→Result concerning Peregrine Fisher: support tban |
ContentEditman (talk | contribs) →Statement by (username): ContentEditman |
||
Line 786: | Line 786: | ||
I will have more to add a bit later. - [[user:MrX|MrX]][[user talk:MrX| 🖋]] 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
I will have more to add a bit later. - [[user:MrX|MrX]][[user talk:MrX| 🖋]] 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
====Statement by ( |
====Statement by (ContentEditman)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
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. [[User:ContentEditman|ContentEditman]] ([[User talk:ContentEditman|talk]]) 17:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning ContentEditman=== |
===Result concerning ContentEditman=== |
Revision as of 17:55, 2 March 2020
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oldstone James
Oldstone James unblocked and topic-banned from editing or commenting on anything related to the subjects of 'race & intelligence' and 'pseudoscience', broadly construed, for a period of 12 months --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
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).
Statement by Oldstone James
Statement by GuerilleroThere was a discussion open for 3 days where the only suggestion was an indef block. Several people in the discussion above brought up bludgeoning on the talk page in addition to the edit warring. There was a general sense that Oldstone James was pushing a POV within the topic area of R&I. I see more introspection in this appeal than the previous draft on their talk page, and that is a positive sign. I would suggest that any unblock come with a topic ban from R&I. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Guy MaconI have had previous disputes with Oldstone James, and am quite familiar with the circumstances that led up to the block. In my considered opinion all sanctions should be lifted. I think that we are going to look back a year from now and be glad that we did. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Grayfell
Statement by ජපසI think there are a few things we need to take into consideration.
So what do we do here? I think we need to encourage OJ to work in a more collaborative fashion outside of the places he is attracted to. Wikicommons, wikisource, even en.simple would, perhaps, be possibilities for him to work within a community and establish some experience to retrain his approach to work better here at en.wp. jps (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonateThere seems to be an offer by Guy Macon to mentor and a good reception by Oldstone James of the initiative. If Guy makes it a little more official and James engages to retract from a situation when Guy recommends it (versus debating with endless justifications including with Guy), I think that an unblock could be promising. That said, another topic ban may also be difficult to avoid, but that is a reasonable alternative to not being able to edit at all for a year... —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Adding: I wasn't sure where to comment, I don't consider myself directly involved but am also active in the topic area and have edited on Race and Intelligence and its talk page recently. —PaleoNeonate – 07:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by JzGMy starting point is always the edit counter: [3]. 3789 edits as of right now, an average of less than two per day. I'm not convinced that is enough to earn a pass for the quantity of disruption and argumentation, and Guerillero's block is clearly defensible and proportionate. A large chunk of OJ's edits are to Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and consist of often WP:MANDY-level apologia for creationist pseudoscience, leading to a topic ban. And a lot of the rest appear to promote racist pseudoscience. But let's be charitable. A dual topic ban from creationism and race / intelligence would be OK by me, and see if he can work productively with others outside his hot-button areas. On the other hand, I don't think he's a loss to the project if that doesn't happen. He needs to learn, and quickly, why his edits have been considered problematic. Mandruss is right to note the illusory competence issue here. Guy (help!) 17:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by DlthewaveI still have concerns about OJ's characterization of the situation.
Oldstone seems to be working towards a better understanding of BRD but I don't think this is sufficient to continue editing at R&I. This editor needs a topic ban at the very least. –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 5)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Oldstone JamesI was involved in none of the article activity that led to the indef, so take my comments with a small grain of salt. What I see is a guy who perhaps has failed to grasp the extent of what he has yet to learn about Wikipedia editing, and so has overestimated his competence level. This, in turn, resulted in an overly-aggressive approach to the editing process. This is a fairly common failing, and he is only 20 years old if his UP is to be believed. We have to be prepared to show some tolerance for this in 20-year-olds or institute a 30-year age minimum (which would reduce the problem but not eliminate it). This points to the serious flaw in the current culture, which tolerates a large degree of aggressiveness, even abusiveness, when one is in the right, while we always believe we're in the right. OJ was very cooperative when I approached him about his signature, and this was in stark contrast to the hostile, entitled, and self-occupied reactions I have received from many editors. Taking his comments here at face value, he gives every indication that he gets it and is willing to learn. His appeal lacks the defensiveness, persecution complex, and accusations of corruption that are so common in appeals (those are core-personality indicators that tell me an editor is probably beyond help). If we dismiss that because of the context, I don't know how an appeal could ever be successful, and we might as well get rid of that due process as a waste of time. He does have some history of behavior issues, but that's true in all cases of appealed indefs. I generally feel we are too tolerant of chronic disrupters, but this may be a case where we have erred in the opposite direction. Maybe I'm too late, but a temporary topic ban would've seemed more appropriate to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Call for closePretty much everyone has said what they wanted to say, and we shouldn't leave OJ hanging. Could someone uninvolved please evaluate the consensus make a decision, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Mr ErnieI reviewed the circumstances leading up the block, as well as what took place shortly after, and find the block to be absurdly strict. Additionally, Guerillero has made no attempt to provide any sort of meaningful feedback about the block when requested. I would overturn the block. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Oldstone James
|
Zarcademan123456
No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Zarcademan123456
Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zarcademan123456first of all, if this is the wrong place to post this i apologize. while i continue to disagree with the term "confiscate" Nableezy is absolutely correct...the occupation (I prefer disputed territories, but one must pick one's battles, lol) began during the war, not afterZarcademan123456 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by NableezyBesides these edits, the user has introduced factual errors in a huge number of article. For example, this is just false. The occupation began during the war not after, and the reason for the change is to not include that the territory remains occupied. The user has been doing this to every article about a village or settlement in the West Bank, and cleaning up after his or her edits is becoming less of a joy, especially as he or she persists without offering even the semblance of discussion. nableezy - 23:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Number 57
Statement by LevivichARIJ might use the word confiscate, but they’re not the only source, and confiscate is definitely not the word used by the consensus of sources. I would provide links and examples to back that up, but this is so obviously a content dispute and thus not appropriate for determination at AE. Levivich (Talk) 01:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Also worth noting that Huldra is the editor who added “confiscate” to all these articles in the first place, and if you look at the articles’ histories, you can see various attempts to change it, combined with the usual edit warring we see in almost all PIA articles. And, as always, it’s very difficult to say definitely that one side in the edit war is right or wrong (not unlike the actual war). I don’t envy admin asked to regulate in these situations. How do we get PIA editors (on all sides) to edit collaboratively instead of this constant battleground? Levivich (Talk) 04:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000It is obvious that AE is not the right place to decide whether "confiscate" or "expropriate" is the best word in this circumstance. However, it is highly relevant to AE that Zarcademan123456 gave an explicitly political reason for going against the source on many occasions [5] [6] [7] [8]. This is disruptive editing. Zarcademan123456 must learn to seek consensus before undertaking changes to multiple articles that are likely to be disputed. Zerotalk 02:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Levevich wrote "Also worth noting that Huldra is the editor who added “confiscate” to all these articles in the first place". Wow, Huldra used the same word that the source uses! Multiple times even! I'm shocked to the core. Zerotalk 08:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpiaBy the look of it, the case turns upon the following behavioural issues: Statement by selfstudierI have noticed that this editor has a habit of making edits based on his own personal opinion rather than on sources; I mentioned that to him a couple times recently on his talk page. I have been nevertheless assuming good faith on his part up to now.Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by (other user)Result concerning Zarcademan123456
|
Mbsyl
Mbysl blocked one month for repeated topic ban violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 24 February 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 Mbsyl
The attacker was recently found guilty on all counts. The victims were never, as far as I know, credibly accused of any crime related to this attack.
Notifed at 01:00, 24 February 2020
Discussion concerning MbsylStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MbsylStatement by (username)Result concerning Mbsyl
|
- I've removed more topic ban violations on Mbsyl's talkpage subsequent to the block, along with attacks on Grayfell. If these recur, talkpage access should be revoked. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
PainMan
PainMan is indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
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 PainMan
Alerted here at 10:27, 23 February 2020
The editor was also pinged at 10:33, 23 February 2020 of the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of Taoiseach. They ignored this and proceeded to make the edit in diff#10 to Ulster Special Constabulary. It stands to reason if a particular change has been reverted on multiple Troubles related articles already that you don't just carry on making the same edit on more articles, especially when you've been directed to the discussion. I further notified them at 08:23, 24 February 2020 on their talk page, they ignored this and carried on making the constantly reverted changes at another article. They did eventually reply on their talk page at 11:33, 25 February 2020, described as patronizing, belligerent by @Elizium23:. The editors claims that nobody outside Ireland uses the terms Taoiseach or Dáil Éireann is totally false as has been demonstrated in the discussion, they are commonly used in English language media outlets across the words. There's a reason Dáil Éireann is actually at that location while many other European (and presumably others worldwide, I haven't checked everywhere) parliaments are located at "Parliament of x", because it's the commonly used name in English, with the same applying to Taoiseach. Regarding the fifth diff, this was subsequently corrected here by myself with two of many available references confirming that the UDA's English translation of their motto was "Law before violence". When there are multiple possible translations of a Latin phrase, it stands to reason you have to choose the one that references say is correct, there are zero references that say the UDA's motto was ever "let military power give way to civil power".
Notified at 11:53, 25 February 2020
Discussion concerning PainManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by PainManStatement by (username)Result concerning PainMan
|
Peregrine Fisher
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Peregrine Fisher
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Editors_reminded_and_discretionary_sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
These diffs demonstrate a pattern of disruptive editing at Race and intelligence that mimics WP:BRD, but no valid arguments for reversion are ever given:
8 February:
- [11] Revert:
"revert, please seek consensus for major changes"
- [12] Opened talk page discussion:
"Do we like these new changes? I think we should undo them and discuss. Personally, I do not think they are an improvement."
14 February:
- [13] Revert:
"don't delete huge chuncks without discussion"
- [14] Talk page comment, when asked to discuss revert:
"I reverted. I haven't seen you actually wanting to improve the article. You seem to just want to destroy it. But if some editors who are not in favor of destroying this article think you did a good thing, I would abide by that no problem."
23 February:
- [15] Revert:
"I think this should be included. Let's talk about it."
- [16] Opened talk page discussion:
"What are the policy and guideline reasons this should be removed?"
(No rationale provided for reversion)
26 February:
- [17] Revert:
"Undo giant removal. Please don't do that. Obviously this whole situation is contested."
- [18] Talk page discussion:
"I reverted, again. Do you like it? Do you not like it? Seems the same as the last 10 times. Arguing particular policies and guidelines doesn't seem to have any postive effect."
Series of ANI posts attempting to canvass support and making vague accusations:
8 February: [19] "Seems like editors are taking this as a green light to gut the article."
; "Most recent consensus on whether or not a chainsaw should be taken to the article (answer no). Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Let's_go_back_to_a_previous_version"
11 February: [20] "Aticle is at DRV currently. Looks like editors may be trying to take a chainsaw to article again. Keep an eye on us please."
13 February: [21] "Looks like editors are not impartial when it comes to this article. I think you can imagine why. So, Afd voters aren't impartial, closing admin is not impartial and just takes a moon shot delete, and now we're at DRV."
Accusing admins of bias at DRV:
13 February: [22] (Barkeep49) "Seems like you might be involved in some sort of AfD/DfV thing. Are you impartial to the subject? Like, the subject doesn't matter you're just going to evaluate arguments based on how they match up to our rules?"
14 February: [23] (Jo-Jo Emerus) "Are you anti right wing? I did a google search for your name and people are saying you anti intelligent design."
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Peregrine Fisher's editing pattern at Race and intelligence appears to be a type of "civil POV pushing" designed to keep hereditarian content in the article. Although their edits superficially resemble the BRD process, a valid reason for removal is never given and the discussion usually consists of "I like/don't like it" or "I removed this, what do other people think?"
In a recent talk page discussion mentioned above ("I reverted" permalink), Peregrine Fisher asks "What are the policy and guideline reasons this should be removed?"
; after multiple editors cite policies that support removal of the content in question, Peregrine refuses to engage and simply gives variations of "There's no policy based reason to remove it."
Other concerning patterns of conduct include repeated canvassing at ANI and accusing admins of having biases that would preclude them from closing a DRV discussion.
Multiple attempts have been made to address this behavior: [24] [25] [26] [27]
-Dlthewave 26 February 2020
- As with most conduct issues, there is indeed a content dispute at the heart of the matter. I didn't come here to resolve it but I will give a summary since other editors have brought it up.
- A major concern is that the Race and intelligence article relies heavily on what I call the "he-said-she-said" format in which a debate is presented using quotes and paraphrasing sourced directly to the individuals involved, instead of using secondary sources that discuss it from an independent point of view. This is problematic because it gives equal weight to the fringe and mainstream viewpoints with no attempt to identify the minority view as such. One example is found here where I removed fringe statements including
"Jensen and Rushton argued that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity."
(I later removed the rest of the section after it was pointed out that only one side of the "debate" was left intact.) - Although the source was published in a peer-reviewed journal, I consider it to be a primary source for the authors' opinions on public policy. I'm willing to discuss the finer points of what constitutes a primary source and where it can be used on Wikipedia, but the discussion regarding this section (permalink) is full of comments that are not based on policy (
"This material had been in the article for years, until Dlthewave removed it a few hours ago"
;"I generally oppose removing content"
;"Peer reviewed journals are our gold standard. What's one awesome way to know if an opinion is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? When it's published in a peer reviewed journal."
"Her opinion became OK to include when it was in the peer reviewed article"
but what about WP:WEIGHT? or deny that these are primary sources without addressing the arguments for why they are:"I'm seeing people calling secondary sources primary sources. And I'm seeing people saying primary sources need to be removed, which is also not true. If you think I should feel chagrined, I don't."
- Regardless of the dispute, these comments by Peregrine and others are disruptive and do not move us toward resolving the POV issues that were a large part of the recent AfD discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am not subject to a prior AE warning. The AE log shows that a warning was issued and withdrawn within 40 minutes after the issuer reread the discussion.
- I agree with Grayfell's opinion that a "consensus required" restriction would not be helpful here. The disruption lies within the consensus-building process itself: Although there may appear to be consensus to include hereditarian-POV content or restore the article to an older version, a thorough reading of the talk page and its archives will reveal that the "consensus building" discussions are full of non-policy-based aguments, fallacies and personal attacks. This is a classic case of false consensus and does indeed resemble the situation we dealt with a year ago at firearms-related articles.
- I would encourage admins to independently evaluate the claim that it's disruptive or counterproductive to remove large amounts of long-standing content. The article has had large amounts of fringe content for many years and its removal is an improvement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: PF is aware that POV forking is a valid reason for deletion, I mentioned this on his talk page on 5 February (permalink) after he brought it up at AfD. He acknowledged.
- The comment by My Very Best Wishes regarding discourse taking place in letters to the editor and popular science publications illustrates the need for a MEDRS-like sourcing restriction. A major issue with the article, which has been discussed on the talk page, is that it relies heavily on these primary sources instead of scondary sources that cover the overall discourse. If a letter to The New York Times really played a noteworthy role in scientific discourse, then it should be easy to find coverage in scientific sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Peregrine Fisher
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Peregrine Fisher
I want to reiterate that when JzG said I've been adding racist SYN, that's not true. Because I haven't added anything to the article. Just reverted giant against consensus deletions. I'm not that good of an advocate for myself, but if I were, I might say something like this on my talk page. 20:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like I may get banned either way, but if you guys do something to protect this article, I'll ban myself. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This was written later than what I wrote below.
- We need help on this article. Our policies and guidelines almost mandate the article we currently have. But a lot of editors feel in their gut that this article is evil. That's a recipe for endless edit warring.
- I guess I'd like to tell my story on this article. I took a 10 year wiki hiatus. I came back. Did a DYK. Other stuff. But...I believe in academic freedom and I had a wild hair, so I went looking for something that's against NOTCENSORED. I checked a few controversial articles (gender, LGBT, etc.), and found that Race and Intelligence was being deleted, from the inside out, right then! A user not discussed here was deleting roughly 3000kb chunks, several chunks per day. Day after day. Against talk page consensus. Similar to what's going on now.
- So, I started a talk page thread to determine consensus. After lots of discussion, 8 vs. 4 people thought deleting the article from the inside out was bad. I guess you can't take my word for it, but the 8 were using policies and guidelines to justify their positions, and the 4 were misusing and misunderstanding our rules. Similar to how "X" is a POVFORK of "History of X" at the AfD was the winning rational. That would be considered silly if this wasn't possibly the most controversial article on all of WP!
- So we went back to the older "stable" version (the completely referenced one that existed for 10 years). That lasted a week or two, then the article was nominated for deletion. Things calmed down for a while. It was sent to DRV: good time to wait for the entire article to possibly be deleted? No, for whatever reason, dlthewave decided it was time to start deleting the article from the inside again. They removed huge chunks, I reverted, someone else reverted that, etc. And now we're caught up to the present. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a group of editors who are trying to delete all the well referenced information in the article that's on one side of the argument. They delete 2000kb here, 5000kb there. Kind of an ISCENSORED. You can probably imagine on an article on this topic. I sometimes revert those giant removals.
We talk about it on the talk page. They do not have policy and guideline based reasons for these deletions. They do have about 50 percent of the people on the talk page though. And they are dedicated.
This is all info from peer reviewed journals. I don't feel like doing a bunch of diffs, but you can read all this on the talk page and the last couple archives. Also, it's been taken to the RS noticeboard and impartial editors have deemed this stuff reliable.
There's a contentious DrV on the subject now. If they don' delete, they may give us some guidance on whether info from highly regarded peer reviewed journals and university presses should be treated differently on this article than the rest of the wiki. We'll see.
Anyways, editors keep coming along and taking a chainsaw to the article. I revert them when I can. We go to the talk page. There's certainly no consensus to remove the info. Frequently there's consensus to keep it. They delete a huge chunk of the article again...Rinse, repeat. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm too lazy for diffs, but here's a link. Just imagine the sound of a chainsaw in the background as you look at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&curid=26494&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- And this one for more. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&offset=20200216022540&curid=26494&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't really want to be talking back to each person. But Guy said I've been adding racist stuff to the article. I haven't added anything. Unless you count reverts to non consensus giant blankings. Again this is a well refed article that's sat well refed, NPOV, everything good for 5-10 years without a problem. All of a sudden people think peer reviewed journals and books written by scientists are fringe. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Pudeo
Apparently the filer, Dlthewave does not understand what WP:PRIMARY sources are (based on the edit summaries of the 9 February and 24 February reverts). The source that is claimed to be a primary source is:
- Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R (2005). "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" (PDF). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 11 (2): 246–8. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.186.102. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-11-03.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law is reputable peer-reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association. A scientific review article released in such a journal, even if authored by controversial authors, isn't a primary source. This was explained on the talk page, yet the content was removed anyway. And in fact, among the passages removed in the February 24 reversion was an article by the environmentalist James R. Flynn released in Nature.
Peregrine Fisher reverted and opened a thread on the talkpage. That isn't disruptive. Your WP:PRIMARY argument was false, so what kind of a valid argument
do you expect from the other person other than that the sources are valid (WP:RS) and that their inclusion is warranted (WP:NPOV)? This is a normal content dispute (WP:LIKE/WP:IDLI) which WP:BRD has failed to resolve, so a request for comment could be opened. --Pudeo (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just a point of order James R. Flynn (academic) isn't an environmentalist nor do I believe they have ever claimed to be so. Perhaps you meant something else? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by IP editor
Dlthewave's pattern of editing on this article has been to repeatedly remove large chunks of content with no prior discussion, and to demand a consensus for its inclusion before it can be restored. This has included blanking three entire sections, that had been in the article for something like a decade ("Spearman's hypothesis", "Global variation in IQ scores", and "Policy relevance and ethics"). Because of the rapid-fire nature of these removals, it has been nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion about any of them. When we begin discussing any one of his removals, before the discussion can progress very far he removes something else.
Here are diffs of some of his large removals:
- February 8: [29]
- February 8: [30]
- February 9: [31]
- February 12: [32] (section blanking)
- February 15: [33] (section blanking)
- February 15: [34] (section blanking)
- February 15: [35] (section blanking)
- February 24: [36]
- February 25: [37] (section blanking)
- February 26: [38] (section blanking)
- March 2: [39] (section blanking)
I'd like to call attention to Dlthewave's blanking of the "Policy relevance and ethics" section in particular, in the diff on February 25. Dlthewave's edit summary for this removal falsely asserted that I had suggested on the talk page this section should be removed. It's well known that the ethics of research in this area has been a major topic of the race and intelligence debate. It was, for example, the subject of an exchange between Ceci & Williams and Steven Rose in the journal Nature, and the article's section about ethics included citations to both these papers. How could any reasonable person think that it was appropriate to remove this entire section of the article?
Peregrine Fisher has not been the only editor objecting to these removals. Most significantly, they were undone in this edit by user:Snowded, an uninvolved admin who has had no other participation in the article or its talk page. (Snowded's edit undid removals by both Dlthewave and one other editor who's been making similar removals.) However, aside from Peregrine Fisher, none of the editors opposing these removals have been as active and determined as Dlthewave has been.
The person whose behavior is the main problem here is Dlthewave, not Peregrine Fisher. Dlthewave has already voted Delete in the AFD for this article, so as per Snowded's edit summary, he should await the outcome of the AFD instead of trying to delete the article one section at a time. Dlthewave was notified of the Discretionary sanctions here: [40]. 2600:1004:B107:64A3:ED2C:F2BD:D1B5:7B42 (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's important to be clear what Grayfell means by "improving this topic" in his comment below. What typically happens on this article is that someone makes an attempt at removing several paragraphs or an entire section that had been stable for years, and then after the removal is reverted, several more editors restore the removal without any regard for the talk page discussion about it. In this discussion, one of these editors explained why he considered it acceptable to edit war to restore the removals even though it was clear that consensus opposed him. As discussed here, when some of the editors restoring the removals were openly disregarding the talk page consensus, it seemed that the only way consensus could be upheld was with a huge multi-party edit war. (What happened instead was that the article was locked for three days.)
- Grayfell is one of the editors responsible for this situation. As I described in my comment here, he has been one of the editors restoring these removals while refusing to participate in the talk page, when it was clear that a majority of editors on the talk page disagreed with him.
- If Wikipedia is going to have an article on this topic at all, there is a minimum standard of stability and decorum that ought to be upheld. That includes avoiding a situation where talk page discussion becomes irrelevant, leaving edit wars as the only possible way to resolve disputes. 2600:1004:B15A:4656:E1D4:7A87:DF8B:277D (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Admins, please note that Dlthewave's section blanking has continued while this report is open. He is being evasive about his reason for the removals, such as arguing that nobody has provided a source showing the section is relevant to the article's topic, after I had provided five such sources in this discussion. 2600:1004:B12D:741A:C15B:1789:8738:CD03 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Jweiss11
There's been a long history of contentious editing at the "Race and intelligence" article because of fundamentally conflicting viewpoints on the subject. And I wouldn't expect the conflict around this article to cease anytime soon, provided it survives deletion. Dlthewave's efforts to either delete the article outright or gut it of well-sourced substantive content so that it has no reason to stand alone have been stalemated more or less by Peregrine Fisher and others, so he's turned here to eliminate a key opponent, so that his view can prevail. That's what this report is about. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Grayfell
Race and intelligence is a broken article which fails to summarize even its own sources. The AFD shows that the community wants it to change dramatically. Every single edit spawns interminable discussion, and the end result is that nothing can change. It's impossible not to see Peregrine Fisher's overall behavior as tactical.
Peregrine Fisher uses superficially neutral language to request other people's attention, or he asks leading questions when the answer is obvious. As a few of examples, we have [41], [42], [43], and plenty more available. Judging by his user page, he seems to take pride in being antagonistic and lacking self-reflection. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- A discussion required restriction would make it even harder for anyone to improve this topic. The AFD showed that outside editors recognize the serious problems with our coverage of these topics, while a handful of WP:SPAs have congregated to defend the status quo. The talk page is already filled with wikilawyering and tedious rehashing of old issues. Forcing editors to discuss every change would drive away good-faith participation, and would be a tacit endorsement of the current state of the article.
- Comparing Donald Trump to Race and intelligence is a mistake. The Trump article is a BLP, it has many new sources coming out every day, hundreds of times more page views, and hundreds more active editors. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
To my reading, Peregrine Fisher is adding material that is basically WP:SYN, in support of a fringe (and racist) idea. A topic ban would be a good idea. A better idea would be to nuke the entire article from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Guy (help!) 21:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
@In actu: If the goal is to improve the stability of the article, then topic banning Peregrine Fisher but not Dlthewave won’t accomplish that. Instead of topic bans, I would suggest a new restriction to be applied to the article: that significant changes should not be made to a stable version of the article without first achieving consensus on the talk. The Donald Trump article is currently under a similar restriction that appears to have been helpful.
24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.
I suggest that something along the same lines should be applied to the R&I article. - Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Mr rnddude
This is evidently a tactical attempt to remove opposition from the topic area. This is not the first time that Dlthewave has attempted this either, they have done the same thing to editors who hold an opposing viewpoint on "gun rights". Specifically, the incident that comes to mind is this which led to a sort of boomerang sanctioning of Dlthewave resulting in a userpage being deleted for polemics, as well as a warning to all parties involved.
For this specific incident, the article history shows three editors removing material (Dlthewave, Grey fell, and Horse Eye Jack) and another three editors reinstating those removals (Peregrine Fisher, Pudeo and AndrewNguyen). This is a multi-party editwar. I think Ferahgo's solution may be useful in that it addresses the underlying conduct issue which is edit-warring, and not opinion-having.
In actu - It's unclear to me what PF's !vote on a RfB has to do with their editing in this topic area (and yes, I am aware that PF is referring to the AfD for the article "Race and Intelligence"). There are several others opposing the RfB for the same reason, including one specifically citing PF's rationale as a reason to oppose. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Dlthewave has left a message on my talk page indicating that the warning administered to Dlthewave, and also Springee, was rescinded by Sandstein.12 Mr rnddude (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
I've taken a long break from that article and entire topic area, after watchdogging it for a while for trolls and vandalism and PoV pushing and such. Though a techie and civil liberties activist by profession for most of my working life (kind of by accident, really), I'm a cultural anthropologist by most of my educational background, and am in particular a critic of IQ tests and similar artifices as culturally biased. I'm more than well aware that "our" (especially everyday Americans' and to a slightly lesser extent Europeans') ideas of "race" are a social construct that don't align with genetic reality; I wrote WP:Race and ethnicity. So, I'm obviously not going to come at this from a "Let's suggest, or by shitty writing allow the reader to infer, that race X is more intelligent than racy Y" angle.
Yet I have to generally agree with Jweiss11 and Mr_rnddude. There's obviously an attempt here to gut any attempts to have WP cover the topic at all, and this AE is part of a strategy of opposition-elimination. This is an "unclean hands" AE report. If anything, I would reverse the T-ban suggestion, or at bare minimum have it cover both parties, if we were really going to T-ban land. I can agree with the generalized concern (not methods) of Dlthewave that we have a bit of a "he said, she said" article structure problem that is leading to a WP:WEIGHT issue, but that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The ongoing "censor this article at all costs" multi-pronged approach to trying to delete nearly all of it without consensus from within, while trying to delete the page itself (with an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE, no less – and never mind that we have another article, at History of the race and intelligence controversy that covers the same stuff (with a viewpoint divergence and some missing information but some additional information, and presumably would be the next target) is just not how we do things. WP has an actual responsibility to cover this topic, and to do it well. That the article is not yet doing it as well as we'd like does not mean "Hide the topic! Hide it now!" I means do it better. If that means banning people who insert racist bullshit, so be it. If that means banning people who cite predatory journals and far-right "news" and century-old pseudo-science as so-called sources, so be it. If that means banning people who intentionally skew things in an undue manner using reasonable sources manipulatively, so be it. But it does not mean banning people who revert mass-deletion of properly sourced content when all that is actually needed is some DUE massaging to put the material into perspective. Even getting to where the article is now has been a long and nearly constant consensus struggle, and we're not done yet by a long shot.
Honestly, I would prefer it if neither of these editors were T-banned, but just put on notice to dial it down and to stop revert-warring. I think the behavioral issues on both sides are remediable. Do not make massive changes to the article without consensus. But do not stonewall incremental improvements. If you want to add something, the onus is on you to source it properly and without OR (and to drop the stick if you can't do the real work). If you want to remove something, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the sourcing is inadequate or being misused (and to try to fix that before just nuking it, especially if it's just a DUE matter that has to do with wording, focus, attribution, position in the article, relation to other sources, etc.) Most of all – this is really obvious, folks – focus on fixing the overall UNDUE problem of giving equal "A says X, B says Y" time, and also on merging the content fork (possibly even PoV fork) at the "History of..." article. We absolutely do not need that as a separate page, and having it be one just doubles the difficulty of policing this topic area for PoV warring. PS: No, a literature review, especially a systematic review, in a reputable journal is not a primary source. If someone doesn't already understand that, they are not yet competent to be editing in a controversial science topic.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
PPS: Ferhago's idea could be workable, if it really comes to that. Maybe it has. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by K.e.coffman
The issue at hand is not a particular content dispute, but a pattern of tendentious editing by Peregrine Fisher (PF for short). This includes treating Wikipedia as a battleground and an us vs them mentality. Here's a response to me, for example: "Coffman spoke the truth for you guys. There are no policy reasons to remove a secondary source, but you don't like the authors."[44]. (This statement also shows apparent confusion about the WP:UNDUE policy).
Here are more examples from PF's Talk page: "To put it bluntly, we probably need some edit warring to take to AE." [45], and "that's basically saying 'fine, we'll let the 4 win, then see if they will discuss things reasonably'. They wont."[46]. It's worth noting that these two diffs are taken from a discussion with the dynamic IP who is commenting above; in one such post, the IP offers his assistance to PF and notes that he's helped another editor to file an AE report pertaining to Grayfell: [47]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Paul Siebert
I am not an expert in this topic, so I've just analyze a couple of randomly picked arguments. First, I analyzed the edits made on 23th of February. This revert restored the text removed under an od pretext ( rm off topic section, see talk page discussion): how can the section "Global variation of IQ scores" be irrelevant to the "Race and Intelligence" topic? The removed section is focused mostly on a comparison of IQ in sub-Sacharian Africa and Western countries, so it hard to see why it is "off-topic". Furthermore, the section was properly sourced, and the sources are of a very good quality. A couple "citation needed" tags are actually not needed, because the tagged sentences provide a brief summary of the subsequent text, which is properly sourced. Therefore, irrespective to the arguments presented on the article's talk page, restoration of the removed text was per se not a violation of our policy.
Second, I agree with Pudeo that dlthewave's vision of what primary sources are contradicts to our policy and guidelines. Our policy clearly says that peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. The sources that provide author's own thinking based on primary sources are secondary sources. An exceptions are editorial and op-ed materials published in newspapers or magazines. They are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact
. However, the same cannot be said about articles published in specialized peer-reviewed journals. It seems dlthewave's accusations are based, at least partially, on their own (incorrect) understanding of our sourcing policy. Thus, contrary to what dlthewave says, the Peregrine Fisher's statement: Peer reviewed journals are our gold standard. What's one awesome way to know if an opinion is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? When it's published in a peer reviewed journal
directly follows from what WP:SOURCES say. I didn't go into details of that conflict, but a possibility cannot be ruled out that that poor understanding of the sourcing policy by dlthewave could be one of the reasons of that conflict.
Third. I frequently see that many edit wars are the result of usage of poor sources by one party, or by an opposition to inclusion of good sources by another party. In connection to that, I am puzzled by the fact that admins are too reluctantly applying sourcing restrictions similar to the ones proposed by Barkeep49. In my opinion, that is the first thing that should be done when a conflict starts in a serious topic where many good quality reliable sources are available, and "Race and Intelligence" belongs to that category. Indeed, if we prohibit usage of non-peer-reviewed journals, obscure newspapers, or popular magazines, the "Race and Intelligence" article will only benefit from that. In my opinion, that step alone will be sufficient to stop the conflict.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Whereas Mankind Quarterly looks more reliable than an average newspaper, it is by no means a good peer-reviewed journal. Its impact factor is very low, an average article is being cited very rarely by others. Therefore, if materials from better peer-reviewed journals contradict to what MQ says, the latter can be easily rejected.
- Obviously, peer-reviewed journals is a very unhomogeneous set of sources, reliability of articles published in, e.g. Nature and e.g. Mankind Quarterly is just incomparable. However, the same can be said about any other category of sources (for example, newspapers). What makes peer-reviewed journals different is the mechanism of cross-references: you can always see how widely some article is being cited by peers, and if the citations contains criticism or support. That provides you with a tool to evaluate credibility and reliability of what peer-reviewed journals say. Journal ranking by impact factor is also a useful criterion. Although not a universal one, it is definitely better than nothing.
- And, by the way, our guidelines always addressed the predatory journals issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Guettarda
It's been 7 years since I touched that page or its talk page, so I wouldn't really consider myself involved, but it's probably better for me to post here. Looking at that page, I've noticed that almost all the sources are from 2010 or earlier (probably because the page still mostly reflects Professor marginalia's massive re-write. This pre-dates massive developments in genetics, and the replication crisis in psychology.
I feel like a simple solution would be to impose a MEDRS-type standard for sourcing in this article. Purely historical information could be sourced by older material, but scientific content should be based on recent sources, preferably systematic reviews. That would eliminate a lot of the back-and-forth and the desire of editors to add their own interpretations to sources that are now decades old. While it's impractical to require a total re-write of what's there, we could impose a requirement on new additions. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
I do not think WP:MEDRS applies automatically to the page because the subject does not belong to medicine. However, making MEDRS-type sourcing restrictions, specifically for this page, is entirely within the discretion by the admins. Personally, I think it would be a bad idea, precisely because human races have been considered a "social construct" in many sources and the discourse here resulted in letters by scientists sent to NYT, discussions in popular science and journalistic sources, etc., all of which should be included if we want to have a complete coverage and comply with WP:NPOV.
As about user Peregrine Fisher, some of their comments are clearly not good, however I do not think they rise to the level of a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Springee
I am not involved with this topic and I don't recall interacting with PF but I have interacted with other editors here. This looks like a case where both sides are being problematic. I read this as PF is getting frustrated with editors who are trying to change long standing material without following BRD. Take this section blanking by Dlthewave earlier today [[48]]. Look at the history of the interaction. Dlthewave blanks the section here (26 Feb) [[49]]. PF restores (next edit) and starts a discussion [[50]]. Horse Eye Jack immediately reverts the restore. I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably claim that talk page consensus was established for that restoration. Several days later Jweiss11 restores the content to the previous stable state (2 March) [[51]]. This looks like a reasonable NOCON restoration. The discussion certainly has not resulted in a new consensus. Dlthewave places several tags in the newly restored section the decides to redeletes the whole thing [[52]] a few hours later. As part of this they also left a questionable warning on Jweiss11's talk page [[53]].
I absolutely see how an editor would be frustrated with interactions like this. Dlthewave's preferred version of the article may be correct but that doesn't mean they can ignore BRD and NOCON to in the face of opposition. Dlthewave may legitimately feel that PF's comments are problematic and may not mean this report to be a way to strategically remove someone who is opposing their desired changes. Regardless the optics are there and the effect would be the same. Dlthewave's second removal of long standing material in absence of consensus makes all editor interactions here worse, not better.
What's the solution? I'm not sure but it isn't to punish PF for their bad behavior and ignore the bad behavior of others. I'm not sure that PF's comments should warrant anything more than a warning to avoid personalizing, don't ascribe motives to others etc. Basically focus on content. They should not face a topic ban. Dlthewave, and others, needs to remember that CONSENSUS is policy. If they can't get consensus to make a change then they need to accept it and move on. Based on what I'm seeing as an outsider to this article, I think a consensus required structure for changes is needed here. I wouldn't want to see topic bans start first since I think both sides have legitimate complaints in the form of content policies (DUE, RS etc), how editors are making changes (following or ignoring BRD, NOCON) and to a lesser extent CIVIL/editor interaction issues that seem to have resulted from people ignoring BRD, NOCON etc. Springee (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Result concerning Peregrine Fisher
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- It is increasingly hard to muster up the energy to wade into this mess when I don't know if the article in question will be gone tomorrow. I will say that no one involved here looks great, right now. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Is there any appetite to topic ban Peregrine Fisher? I was on the fence, but this is a fairly obvious pointer that PF needs a vacation from the topic area. There is an argument for a topic ban for Dlthewave as well, but I have seen less evidence in this thread --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting idea Ferahgo the Assassin. I would be amenable to something like that. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Mr rnddude: It looks like classic battlefield conduct to me --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I wonder if a version of MEDRS for this area (and potentially other fringe areas) would be better suited for a RFC. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting idea Ferahgo the Assassin. I would be amenable to something like that. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I have an appetite, I'd definitely topic ban Peregrine Fisher. Bishonen | tålk 11:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC).
- The AfD 4th nomination has been re-closed as keep. I have not yet full examined this AE discussion in full so no comment on the two editors under discussion at this moment. However, in really thinking through the discussion I had been preparing to implement
Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.
as an individual arbitration enforcement action. I think such a restriction could be useful and could work in conjunction with a 24 Hour BRD cycle restriction. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have now read more into this request. In thinking about the 24 Hour BRD cycle more, I am opposed to such a sanction in this case. The AfD discussion made clear, both from those who supported keeping the articles and loudly from those who wished to see it deleted, that the content is troubling and needed changing. We should not be putting up barriers that make it harder to disrupt a status quo that has been identified as troubling by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having watched this article for years I have to agree with Barkeep, a 24 hour BRD sanction wouldn't work. The idea about high quality sources sounds good but I can see problems with that. Is Mankind Quarterly the sort of source we want used? Our article describes it as "a peer-reviewed academic journal that has been described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal", an "infamous racist journal", and "scientific racism's keepers of the flame". I've left out the sources, if people want to see them they are there in the lead. I'd argue that peer-reviewed isn't always enough, and I don't want to get started on predatory journals. However, if this doesn't seem a problem or can somehow be avoided. I'd agree to it. Otherwise I'm with Guerillero. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mm, the diff provided by Guerillero above is problematic; PF seems to be unaware that POVFORK is a completely valid reason for deletion, but then appears to assume that deletion of an article via policy violates NOTCENSORED, which is clearly nonsense. Since I assume that PF is clearly not dim enough to believe that, that comment is being made deliberately and to make a point. I'm with Guerillero and co. here. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just a side question in this intricate, involved discussion about reliable sources: Peregrine Fisher, you say in your statement, "But a lot of editors feel in their gut that this article is evil." Do you feel that the Wikipedia article on this subject is evil? I don't even know how to adjudicate a dispute with an editor who thinks of any content in an encyclopedic articles as something "evil" or would put it in those terms. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dey subrata
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Dey subrata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dey subrata (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Blocked for violation of WP:NOTVANDAL at this ANI discussion
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
I am the one who posted this, so notification was not necessary. El_C 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Dey subrata
Hello dear admin, to my understanding I have been blocked for addressing a user of disruptive edits as "vandalism" which was not the case per WP:NOTVANDAL. What I understood from the policies is that, edit war is not vandalsim and removal of materials from an article with misleading edit summary is disruptive edits but not vandalism. For multiple instances of removal of same thing from the article made me warned him but I've added an extra phrase of "is a vandalism", which I should not have done as per policies. I've also gone through WP:VANDTYPES, and understood what can be called as vandalism. I have read them very carefully and understood what type and when an edit can be called as vandalism. I have also gone through WP:GF and understood its policies and most importantly how to demonstrate good faith and dealing with bad faith and to avoid accusing other user of bad faith without clear evidence. I have also read the WP:DE policies along with the WP:GF to better understand disruptive edits and assume good faiths. Along with these important policies I have even taken time to go through the important guidelines of WP:LGL and WP:EQ to understand and enrich my editing behaviour and to avoid conflicts infuture. I apologies for my mistake out of misunderstanding of a VANDTYPE policy. I hope my block can now be revoked and I can assure you a fair and justified approach from my side, I will not make any mistake by tagging any disruptive edits as vandalism in future. Dey subrata (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
It took a while to get a response that introspective from Dey subrata. No objection to an unblock, though I'll deffer to the judgment of my peers rather than do so myself, at this time. El_C 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Aman.kumar.goel, I think you're being unduly harsh here. El_C 00:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Aman Kumar Goel
"I have been blocked for addressing a user of disruptive edits as "vandalism"
"
So now after failing to prove my edits as vandalism per 2 rejected unblock requests by Dey Subrata which he attempted to remove, he is now trying to misrepresent my edits as "disruptive edits" even after getting warned on ANI by Black Kite that "continue to confuse "disruptive editing" with "edits I don't agree with", I will block them
", and now we are here. I don't see encyclopedia will benefit from this editor given the total inability to understand any problems. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 00:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dey subrata
Statement by DBigXray
I had commented about the ANI thread of this case. And I have collaborated with Dey, on a few articles. Based on their appeal, I think they have understood the problem. I support an unblock, since the block has served its purpose.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Dey subrata
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Small note: I have not personally interacted with Subrata or El_C (w.r.t. sanctions on Subrata), whereas I've made edits to the article in a non-administrative capacity. If any administrator feels my comment should be in the section above (due to INVOLVED), feel free to move it without any need to inform me. I am of the opinion that the block was OK, the unblock requests reflect why the block was good imo (the original block could have been shorter) and the editor in question also asked DBX to proxy-edit for them (but I think that's with good intentions), probably unaware of policies, still another reason this was a good block. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm uninvolved in the latest issue, although I'm not going to suggest a decision anyway. However this may be relevant; an ANI thread from December 2019 highlighting Dey subrata previously misusing talkpage warnings, for which I warned them on their talkpage here. Further, the editor's reply to me in the latter link (" I will assume to be not bothered any more"), and in the ANI thread ("Be careful while playing victim card") suggest a certain intractability on such issues. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- The 72-hour block is extremely reasonable given the noise that I saw on ANI. I have looked at the most recent ANI again and the issues are more than inappropriately calling good-faith edits vandalism. For example, this revert had edit summary "Misleading edit summary and editwar" when the reverted edit had summary "Per clear consensus on Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Removing_Kapil_Mishra_photo" (which might be totally wrong, I don't know, but is the opposite of misleading) and where there was no recent apparent edit warring, and certainly none previously by the editor who was reverted. The short block is very reasonable given the inappropriate claims of vandalism etc. in an area under discretionary sanctions and this page should not be used to micro-manage such an outcome. Dey subrata should wait for the block to expire. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- The block seems reasonable to me --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray
Declined with prejudice. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:10, 2 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 DBigXray
On February, he had been already through a very lengthy ANI for same harassment and obtuse attitude,[56] and has been also warned recently for battleground mentality on his talk page that a topic ban from Indian subjects will be enforced if battleground mentality continued.[57] Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 00:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DBigXrayStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DBigXray
Since the day the article North East Delhi riots was started, I have been subjected to a concerted harassment campaign, that I believe is being managed off wiki using social media groups. These people have a common trait that they have a clear Pro-Right wing bias, and they consider anything not aligned with Pro-Right wing as biased and something that needs fixing. Of late I have been on receiving end of harassment that includes sending abusive, derogatory, disparaging comments/emails some of which also included death threats. I had to get my talk page locked and emails disabled. Other editors who are more familiar with WP:WIKILAWYERING have tried filing frivolous cases such as one on WP:COI and now this WP:AE. I hope some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is handed down to the filers of this case for harassing me and wasting everyone's time. Lepricavark, has been extremely prejudiced against me (based on his comments attacking me in past 2 week), and I have been avoiding any interaction with them and ignoring them. But my ignoring them, is not stopping them from repeatedly pinging me and trying to get involved in discussion threads I am active on.
Statement by LepricavarkI was part of the ANI thread mentioned above, and I think
Statement by Kautilya3DBigXray has been doing the lion's share of the work in handling requests, complaints etc. at Talk:North East Delhi riots, which has turned out to be a highly sensitive topic. As I was tied up with RL work throughout last week, I had admired from the sidelines the diligence and patience with which he dealt with all the discussions. I don't see the kind of substained misconduct that requires AE intervention. There are some content issues on which DBX might have gone overboard in giving warning messages. That is about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Spasiba5I wonder why I was pinged. Anyway, at this link Talk:North East Delhi riots#Islamophobia as a cause for riots, we can see he has cited references which do not mention Islamophobia (it was he who cited them). Here he removed what precipitated the riots. Here he reverted me by re-inserting a snapshot of Kapil Mishra, but in his edit summary, he wrote, "Expanding article", probably to circumvent the 1RR rule (he had already re-inserted that image, see here). As Lepricavark says, DBigXray has indulged in a lot of "Original Research" - for example, this, which Lepricavark reverted. He keeps adding the words, "most of who were Muslims". This is another edit for the same. At this link Talk:North East Delhi riots#Ishrat Jahan arrest, we can see that he doesn't want Ishrat Jahan's arrest to be mentioned, so I replied that then even Kapil Mishra should not be mentioned in the article (Ishrat is a Muslim)!—Spasiba5 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Result concerning DBigXray
|
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 [63] major change to a BLP without explaining it or discussing it on talk page. Large parts of that material had already been challenged before this incident on talk (alternatively see also one exemplary diff).
- 17:56, 23 February 2020 regards the same material as above. Again fully reinstated a challenged [64] [65] major change to a BLP without explaining it or discussing it on talk page.
The user's edit history on the talk page [66] shows that he never discussed the material which I challenged before or after I reverted it on 02:39, 22 February 2020. I gave detailed explanations about my objections (diff) to that material before and after I reverted it and I notified [67] user ContentEditman about his problematic edits and asked him to self-revert [68], but to no avail. Xenagoras (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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 [69].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
User ContentEditman twice falsely accused me of edit warring [70] [71] and requested me to use the talk page (which I always do [72]) 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 [73] 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 [74] [75] material as described above and ignoring my objections (diff) to it (see above and [76] and [77]). Xenagoras (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Black Kite, regarding your remark [78] 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 [79], [80], [81]. 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)
- 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
Statement by Levivich (2)
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)
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.[82][83][84][85][86][87]
Curiously, Xenagoras accuses me of ignoring his objections (posted a few hours ago while I was sleeping!).[88] 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.[89]
I will have more to add a bit later. - MrX 🖋 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
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. ContentEditman (talk) 17:55, 2 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)
- 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)