking for help in overcoming the problem that certain editors behave as if Wikipedia's rules do not apply to them. MrX' encouraging [44] ContentEditman to continue to ignore all my objections to their edits seems to be a deliberate effort of both editors to not communicate and instead violate the 24h-BRD discretionary sanction and to circumvent the 1RR sanction, as I laid out [45] to Awilley in the paragraph above. And I ask for fairness. I received a 31 hour block [46] for inadvertently failing to make an uninterrupted edit series when my edit got interrupted once by 14 minutes by MrX. But MrX did not receive a block [47] when his edit series was interrupted two times by 16 minutes. My goal has always been to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to my best ability, and I aim to continue to improve my edits and my conduct. Xenagoras (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
El C , in my opinion, there are several problems with ContentEditman's response [48].
- ContentEditman writes, "I did not violate the 1rr." When viewing MrX' and ContentEditman's identical edits together, it appears they circumvent the WP:1RR discretionary sanction by making the same changes four times inside 52 hours [49] [50] [51] [52]. See the Awilley paragraph above [53].
- ContentEditman writes that I had "a history of edit warring." He accuses me of severe misbehavior without evidence.
- He writes that I had "a history of not editing in good faith." He should avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence.
- He uses a complaint against me from ANI, but that complaint was created via casting aspersions against me to mischaracterize my actions as deserving of sanction.
- He proposes that "maybe Xenagoras should, at minimum, be topic blocked from American Politics." He is mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction. Xenagoras (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
ContentEditman notification.
MrX also received a notification.
Discussion concerning ContentEditman
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by ContentEditman
I did not violate the 1rr as you can see even by even Xenagoras listings above. I also have posted several times on the TALK page for this and other topics. Xenagoras was even asked to articulate his so called visitations but never did. He on the other hand has a history of edit warring and not editing in good faith. There is an active complaint against him now here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xenagoras_-_WP:NOTHERE I believe this falls under WP:boomerang and maybe Xenagoras should, at minimum, be topic blocked from American Politics. He also seems to be WP:CANVAS on this topic when he did not get his way on the TALK page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xenagoras#Your_spamming_via_WikiMedia_Email ContentEditman (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich (ContentEditman)
Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Feb 21–23:
- Feb 21 MrX makes a series of edits
- Feb 22 02:39 Xenagoras reverts
- Feb 22 03:02 ContentEditman restores
- Feb 22 03:46 another editor re-reverts
- Feb 22 22:01 MrX re-restores
- Feb 23 16:51 Xenagoras re-re-reverts
- Feb 23 17:56 ContentEditman re-re-restores
Same article Jan 31–Feb 2:
- Jan 31 MrX makes a series of edits to the lead
- Feb 1 02:08 Xenagoras reverts
- Feb 1 21:16 ContentEditman restores
- Feb 2 13:44 Xenagoras re-reverts
- Feb 2 14:21 MrX re-restores
WP:BRD should be followed. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There's also this exchange in the "2020 presidential campaign" section:
- Jan 31 An editor adds content
- Feb 5 MrX reverts
- Feb 5 A different editor adds similar content
- Feb 6 ContentEditman re-reverts
In this case, MrX and ContentEditman are on the other side of BRD – they are reverting other editors' bold additions, with edit summaries pointing to the talk page. That should also have happened with the first set of diffs above, as well.
There is a loophole in Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.
Some editors unfortunately intepret this to mean that the way to go about things is to make an edit and if it's reverted, wait 24 hours and then re-instate it. Or, that if another editor's edit is reverted, it's OK to reinstate it, because it's not your edit. Neither approach is productive. The loophole should be closed and the Enforced BRD language should be modified to say If an edit is reverted do not reinstate that edit without talk page consensus.
Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by MrX
As far as I know, I have not violated the page editing restrictions and I'm not aware that anyone else has, at least not recently. At first blush, I don't think Xenagoras' evidence supports the second restriction being violated by ContentEditman.
Levivich's list of diffs merely shows some reverts. It does not make the case that an editing restriction was violated. WP:BRD is an essay; the editing restriction says "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit."
My comment on ContentEditman's page, which I guess you could describe as "support", was made because Xenagoras has a habit of trying to resolve content disputes by posting scary sounding warnings and templated warnings on multiple editors' talk pages.[54][55][56][57][58][59]
Curiously, Xenagoras accuses me of ignoring his objections (posted a few hours ago while I was sleeping!).[60] In fact, it is a compilation of complaints that I have already thorough responded, having made 44 comments on the talk page in the last month.[61] - MrX 🖋 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Response to Levivich's enforced BRD plan and analysis
Levivich's analysis lacks depth and insight. The Tulsi Gabbard article should absolutely not be subjected to the deprecated "enforced BRD" restriction because it advantages drive-by reverting and gaming by users who are here for the sole purpose of promoting and maintaining a flattering image for a subject. Enforced BRD has been tried in the past, and it has mostly been a failure. Why use the talk page if you can simply create a new account, or edit from an IP, and remove content that you don't like?
Speaking very generally, I strongly suspect (and I'm not the only one who does) that the Tulsi Gabbard topic area has been affected by 2-3 overzealous editors who likely work for Gabbard in some capacity. One of these editors is probably her congressional chief of staff. If true, that is a problem for Wikipedia's integrity, and it would be further harmed by placing lopsided restrictions on editing. If the goal is to communicate to devoted editors that Wikipedia is not worthy of being defended, then such a restriction would would certainly help accomplish that. - MrX 🖋 12:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
Per Levivich, the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed material, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. And now that's clear, everyone can go to the talk page and settle this nicely please. I hope we don't need to start wielding cudgels at what is really quite an early stage here. Guy (help!) 14:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Humanengr
In his Statement, ContentEditman claims "I … have posted several times on the TALK page”. While literally true (he has written on the Talk page), he does not engage in productive communication. Of his 12 total posts, 5 merely repeat or say 'MrX is right' in terms of vague generalities (here, here, here, here, and here). Further evidence of failure to communicate is ContentEditman's misdirection and non-responsiveness to issues raised by other discussants:
1) Re the content issue Awilley remarked on (last sentence), ContentEditman misdirected repeatedly in response to my edit.
(For context, the 'Political positions' § has an 'LGBT rights' subsection. As of 2/18, it had 2 paras, the first recounting Gabbard's support at age 17 for her father’s conservative activism and then similar activity at 23 as freshman state legislator in 2004. Both the age 17 and 23 material are also in Early life §; the age 23 material also in Hawaii House §. I saw the need to copy edit to remove duplication, reorder, and include a brief statement of present political position at the start as in other candidates' position statements. If my edit shows I misunderstood WP:BOLD re ‘copy edit’, kindly advise. Also, as the issues of ordering, duplication, etc., of LGBT content and equal treatment of candidates are raised here only as context re ContentEditman's behavior, I ask that those issues be considered apart from the current discussion.)
ContentEditman reverted saying "… This was discussed on the TALK page in depth. …" On Talk, I asked where the issue of "… starting the political positions section … with material from 21 years ago when she was a minor child that duplicates material … included elsewhere in the bio?” had been discussed. ContentEditman responded that there had been but did not point to discussion that addressed my question. (MrX responded similarly; I asked again; MrX responded without pointing to a discussion that addressed my question; ContentEditman did not respond.)
At that point The Four Deuces remarked, “… We don't start the political positions sections of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren with what they once believed when they were conservative Republicans or Trump when he was a liberal Democrat”. ContentEditman's response misdirected in multiple ways — TFD's example indicated positions that were not just older but also contrary; the Gabbard § was not the Political positions § but the LGBT subsection. (See also Xenagoras's critique.)
2) In response to BurroBert's request to include material on the "the effect of her military experience on her policies", [emphasis added] ContentEditman misdirected by responding that "her military career" was already covered.
3) ContentEditman asserted "I don't see her calling herself Asian" in response to my comment where I had written "The source was the first citation, Gabbard's house.gov site (not the campaign site), which states 'A practicing Hindu, she is of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent.'" [emphasis added]
4) ContentEditman's response to Xenagoras ignored the central part of the criticism that MrX "repeatedly removed [links to] Gabbard's current pro-LGBT stance from the lead to leave only her obsolete anti-LGBT stance in the lead to misrepresent a living person."
5) ContentEditman's response to Xenagoras failed to address any of the substantive points made in response to MrX.
6) In response to a comment on the lack of a statement in the introductory paragraph that "Tulsi is a candidate for president in the 2020 election", said, "There is already language in the lead about her running for president." [emphasis added] Introductory paragraph ≠ lead.
@El C: I see the above as a clear failure to communicate in the form of repetition, misdirecting, and denying reality (#3 above). Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Result concerning ContentEditman
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I agree with Levivich. The onus on retention is on those wishing to introduce new changes. Anyway, if ContentEditman is failing to communicate, then sanctions, up to and including a topic ban are on the table. Will wait until ContentEditman responds to this complaint. El_C 08:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich and El C: However, I think Levivich's timeline is misleading. He states that Mr.X "made a number of edits on January 31", but actually, much of that was a revert of material added by Xenagoras and Humanengr between 29 and 31 January. This flips the issue and makes Xenagoras' edit the re-instatement, which I'm guessing is exactly why they waited 25 hours from the 31 January edit before making it. As usual with AP, no-one looks great here, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- It takes more than one to make an edit war, and here, I don't see a clear case of one against many. This appears to be a content dispute. We have ways to settle those if those involved can't come to agreement, but ideally, those ways should include neither "Engage in an edit war" nor "Drag someone to AE." Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Xenagoras, while all that may be, surely you're aware that canvassing is not allowed either? If you're going to accuse others of breaches, I would also be interested in your response to that. If you're canvassing by email, you're hardly in the clear here either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about User talk:Xenagoras#Your spamming via WikiMedia Email. I note that Xenagoras did not reply. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Xenagoras I accept your reply. If someone posts to your talk page, you can always reply and sometimes as in this case should. If you are asked not to post to someone else's talk page, it's usually a good idea not to. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- As usual there are no clean hands here. To prove a BRD violation you need to provide two diffs of ContentEditman adding/removing the same material twice without discussing on the talk page. The diffs provided by the OP only show instances of ContentEditman restoring edits made by others. Usually this kind of mistake is made because an older editor who has been in the topic area for a long time has conflated the "BRD" rule with the "Consensus required" rule. But that clearly can't be the case here, since User:Xenagoras is a new user who registered this account in August 2019, and AFAICT hasn't made any significant contributions that are separated more than 1 degree from the subject of Tulsi Gabbard. There is obviously an ongoing content dispute and a slow kind of edit war that includes a mix of outright reverts and partial reverts. I would warn ContentEditman about gaming 1RR since they made 3 reverts on 3 consecutive days. It also disturbs me that, digging into this diff, editors are trying to make political hay out of a home-schooled teenager endorsing the views of her activist parents (gasp!) while de-emphasizing the fact that she later rejected those views. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the new list of diffs above posted by Xenagoras there is a technical violation of the BRD sanction. I say "technical" because ContentEditman posted to the talk page 5 minutes after his second revert. (He should have joined the discussion before the second revert.) Because of that, and because this is stale, I'll double down on my support of a warning for ContentEditman. ~Awilley (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Patapsco913
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Patapsco913
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Repeated restoration: [62] [63] [64] and more in the history of Bradley_S._Jacobs
- Previous final warning by administrators for the same issue [65]
- 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 [66]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I originally imposed a flexible ban from BLPs [67], 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 [68] [69] 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 thatthe 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.[70] 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. [71]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 [72] and [73]. 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 [74] (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 [75] [76]. 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 [77]. 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Preemptory review request
Withdrawn by OP. Guy (help!) 08:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC) EllenCT This is not a noticeboard, use the button given above to file requests, which automatically preloads the necessary pre-requisites for you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please review [78] where Robert McClenon (notified) indicated that WP:AE would be an appropriate place to complain about my asking him about his political views after characterizing the deletion and proposed salting of a draft BLP in the language of intentional infliction of injury at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kyle Kulinski and on my talk page. I disagree that my questions about McClenon's politics, or my request to uphold a higher standard of civility, would be actionable under the WP:ARBAP2 remedies, and I ask for review on that question. Please note that WP:ACDS#Decorum defines "casting aspersions" by link to WP:AVOIDYOU which states, "Editors should be civil and adhere to good etiquette when describing disagreements," and links to WP:ASPERSIONS which in turn links to WP:CIVIL, which states, "Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil." I do not believe it is civil to refer to the deletion and salting of a draft WP:BLP using language which could be interpreted as pertaining to the intentional infliction of injury, assassination, weapons, murder, or war. Again, is my request to refrain from such language on my talk page and at the BLP draft deletion XfD actionable under arbitration enforcement remedies? EllenCT (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
|
Jweiss11
Jweiss11 and Dlthewave are warned against edit warring. All editors interested in Race and intelligence are reminded that this forum is not to be used to gain an upperhand in content disputes. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Jweiss11
This is related to a content dispute concerning the Global variation of IQ scores section at Race and intelligence. The section was removed due to concerns that it was off-topic/poorly sourced and is currently under discussion.
In its current state, the only thing that connects the section to the Race and intelligence topic is the unsourced sentence
Discussion concerning Jweiss11Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jweiss11This is a really ridiculous action by Dlthewave, littered with falsehoods. I've merely restored well-sourced and and long-standing content to the article, and have engaged on the talk page. I have made a single appeal to BLUESKY, which I have reiterated a number of times to different editors. The argument is that the claim that "residents of sub-Saharan Africa are overwhelming black and that residents of East Asia are overwhelmingly East Asian" is so obvious it falls under BLUESKY, and that that BLUESKY argument connect studies of sub-continental populations to the topic of race. It's time to sanction to Dlthewave for contentious POV pushing and his attempts to game the arbitration process to eliminate opponents. He's simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich (Jweiss11)I'm concerned by the repeated restoration of challenged content without consensus, in apparent violation of WP:ONUS, such as here and here, and with the use of questionable sources such as Richard Lynn, and describing that as "well-sourced" in the comment above. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by PudeoDlthewave claims that the section is undue and
Cambridge University Press won't publish just anything, and Personality and Individual Differences is a peer-reviewed journal. There is a disruptive pattern with Dlthewave misunderstanding basic sourcing requirements, as was the case with his WP:PRIMARY claims noted in the earlier AE thread about Peregrine Fisher. As for whether citing WP:SKYBLUE is disruptive, "nation" and "race" do not mean the same thing, but Lynn's and Vanhanen's 2002 IQ and the Wealth of Nations was a part of the "race and intelligence controversy" without a doubt. Though it is true that this terminology should be directly attributed from a source. It is worth noting that this is the second AE thread about pretty much the same content dispute, yet there hasn't been a requests for comment. --Pudeo (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by MaximumIdeasThese are all edit disagreements that should be discussed on the relevant talk page, not in arbitration. I see the restorations mentioned above by Levivich, which JWeiss11 restored, were longstanding content on the page in question, and no consensus was ever reached to remove them. Further, the sections are sourced to papers in respected academic journals or which, in one case, is plausibly BLUESKY. Whether or not one thinks the content should be changed (a legitimate area of disagreement!... which has been debated extensively on that article's talk page) JWeiss11 clearly acted within the rules in restoring established content sourced to respected academic journals. It would only be a violation if a consensus had been reached to remove the content, or if there were consensus against any of the restorations. But participants on the page were nowhere near such a consensus. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by IP editor@El C: Please read the earlier Arbitration Enforcement thread that Dlthewave posted about Peregrine Fisher on February 26, in particular the comments there from myself, Mr rnddude, SMcCandlish, Paul Siebert, and DoubleCross. Dlthewave has been blanking three separate longstanding sections of the race and intelligence article, which include much more than the material that's currently under dispute. (See the diffs that I posted in the earlier report.) The four other editors that I mentioned all expressed the view that Dlthewave's previous AE report was a tactical attempt to take out one of the editors opposing his removals. However, his report ultimately was successful at causing Peregrine Fisher to be topic banned. The result of Dlthewave's earlier report demonstrated that using AE to take out one's opponents can be an effective strategy, so of course he's going to try the same strategy again against another of the editors opposing him. It's only been two days since his previous report was closed. For the reasons I explained here, Dlthewave does not seem to have any real interest in resolving the current dispute on the talk page. He apparently hasn't looked at the sources for the content he's removing, and he also isn't willing to be specific what he wants changed about this section before he'll allow it to be restored. Please think carefully what message you and other admins wish to send with your decision in this report. The decision in Dlthewave's report about Peregrine Fisher inadvertently sent a message that content disputes can be won using AE instead of the article talk page, and if the current report is closed in a similar way, it will strongly reinforce that message. 2600:1004:B101:7AD0:40CB:6C80:E343:A94A (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Springee (subject:Dlthewave)If there is any editor who's behavior is questionable it's Dlthewave's. They were warned about engaging in a slow edit war a few hours prior to filling this report. The content in question may not be correct but I think it's clear we have a case of no consensus on the article talk page. WP:NOCON is clear that in a case such as this one the article should revert to the last stable version. Rather than try to come up with a new compromise suggestion, Dlthewave is using a slow, bludgeoning edit war and filing complaints about those who object to the changes. What is particularly troubling is that they are totally ignoring that per WP:NOCON they are in the wrong. If they feel Jwiess11's arguments aren't sound then they should have called on outside help (RfC, dispute resolution etc) to adjudicate the new consensus. If Jwiess11's arguments are poor then the issue should be quickly solved via the dispute resolution channels. Simply reverting only raises everyone's blood and makes compromise that much harder. Such behavior is every bit as destructive as the filibustering they have accused Jwiess11 of. Springee (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by GuettardaWithout commenting on the merits of the rest this appeal as a whole, Jweiss11's repeated appeals to BLUESKY are disruptive. You can't invoke BLUESKY as a way to claim that contentious claims don't need supporting citations. There response has been a solid IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and they have continued to edit war their claims back into the article. Repeatedly claiming that you don't need to source controversial claims, in ad article that's subject to DS is disruptive, even if it's civil. This is the kind of thing that AE exists to deal with. Guettarda (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlishThere's a danger here, when someone says they're concerned that the material in question has a cn tag in it. Just because a cn tag was placed doesn't mean it was legitimate or isn't easily resolved. In this case, if someone really think's the claim that East Asia is full of East Asians and Africa is full of Africans needs a citation, one could be provided in a matter of minutes from any good source on demographics. Nit-picking a paragraph to death with cn tags for the obvious isn't an excuse to delete large swathes of material. I'm not going to comment at present on the merits of all the material, just on this procedural matter. It's not AE's job to create a WIKILAWYER/GAMING/FILIBUSTER loophole via misuse of dispute tags. Really, I think several people need a long break from this topic. It is controversial and not everyone it temperamentally suited for dealing with it. But AE cannot settle the content dispute, and at its heart this is entirely a content dispute. If one party needs to comply with even tedious citation demands, then just tell them to do it. If another party needs to avoid using questionable citation demands as a "WINNING" tactic, then just tell them to do it. I don't think anything reported here about either side of the dispute yet rises to WP:AC/DS-level disruption, though that could happen eventually if the tendency to get angry and combative is not self-restrained. So, I would say no action at this time, admonish better behavior on both sides, and warn that escalation is likely to lead later to DS action. When it comes to the content, the editorship at large will resolve it over time. It's not like this topic has a shortage of watchlisters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by ජපසThere seems to be some racism at play with User:Jweiss11's advocacy. My guess is that this is part of an affinity for intellectual dark web claims that border on race realism. The argument is, apparently, that because we know where the races live, then we can use the results of IQ tests from various countries to make blanket statements about race and IQ. Pretty WP:SYNTHy approaches, in reality. The issue is that Jweiss11 seems to be so convinced that he is right that he thinks it obvious when it, in fact, really is not only not obvious, it is in contravention with the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of race. I know that AE is not for content arbitration, but I think the record shows pretty clearly here that User:Jweiss11 is an agenda-driven editor. His opponents seem to be standing up for the sourcing guidelines we all agree with which is to avoid citing walled garden literature that is heavily criticized as enabling white supremacy. jps (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Jweiss11
|
Calton
Blocked for 72 hours --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Calton
After I posted on Calton's talk page, reminding them of discretionary sanctions and requesting that they self-revert, Calton edited Wikipedia three times, meaning that they should be aware of my request: 05:01, 4 March 2020; 05:17, 4 March 2020; 05:17, 4 March 2020. More than a full day after Calton's violation, Objective3000 has now reverted Calton's offending revert (16:05, 4 March 2020). However, Calton was given ample time to address my request to self-revert, and continued to edit Wikipedia without undoing their violation of the "consensus required" arbitration remedy. It should also be noted that since shortly after Calton's restoration of the quotation BullRangifer included, there has been a discussion at Talk:Julian_Assange#Block_quote_for_an_opinion_piece_etc about the material. Calton has not discussed their revert there.
Discussion concerning CaltonStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CaltonStatement by Objective3000I removed this earlier today (despite the fact I agree with it). What's the point of wasting time here? I seriously dislike weaponizing drama boards. Close this, or withdraw this before a boomerang. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Springee (subject:Carlton)In looking at the talk page it appears 2 editors are questioning the newly added content and two editors are supporting inclusion. When one editor reverted the BOLD edit Calton doesn't appear to have engaged in the discuss part of BRD. Rather than address the concerns raised Carlton restored the new material. That is against BRD and NOCON (in addition to any specific page restrictions). About two weeks back Carlton was warned about slow motion edit wars [[94]] by Guerillero. It appears that they did not take the warning to heart. Springee (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Calton
|
Zarcademan123456
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Zarcademan123456
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Zarcademan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 23:23, 4 March 2020 makes edit which is reverted
- 23:32, 4 March 2020 makes same edit again
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- blocked 22 December 2019 with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
- blocked 28 December 2019 with an expiration time of 2 weeks (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted, 28 August 2019
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
When asked to self-revert, as they broke 1RR, they replies "What’s an RR?", then continue defending their edit. See User_talk:Zarcademan123456#1RR
- As a reply to Number 57: Zarcademan123456 has been asked countless of times to start a centralised discussion, before making similar chenges to hundreds of articles. This they have constantly ignored, except for the “Confiscation” vs. “expropriation” ...and that was only started after the last report here on AE.
- And as for their changes: they "cherry-pick" info from this article, and put that "cherry-picked" info into dozens, if not hundreds of other articles. And the totally WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when asked to stop, or discuss it first, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- This statement by Zarcademan123456 ("I also would like to add I did later revert") is 100% incorrect (as anyone looking at the history of the Beit Fajjar-article can see). In addition, Zarcademan123456 continues to make similar changes even after this AE-report was made. I have never before come across a worse case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the IP area, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would ask for a topic-ban for Zarcademan123456 from the IP-area. We really don't need editors in the IP area who apparently are completely deaf, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- This edit, just made by Zarcademan123456 shows why they need to be topic-banned: To the link to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank they add that it wasn't generally internationally recognised, but to the Israeli occupation article; they make no such qualification, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Number 57: no, I do not expect him to start a discussion on 40 pages; I expect him too start a discussion once about each issue: he has repeatedly been asked to do so, but never done so. Instead he goes around making controversial changes to hundreds of articles. Huldra (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:Levivich: absolutely. I have been trying to get Zarcademan123456 to do this, again, and again. Apparently they cannot hear me (or rather: they cannot manage to understand what I write :( ), Huldra (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Number 57: no, I do not expect him to start a discussion on 40 pages; I expect him too start a discussion once about each issue: he has repeatedly been asked to do so, but never done so. Instead he goes around making controversial changes to hundreds of articles. Huldra (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- This statement by Zarcademan123456 ("I also would like to add I did later revert") is 100% incorrect (as anyone looking at the history of the Beit Fajjar-article can see). In addition, Zarcademan123456 continues to make similar changes even after this AE-report was made. I have never before come across a worse case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the IP area, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Zarcademan123456
I hope this is the place where I state my case (I am fairly new to all the computer lingo...) I am merely trying to make information harmonious, encyclopedia-tic, as this is what Wikipedia is...also, whenever someone has pointed out a violation of the rules, I have abided (I previously changed the word “confiscate” to “expropriate”...I no longer do so, as I was informed we must quote the source accurately to the word (even though the source in question I believe is biased, but I digress...)). If I haven’t abided, its because I didn’t realize I was doing anything wrong (as in the BC changing to BCE, I didn’t even really know how to utilize the talk pages, etc...I still don’t really lol)
I also would like to add I did later revert.
If y’all need anymore testimony for me, let me know. Thank you.
It appears Huldra is right, according to the history I did not self-revert. I was positive I did...I just checked my history, seeing if I undid a different article of my own accidentally, it appears I did not. Huldra, you are 100% right on that accusation, it appears I did lie, albeit unknowingly. As a proof of my honest mistake, I am not deleting my above assertion that I made an undo (I think I could’ve deleted my mistaken assertion, but I digress). Anyways, I made a mistake, I am sorry.
Although, as I am now removing this proposal below, Number 57 saw something I reverted, so maybe I reverted something and just can’t find it, idk.Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Number 57
As far as I can see, he has not broken 1RR. He added material (not a revert) and then reverted when it was removed.
A second issue that stands out from looking at this is why Zarcademan123456's edit was reverted in the first place. Adding the text "It was annexed by Jordan in 1950, although there was limited international recognition (the UK and Iraq)." is factually accurate (although it omits Pakistan from the list of countries that granted recognition), so there appears to be no good reason to remove it.
Similarly, I am also concerned by other reversions of factually correct edits made by Zarcademan. This perhaps needs more consideration. Number 57 20:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think Huldra's follow-up complaint about the edit made at Ash-Shuhada is further evidence that the problem is probably the other way round; Zarcademan's (clumsy) edit mentions occupation by both Jordan and Israel, and annexation by Jordan. International recognition is only mentioned with regards to the annexation presumably because international recognition only happens for annexed areas, not occupied ones. The constant objections to reasonable (and factual) edits, and then taking it further by claiming that the Ash-Shuhada edit shows why a topic ban is needed, are far more of a problem IMO. Number 57 01:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Huldra now appears to be mass undoing all Zarcademan's edits and telling him for each one that he has to take the proposed changes to the talk page. It appears that he is expected to start 40 different talk page discussions on his proposed changes. This does not seem like reasonable behaviour to me. Number 57 20:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich (PIA)
Occupation, annexation, confiscation, expropriation, I don't believe we haven't had an RFC about this yet that we can point to. If not, just launch one, for both the Jordanians and Israelis. One RFC would be a lot better than having this discussion on the talk page of every article about every Palestinian village–and also better than trying to resolve this via AE. Also agree with N57's concerns. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zarcademan123456 and Huldra: Surely you both agree that the WP:NOTBURO quickest way to definitively resolve this issue once and for all is through one or more RFCs, and that an RFC is also the only path to stable consensus on the issue of what word(s) to use in wikivoice, and that any and all time spent at AE is a detour off of that path? Why not agree to restore to last stable version and not make changes pending the outcome of RFC(s)? And then afterwards whoever violates the RFC consensus first can be insta-blocked, ok? :-) – Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by selfstudier
Last time around I said that I was assuming good faith, I am finding it exceptionally difficult to stand by that assessment. I and others have in fact been trying to engage with and ease his introduction to WP, unfortunately it seems that if once he has an idea in his head, then no amount of engagement appears to help. If no solution be found, I suspect we will be back here time and time again.Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
But it strikes Number 57 as reasonable to have to go through 40 articles and correct the problems introduced? nableezy - 22:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by ZScarpia
My two cents' worth:
- The added text isn't cited to any sources. On that ground alone, Huldra was justified in deleting (and re-deleting) it.
- The accuracy of the added text is questionable. Compare it with what the article on the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank says: "Only the United Kingdom and Iraq formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem. The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty. Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious."
- The added text is boiler-plate-like. Normally, text may only be added if it can be cited to sources which mention the topic of the article. This not being so, an RfC should have been held.
← ZScarpia 12:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Zarcademan123456
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Zarcademan123456, this is not the place to discuss proposed article changes. Please remove those and move any such discussion to the appropriate article talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having looked at this request, I believe all involved here would be wise to consider the suggestion by Levivich, in having a central RfC on this subject rather than a tremendous number of separate discussions. Zarcademan123456, if someone tells you that a particular edit you're doing to a large number of pages is objectionable, stop making that edit while you open a discussion on the matter. Attempting a fait accompli is very much frowned upon. If you're willing to commit to doing that and to opening a discussion (and if need be an RfC) on the matter, I would not support sanctions at this time, but if it happens again I likely would. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Dev0745
I have already topic banned the user independent of this report. El_C 16:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dev0745
Discussion concerning Dev0745Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dev0745Statement by (username)Result concerning Dev0745
|
Crawford88
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)
- 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 [95] 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 [96] 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 [97]. (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.
- 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 [98], [99], [100]) 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)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
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 (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)