Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

1. 29 February: Participates in a new ANI thread by deflecting from the concerns raised about an editor editing similar subjects.
2. 29 February: Posts a lengthy misleading reply on the above ANI thread which still didn't concerned him and even after the thread was closed. See WP:BATTLE, WP:STICK. Falsely claims in the thread that "there was no clear consensus to remove" pictures, even though there was clear consensus to remove the pictures per the section at that time and so far only DbigXray and Dey Subrata disagree with removal.
3. 29 February: Adds WP:OR on main article and misrepresents source by claiming "most of whom were Muslims" and links to this website even though source makes no mention of "muslims". Failed to recognize this misrepresentation of source even when it was discussed on talk page per this section and clearly mentioned to him by other users.[1] See WP:IDHT and WP:CIR.
4. 29 February: Leaves a 3RR warning on a user's talk page who made only 1 revert. See WP:BATTLE.
5. 29 February: Leaves a 3RR warning on a user's talk page who never made single revert on this article. See WP:BATTLE.
6. 1 March: restores pictures of 2 politicians by providing a misleading summary and also going against nearly unanimous agreement held on on talk page to remove both pictures.

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

[2]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On February, he had been already through a very lengthy ANI for same harassment and obtuse attitude,[3] 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.[4] Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 00:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:DBigXray#AE notice

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.

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

Guardian

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

CBS News

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

Time

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

Firstpost

Of the deceased, 15 were Muslims and 10 were Hindus

Wire

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

• [Diff 4 and 5] The article on riot was placed on 1RR DS on 29 Feb. After which the editors reverting this article were alerted with the std Template:uw-3rr. (There isn't a special 1RR template) So I added a line at the end informing User My Lord about 1RR Who had already made [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], 5 reverts of edits by other editors, on a page with 1RR, and all of these reverts were controversial and were being discussed on the talk page.
• [diff 6] There is no "unanimous agreement" or "clear consensus" on those threads to remove the picture, yet My_Lord removed them saying so in edit summary. so the image was restored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reply to El C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

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

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

QEDK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[10]

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

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

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Dey subrata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dey subrata (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Blocked for violation of WP:NOTVANDAL at this ANI discussion

Administrator imposing the sanction

El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Please review [11] 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)[reply]

I was already in the process of writing an essay changing my view on keeping articles about certain Internet celebrities including Kulinski when User:EllenCT inappropriately asked me whether my proposal to delete Draft:Kyle Kulinski was politically motivated. It was not, and her question constituted casting aspersions, which is what I thought was uncivil on her part. I am not striking or cancelling any of my comments. I thought that it was obvious that my references to using weapons on a Wikipedia page, which is not a person even if it is a biography of a living person, were metaphorical, and some of the other editors agreed, one of them referring to killing a vampire. Regular editors at MFD know that I sometimes refer to pages as zombie pages that need killing with silver bullets. User:EllenCT should know the difference between a living person, who has rights under the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other laws, and a biography of a living person, to which Wikipedia applies certain rules because it describes (but is not) a living person with rights. She should know that if I actually meant to use weapons on an electronic page I would be involved in a category error. I am changing my position on the MFD, but am not striking anything because I did not write anything uncivil, only sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I consider this matter resolved and no longer in need of review.

Resolved

EllenCT (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. 22:12, 2 March 2020 BullRangifer boldly adds quotation from opinion article to Julian Assange.
2. 12:17, 3 March 2020 I challenge BullRangifer's addition of the quotation by reverting it.
3. 13:19, 3 March 2020 Calton reverts to restore BullRangifer's addition. This is a violation of the "consensus required" arbitration remedy at Julian Assange.

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)

• Warned in July 2019 of discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBAPDS): 12:39, 18 July 2019
• After Calton's revert, I informed them on their talk page of discretionary sanctions at Julian Assange and asked them to self-revert: 14:07, 3 March 2020.
• Darouet also pinged Calton at Talk:Julian_Assange, reminding Calton that the revert was a violation of the "consensus required" arbitration remedy: 15:42, 3 March 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

@Objective3000: The admins are free to close with no action if they see fit, but this case is a straightforward violation of discretionary sanctions. I think at the very least, a warning to Calton to abide by the consensus rule would be warranted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

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.

I 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)[reply]

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 [[13]] by Guerillero. It appears that they did not take the warning to heart. Springee (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I blocked Calton for 72 hours and am closing this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Guerillero: This report does not indicate that the formal awareness criteria have been satisfied nor can I find any evidence that they have, via past sanction, AE alert message within the past 12 months, or participation in a relevant AE or Arbitration case within the past 12 months. As you should well know these types of handwritten messages do not satisfy the awareness criteria. Imposing an illegitimate AE block would be a fairly serious abuse of your administrator permissions and this needs to be accounted for ASAP. Please either substantiate where you see the awareness criteria being met, or undo the block ASAP. If you cannot do so I will overturn your block myself. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• My bad, the 24 hour December 2017 block was under AP and was not overturned. We're good here. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's where I am getting my awareness from --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jweiss11 (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

1. 20:52, 14 February 2020 Talk page: "I support Peregrine Fisher's restoration of this content. dlthewave, it's not off topic, as it's talking about "patterns of difference between continental populations similar to those associated with race". There are clearly meaningful differences in racial/ethnic composition between many of the world's nations." ("Patterns..." passage from the article is unsourced, "clearly meaningful differences" claim is unsupported, this is not a valid argument for inclusion)
2. 21:04, 14 February 2020 Disputed content restored: "I've given a valid reason to keep on the talk page" (Referring to invalid rationale given in Diff #1)
3. 21:04, 14 February 2020 (Again citing unsourced "patterns ..." passage)
4. 22:45, 14 February 2020 Citing common sense as a reason to restore unsourced content
5. 19:58, 1 March 2020 Restored disputed section with no explanation
6. 21:07, 1 March 2020 Citing BLUESKY essay after being asked by multiple editors to provide sources
7. 22:44, 1 March 2020 Accusation of hostility/disruption after being pressed to provide a source. (I had left a warning on JW's talk page after he restored the unsourced "patterns ..." sentence)
8. 20:21, 3 March 2020 Again citing BLUESKY after another editor pointed out that the content is not BLUESKY
9. 20:31, 3 March 2020 Yet another BLUESKY claim
10. 20:46, 3 March 2020 Pointing out that other editors have not refuted the disputed/unsourced content. (The burden is on editors wishing to include the content to provide sources, not on others to refute it)

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: [14]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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 "A number of studies have compared average IQ scores between the world's nations, finding patterns of difference between continental populations similar to those associated with race." In response to editors who raised legitimate content concerns, JWeiss11 (JW) has repeatedly used this sentence to justify the inclusion of the entire section. When asked to provide a source to support it, he first cited "common sense" before moving on to "WP:BLUESKY" and then doubling down on BLUESKY when challenged. More recently, his accusation of hostility and demand that other editors refute the disputed content has moved toward incivility territory. Not once has JW provided a valid reason for restoring this disputed content, nor has he engaged with the concerns raised by other editors or discussed ways to improve/rewrite the section. These comments have a superficial resemblance to participating in the consensus-building process, but on closer examination it becomes clear that they are counterproductive and amount to filibustering. - Dlthewave (4 March)

• Permalinks to relevant discussions can be found here and here. I didn't summarize the dispute because I felt the issue of restoring content based on BLUESKY was a conduct issue that stood on its own, regardless of what the consensus version happened to be. Edit warring or editing against consensus was not the issue I was trying to highlight; repeatedly citing variations of BLUESKY on the talk page instead of engaging the legitimate concerns of other editors would have been disruptive even if JW had never edited the article.

Barkeep49, perhaps dispute resolution would have been a better option, but after JW restored the content a second time with no valid explanation and accused me of hostility instead of providing sources I wasn't optimistic that he would come forward with any coherent rationale that could be discussed.

There is a disregard for the WP:BURDEN policy at play here: JW seems to be under the impression that restoring content that included a "Citation Needed" tag was acceptable because it had originally been written by another editor, when in reality the policy states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Diff #10 shows that he actually expected other editors to disprove the content which he wanted to reinstate.

It should also be noted that diffs #8 and #9, which essentially argue that no source is needed, are dated after the MEDRS-style sourcing requirement was placed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

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.=

This 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dlthewave claims that the section is undue and poorly sourced in his statement. This claim does not hold water. The disputed section is sourced with:

• Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.
• Wicherts, Jelte M; Borsboom, Denny; Dolan, Conor V (2010). "Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence". Personality and Individual Differences. 48 (2): 91–6. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.028.

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)[reply]

These 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@El C: I'll re-post the diffs that I posted in my statement in Dlthewave's previous report, so that the history of this dispute is easier to follow. The following are Dlthewave's major removals from this article:

• February 8: [16]
• February 8: [17]
• February 9: [18]
• February 12: [19] (section blanking)
• February 15: [20] (section blanking)
• February 15: [21] (section blanking)
• February 15: [22] (section blanking)
• February 24: [23]
• February 25: [24] (section blanking)
• February 26: [25] (section blanking)
• March 2: [26] (section blanking)
• March 4: [27] (section blanking)

Note that this has included blanking three sections of the race and intelligence article, "Spearman's hypothesis" and and "Policy relevance and ethics" in addition to "Global variation in IQ scores". These removals have been opposed by several other editors besides Peregrine Fisher and Jweiss11. Based on his pattern of reports here, my concern is that Dlthewave might be intending to use AE to pick off his opponents one by one. 2600:1004:B101:7AD0:40CB:6C80:E343:A94A (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Without 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)[reply]

@Barkeep49: while I agree that the edit-warring between both of them is a problem, the far bigger issue here is Jweiss11's insistence that they don't have to provide supporting citations for contentious claims. You can work your way through disputes when the disagreement is about how to weigh sourcing. It's a real problem when an editor declares themselves immune from our sourcing requirements. Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: - repinging, because my prior attempt failed. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Makes sense. Thanks. That's not how I read your comment before. Guettarda (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There'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)[reply]

There 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)[reply]

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

• Warn for edit warring and refer to dispute resolution. Per MaximumIdeas, it is not clear what constitutes consensus from the report — removal or retention. I suggest a request for comment question ought to be constructed as: should <longstanding text version X> be changed into <non-longstanding text version Y>, with the longstanding text version being considered the status quo ante version (i.e. the version that should be displayed while the dispute remains unresolved). El_C 21:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IP, sorry, I'm unfamiliar with that previous AE report. Perhaps that's the reason why the dispute isn't depicted in a particularly cogent way — it's difficult to tell what's what. But it concerns me that the section restored has a {{cn}} template in its very opening sentence. El_C 23:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IP, noted. Thanks. I think maybe it's best that I wait for others more familiar with the dispute to opine on this latest request before I make up my mind. El_C 02:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing Dlthewave back here with another report is concerning. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 23:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barkeep49's solution sounds reasonable. I will say that that this whole knot of individuals needs to work together to find a consensus. I'm going to be rather cross if there is another thread here about this subject in less than 30 days. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This morning I left a formal warning to both Dlthewave and Jweiss over edit warring about this section. I would have hoped that the reaction would be to recommit to dispute resolution. Coming here instead, especially on the heels of the previous is not encouraging. Will have more comments later. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So after thinking this over some more and further reviewing the history, I still think I still feel a warning to both editors is most appropriate. I would support a second warning to Dlthewave cautioning that AE is not a substitute for achieving consensus when it comes to content disputes. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: Do I think Jweiss' behavior is less than ideal? Yes. Do I think Dlthewave's behavior is less than ideal? Also yes. Do I see signs that when talking with other editors, even about this topic, that each of them can be productive? Again yes. At some point would figuring out who is "more wrong" be helpful? Maybe but I don't think that point is now. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: after JW restored the content a second time with no valid explanation and accused me of hostility instead of providing sources you had two policy compliant options available to you. Formal dispute resolution - which in this case would likely have meant an RfC. Or you could have sought behavioral remedy. Actually there was a third option too - do nothing. Perhaps some other editor removes the content or that other editor is able to have a more productive conversation with Jweiss about the content. Continuing the conflict was not a longrun solution. And coming here, while not against policy, rather than trying an RfC in response to the warning shows for me the conflict driving your judgement. There are a lot of eyes on this article at the moment. Take advantage of those eyes by trying dispute resolution. Take heart in them knowing that the weight of fixing the article or even correcting Jweiss (to the extent that correction is needed) does not fall on your shoulders alone. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Edward Zigma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dev0745 (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/CASENAME#SECTION :

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

1. Date the discussion is already discussed in the talk page but still pushing it after many warning.
2. Date Slow spaced disruptivve editing trying to change the context of page.
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• 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 Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Xenagoras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ContentEditman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 03:02, 22 February 2020 fully reinstated a challenged [28] 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).
2. 17:56, 23 February 2020 regards the same material as above. Again fully reinstated a challenged [29] [30] major change to a BLP without explaining it or discussing it on talk page.

The user's edit history on the talk page [31] 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 [32] user ContentEditman about his problematic edits and asked him to self-revert [33], but to no avail. Xenagoras (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: et al.: in the meanwhile, ContentEditman and MrX have written about my objections to their material. ContentEditman wrote, "As I said before MrXs edits were well written and supported. You, Xenagoras, said it violated just about every rule at Wikipedia. When I asked you to explain what and how it violated you never responded with anything supporting your claims." [34] ContentEditman refers to his edit [35], which was his reply to my edit [36]. 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 [37]. Xenagoras (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months [38].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User ContentEditman twice falsely accused me of edit warring [39] [40] and requested me to use the talk page (which I always do [41]) 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 [42] 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 [43] [44] material as described above and ignoring my objections (diff) to it (see above and [45] and [46]). Xenagoras (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite , regarding your remark [47] 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 [48], [49], [50]. After my 1 Feb edit, MrX and me had a discussion about the material for the article lead. Then ContentEditman fully reinstated MrX' article version on 21:16, 1 February. After that I continued the discussion with MrX and ContentEditman, which resulted in me again adapting to objections on 13:44, 2 February. MrX followed with his adaptions on 14:21, 2 February. Xenagoras (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for the advice, Doug Weller. Xenagoras (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley , you wrote, "to prove a BRD violation you need to provide two diffs of ContentEditman adding/removing the same material twice without discussing on the talk page." [51] 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 [52]. 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 [53]).
• 22 February 02:04 Xenagoras talks.
• 22 February 02:17 MrX talks.
• 22 February 02:36 Xenagoras talks to MrX. (links to previous talk [54]).
• 22 February 02:39 Xenagoras reverts. (edit summary links [55] which links previous talk [56]).
• 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 [57])
• 23 February 16:51 Xenagoras re-re-reverts. (edit summary links [58] which links WP:RSN [59]).
• 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 [60] which links to there, and [61]). Other editors had objections as well. And he didn't explain or discuss my objections [62] 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." [63] 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." [64]
• 2 February 14:21 MrX partially re-restores his own changes.

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

@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)[reply]

Seraphimblade , after Zezen responded [65] 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 [66] 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 [67] and complaint 1 [68] and complaint 2 [69]. 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 [70]. 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 [71] 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 [72] to Awilley in the paragraph above. And I ask for fairness. I received a 31 hour block [73] 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 [74] 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)[reply]

El C , in my opinion, there are several problems with ContentEditman's response [75].

• 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 [76] [77] [78] [79]. See the Awilley paragraph above [80].
• 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)[reply]

@El C: et al.: per March 11, ContentEditman still has not responded to my objections, neither to the summary of my objections [81], nor to the detailed explanation [82] [83]. Everything he said so far was "MrXs edits were well written": [84] and "MrX' edits were well sourced" (plus some off-topic ramblings) [85]. ContentEditman clearly failed to WP:COMMUNICATE, which is not surprising because MrX encouraged [86] ContentEditman to continue to ignore my objections. I also find it unacceptable that he accused me of severe misconduct without evidence and that he accused me of editing in bad faith without evidence. Xenagoras (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: et al: MrX' response has several problems.

• MrX attempts to defend ContentEditman by writing [87] that "WP:BRD is an essay", thereby implying that this editing restriction is not required to be followed. This ignores the fact that an administrator defined the "24-hr BRD cycle" to be a discretionary sanction of the article and the article's talk page defines, "If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned." It is worrisome that MrX does not see discretionary sanctions on articles as required to follow.
• MrX writes [88], "Levivich's analysis lacks depth and insight. The Tulsi Gabbard article should..." One example of article WP:OWNERSHIP is, "the owner may patronize other editors, ... claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary."
• He rejects Levivich's rule proposal, "because it advantages drive-by reverting by users." WP:OWNERSHIP states, "work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited ... by anyone", also by editors who "drive-by".
• MrX writes, certain editors "are here for the sole purpose of promoting and maintaining a flattering image for a subject." This is casting aspersions against editors by accusing them without evidence of systematically and purposefully violating WP:NPOV. This also is MrX failing to assume good faith.
• He writes, Levivich's proposal would advantage "gaming by users." This is casting aspersions against editors by accusing them without evidence of WP:GAMING the system.
• He writes, he "strongly suspects ... 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." This is tendentious editing, because WP:POVFIGHTER states, "If you see it as your mission to protect article content from the POV overzealousness of liberals (or another political leaning) who don't care about Wikipedia policy, you are as POV as they are." MrX' accusations against "2-3 overzealous editors who likely work for Gabbard" is casting aspersions against editors by accusing them of being paid to write a "flattering image" into a BLP. And MrX also fails to assume good faith, because such paid editing would constitute an undeclared conflict of interest. Recently, MrX has used a different article's talk page to accuse [89] also other editors of being paid to promote a point of view by claiming, "A bunch of newly minted user accounts are using Wikipedia to astroturf." See astroturfing. Xenagoras (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

ContentEditman notification.

MrX also received a notification.

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[90][91][92][93][94][95]

Curiously, Xenagoras accuses me of ignoring his objections (posted a few hours ago while I was sleeping!).[96] 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.[97] - MrX 🖋 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

As noted above, ContentEditman made 12 posts on Talk. I addressed 9 which were vague generalities in support of MrX and/or misdirections and failures to address concerns. Of the remaining three posts by ContentEditman 1) one more mimics arguments made by MrX; 2) another was a vote on an RfC that mimics language in MrX's vote; and 3) the last was a statement in support of a revert for which Xenagoras has now requested explanation, noting that it violated WP:FEEDBACK. It also violates WP:PARTR and WP:BATHWATER and seemingly relies in part on WP:OR by two IPs, here and here. That's ALL 12 posts.

Re ContentEditman's edits, one is covered above and the other six do not introduce any new content but are for the sake of enforcing edits/reverts by MrX. Humanengr (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Sorry, but for whatever reason (which I can no longer recall, even), I have not followed up with this request. Other reviewing admins should proceed to conclude it as they see fit, absent my view. I highly doubt I will be able to catch up with the material here before this request is closed. El_C 15:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Levivich and El C: However, I think Levivich's timeline is misleading. He states that Mr.X "made a number of edits on January 31", but actually, much of that was a revert of material added by Xenagoras and Humanengr between 29 and 31 January. This flips the issue and makes Xenagoras' edit the re-instatement, which I'm guessing is exactly why they waited 25 hours from the 31 January edit before making it. As usual with AP, no-one looks great here, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It takes more than one to make an edit war, and here, I don't see a clear case of one against many. This appears to be a content dispute. We have ways to settle those if those involved can't come to agreement, but ideally, those ways should include neither "Engage in an edit war" nor "Drag someone to AE." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• I'm concerned about User talk:Xenagoras#Your spamming via WikiMedia Email. I note that Xenagoras did not reply. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• As usual there are no clean hands here. To prove a BRD violation you need to provide two diffs of ContentEditman adding/removing the same material twice without discussing on the talk page. The diffs provided by the OP only show instances of ContentEditman restoring edits made by others. Usually this kind of mistake is made because an older editor who has been in the topic area for a long time has conflated the "BRD" rule with the "Consensus required" rule. But that clearly can't be the case here, since User:Xenagoras is a new user who registered this account in August 2019, and AFAICT hasn't made any significant contributions that are separated more than 1 degree from the subject of Tulsi Gabbard.
  There is obviously an ongoing content dispute and a slow kind of edit war that includes a mix of outright reverts and partial reverts. I would warn ContentEditman about gaming 1RR since they made 3 reverts on 3 consecutive days. It also disturbs me that, digging into this diff, editors are trying to make political hay out of a home-schooled teenager endorsing the views of her activist parents (gasp!) while de-emphasizing the fact that she later rejected those views. ~Awilley (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• This needs dealing with before it gets even more stale. @El C, Seraphimblade, and Doug Weller: what do you think of Awilley's suggestion of a warning for ContentEditman? Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Awilley: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I support a strong warning. What I do not support and strongly think should be removed as a sanction is anything like consensus required, which can be to easily abused by pov and spa editors. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Thryduulf kindly pointed out that I left out the key word "not", which I've now added. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zarcademan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

1. 23:23, 4 March 2020 makes edit which is reverted
2. 23:32, 4 March 2020 makes same edit again

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. blocked 22 December 2019 with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
2. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Unless there are objections, I intend to close this request with a warning to Zarcademan123456 that 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. El_C 03:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Pectore (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

Communication is critical to an area under discretionary sanctions. Pectore has repeatedly removed content or reverted other editors with blank or inadequate edit-summaries, and neglected to explain their edit either immediately on the talk page or after it had been challenged. Recent examples include the following;

1. 28 February 2020; modifies contentious label, no edit summary
2. 28 February 2020 Deletes content, blank edit-summary
3. 29 February 2020, reverts the same content out using rollback, without an edit-summary.
4. 29 February 2020 Removes content added in good faith with the summary "rvv". For completeness, that edit was before the editor being reverted was blocked (and later unblocked) for sockpuppetry; [98].
5. 2 March 2020 Removes content adequately supported per WP:CITELEAD; no edit summary.
6. 5 March 2020 Reverts contentious infobox back into the article; no edit summary.
7. 7 March 2020 Reverts poorly sourced content back into the article; no edit summary.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not previously sanctioned.

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; Notified on 2 July 2019 by NinjaRobotPirate; notified again on 29 February 2020 by DBigXray.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pectore: Thanks for that statement, but I think you're missing the main point I am making; I'm not necessarily challenging your reasons for those reverts; I am saying that we have no way of knowing what those reasons are, and the removed content does not make it bloody obvious. You have also not addressed the last two edits, which were the most egregious, and which you still have not discussed with either Doug Weller or myself, despite being active elsewhere. Your desire to revert without explanation is doubly surprising given your articulate statement here; you're capable of explaining your reasons, but have not deigned to do so where it's necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pectore: That response is uttrely inadequate. You are obligated to explain every edit you make in a contentious area. Now you're not only suggesting you don't have to, but are accusing me of vandalism into the bargain? Your precise reasons for those reverts are also besides the point; the fact is you didn't provide those reasons where you should have, and still don't see that that was a problem. Talk page discussion is supposed to take place as a means of avoiding edit-warring, and you're arguing you didn't have to discuss anything until edit-warring has occurred. I'm going to leave this to uninvolved administrators now, but your approach needs recalibration. El C, take a look at this, if you would. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm a prolific editor, who has been editing Wikipedia on and off for over a decade with: multiple DYK's across South Asian topics under my belt, over 6,000 edits (on areas relating to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka), and have never been blocked. Now given the issues raised here, I definitely realize that I made some mistakes by not providing edit summaries, especially in controversial subjects and I also agree that I need to discuss more. I will be more careful in this subject area from now on and avoid repeating this kind of conduct.

Regarding the evidence provided by Vanamonde:

• 2&3 - Saffron Terror- The claims regarding edits on Saffron Terror (diffs 2 and 3) are very perplexing. I deleted content literally duplicated in the article. In a version I reverted Arif Qasmani was mentioned under the "incidents" header and under the "2007 Samjhauta Express bombings" sections.
• 4 - OpIndia - I had clearly discussed on the talk page after making edits, including with the requesting admin. [99] [100] whereas the user I had reverted did not engage until after reverting me twice. In fact I had written discussion posts on Talk:OpIndia 7 times in a 24 hour period and never came close to 3RR.
• 5 - Clear content dispute and violation of WP:BLP that I reverted.

That said, happy to use more edit summaries going forward as that appears to be the theme of this complaint. I generally hold myself to 1RR and am an active participant in many contentious talk pages, including ones mentioned above.Pectore^talk 04:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde - The point you are attempting to make is entirely unclear. Regarding diffs 1, 6, and 7, I fail to see what are "egregious" about them. They are merely pages on my watchlist where I perceived that the last edit was wrong. (1) appeared to be reverting a Pakistani nationalist editor, (6) was reverting what I perceived to be vandalism based on incorrect reading of the sources (of which consensus is against you), and (7) appeared to be a notable case as Ahmed Deedat is quite well known. On re-evaluating (7), I think the edit I made was incorrect as Doug noted in a later revert the link was dead. I reverted those pages once, if I reverted twice then I would have posted like I did on Talk:OpIndia. As I noted above I provide ample justification on talk pages such as Talk:OpIndia when I engage in multiple reverts.

To address your note around edits "which you still have not discussed"; I prefer to conclude this discussion before editing on those pages. I had previously been under the impression that talk pages are the place for discussion if multiple reverts are made (rather than edit summaries) and I've posted on all the talk pages where I engaged in multiple reverts. As mentioned happy to use more edit summaries going forward.Pectore^talk 17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I am confused which of Vanamonde's diffs you are referring to here at this point, number 6? If so, I just mentioned above what "I perceived to be vandalism" in the moment; not that the edit itself was vandalism. Regardless, I see why an edit summary was required there and on all edits on contentious pages.Pectore^talk 19:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde your response is a clear misrepresentation of my comments. Quotes like "happy to use more edit summaries going forward", "Regardless, I see why an edit summary was required there and on all edits on contentious pages", and "I made some mistakes by not providing edit summaries, especially in controversial subjects and I also agree that I need to discuss more" exemplify my view towards edit summaries and discussion on talk pages. Thanks.Pectore^talk 20:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, again. El_C 03:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck. Weighing the evidence in light of Pectore's substantive statement. El_C 04:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pectore, don't label good faith edits as vandalism — that is a personal attack. Please do better. Your revert was still unexplained, which you still need to account for. El_C 17:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Now in support of an IPA topic ban (not just Indian media), broadly construed, per Bishonen's evidence. El_C 01:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bishonen: yes, I agree — that is what I had in mind. Ditto for the request directly above, for that matter. El_C 15:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a software feature that automatically prompts for an edit summary when one inadvertently fails to include one. I suggest that Pectore agree to turn this on, as one aspect of resolving this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm amazed that Pectore has been getting away with ignoring the need for edit summaries for so long. They reverted a warning from Vanamonde about this issue on their page as early as 2018, with one of their few actual edit summaries: "Remove bad faith trolling". Quite remarkable if put against their supposedly recent discovery of the same issues raised here: "given the issues raised here, I definitely realize that I made some mistakes by not providing edit summaries, especially in controversial subjects". Belated, and belatedly civil. But OK, as long as they stick to it from now on (and consider NYBrad's suggestion), we're good(-ish) on that score. I'm more concerned about another matter: Pectore's systematic whitewashing of OpIndia,[101][102][103] which I find in itself deserving of a topic ban and/or a partial block from the article, especially when put together with this edit to Anti-Hindu sentiment, which re-inserts badly sourced text which had been removed by Doug Weller. I'm not really impressed by their defence above of diff 4, the OpIndia one ("I had clearly discussed on the talk page after making edits"). Yes, they wrote for instance, "Whether they have published "fake news" belongs in the reception section of the article."[104] Really? Their talkpage input is as tendentious as their article edits. Unless there are objections, I'm planning a partial block from OpIndia and its talkpage. No prejudice against a wider topic ban. I may propose one myself once I've read more deeply. Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, having read some more, I will also suggest a topic ban from Indian media, see the discussion of the user's OpIndia editing above. Here are some further tendentious media edits:

• 29 Feb: Misrepresentation of source, compare Vanamonde's reply.
• 2 March: This edit at The Wire (India), is quite egregious. "Alt left"? That's not a thing but a mere smear (not analogous to the alt right), see this article section. And it's certainly not supported by the source.
• Early March: Talk:OpIndia. Throughout the section "Observation regarding the Previous Note - This description is highly biased", Pectore attempts to posit an equivalence between OpIndia and Altnews.in as hating on each other with neither of them being accredited as fact checkers. Wrong, as AltNews.in is accredited as a fact-checker. Compare our well-sourced article Altnews.in.
• 4 March: This removal at Swarajya (magazine), repeated here on 7 March, is very concerning, as the source, AltNews.in, is accredited as a fact-checker per above. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• @Bishonen: Is a topic ban from Indian media adequate? El_C is now supporting an IPA topic ban and I think that would be cleaner and warranted given the evidence and Pectore's above (6) was reverting what I perceived to be vandalism based on incorrect reading of the sources. I support an IPA topic ban but am unclear about the time frame. It is often best to make it indefinite and remove it after six months if there is an adequate response in an appeal at that time. Is that the proposal? If so, I support it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I will support an IPA topic ban also, John; perhaps you're right that "Indian media" isn't enough. And yes, indefinite. I think it's important that sanctioned editors don't just go away and wait out, say, a six-month ban and then go on as before, having learned nothing. As usual, indefinite doesn't mean infinite; it means they must appeal, normally after no less than six months, and show in the appeal that they are able and willing to edit constructively going forward. One important way of showing that ability and willingness is editing helpfully in other areas during the ban. Do you agree, El C? Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I would also go for a IPA topic ban --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sotuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notification record

I am currently subject to a topic ban that was put in place on 20 February 2019 by User:Bishonen. After waiting for the prescribed time period (3 to 6 months), and performing the constructive edits that I said I would, I feel that it is a good time for the ban to be removed.

It is my wish that the committee take as much time as required to deliberate over this topic ban appeal. I am in no hurry and am thankful that this ban and surrounding conversation has tempered my spirit and forced me to be more patient and considerate of my fellow Wikipedia editors. Please advise as soon as you have news for me.

The background information is located at four main locations, listed below in roughly chronological order, with most recent at bottom.

Talk:Flood_geology

User_talk:Sotuman/Archive_1

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#Topic_ban_violation_by_Sotuman

User_talk:Sotuman/Archive_2

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive307#Block_appeal

Please see my current talk page

@Vanamonde93: You mentioned that you would like me to demonstrate that I understand "...what it was [I] did wrong, and why [I'm] unlikely to make the same mistake again". Please read on my talk page and advise further.

@JzG: You have read into what I wrote, which you are not welcome to do.

@El C: Fear is the opposite of good faith.

@RexxS: A person doesn't need to make a huge amount of edits to improve Wikipedia: see WP:Wikignome. Also I am SotuMAN, you can use the pronouns he, him, his. 'They' is a plural pronoun, and I'm just one person. Sotuman (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the evaluation of the appeal to uninvolved admins. Just a technicality: I have told Sotuman that it's not ArbCom that will review an AE request, as he apparently believes, and that he'd need to go to ARCA for that, etc, yada, yada, see my response to him on my page. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

As I read it, this appeal is a promise to advance the same POV but more politely. Thanks, but no thanks. Guy (help!) 16:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Sotuman feels that he is right. The point, however, is that he was wrong according to the rules of the community and does not acknowledge it for a fact. Shakespeare attributed This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. to a scoundrel. So, it does not matter if Sotuman is right according to WP:THETRUTH or some objective, universal justice, applied by a disinterested observer, but that he was wrong according to the norms and values of our community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Sotuman: I like to see evidence that a sanction is no longer necessary before I support lifting it. You've linked a number of discussions related to the placing of the sanctions on you, but you haven't explained what it was you did wrong, and why you're unlikely to make the same mistake again; and absent such a statement, I would be opposed to lifting any sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline. I've read through Sotuman's lengthy talk page post, and it evades my question entirely. I have no confidence that we're not going to see a resumption of the problems that led to this sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sotuman's original ban notice is at: User talk:Sotuman/Archive 2#Original Notice of Topic-Ban. The wording of the ban was: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from Flood geology and related pages." This was an AE ban issued by User:Bishonen under the authority of WP:ARBPS. See User talk:Sotuman/Archive 2 for some past discussions. I find a great deal of wikilawyering there, and see many attempts by other editors to explain the concept of a topic ban.

One of the posts in a previous ban appeal (from 2019) was this one by User:Boing! said Zebedee.

• Decline appeal. The topic ban looks valid to me, and having read the indicated user talk page content and the appeal here (which does not really address the reasons for the ban), I see no justification in ending it or modifying it. (But what I do see is a failure to understand Wikipedia's approach to balance, NPOV, verifiability, etc - eg "there should be equal weight given to different but complementary views regardless of how many people hold to one view or the other, especially since Wikipedia has no way to accurately assess such quantities" is fundamentally misunderstanding how evidence works.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In the discussions back in 2019, it appeared that Sotuman was keen on inserting his personal understanding of Flood geology into Wikipedia. This is the kind of thing that the WP:ARBPS sanctions were intended to deal with I agree with Boing's overall opinion of the last ban appeal. Unless there has been a major change in Sotuman's approach to Wikipedia editing since his last appeal (one which he could document through his contribution history) I wouldn't favor lifting the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline as written. Concur with my 2 colleagues above — it's just too vague, making Guy's fear a real possibility. Which, indeed, would not be good enough. El_C 16:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Given Sotuman's edits over the six months prior to this appeal – all 36 of them – I'm left wondering why they want the topic ban lifted. As the appeal doesn't explain why, I'm minded to decline it as unnecessary. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline: The quibbles from Sotman give me no confidence that they are ever likely to become a productive member of a collaborative community. FWIW, use of the singular they as an epicene pronoun has been a feature of the English language for the last 600 years. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. I've seen nothing the convinces me that Sotuman understands why the topic ban was imposed, and I am not convinced that they will not just return to exactly the same behaviour. I'm not even sure they are understanding any of the reasons people are giving for declining the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Moksha88 (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

1. 8 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Brihaspati to WP:RSN § OpIndia and Swarajya
2. 8 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Pectore to WP:RSN § OpIndia and Swarajya
3. 8 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Ms Sarah Welch to WP:RSN § OpIndia and Swarajya
4. 13 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Apollo1203 to WP:RSN § Swarajya
5. 13 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Actionjackson09 to WP:RSN § Swarajya
6. 13 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of ThaNDNman224 to WP:RSN § Swarajya
7. 13 March 2020: Inappropriate canvassing of Sacredsea to WP:RSN § Swarajya

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)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15 November 2019 by Brihaspati (then known as Harshil169)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The 8 March 2020 messages consist of the following, with minor variations:

Question about WP:RS

Hello, I hope you are well. I'm concerned about the arguments raised here. I read WP:RS, and bias is clearly not a reason for sources to be blacklisted in Wikipedia, even if it is a bias against Wikipedia. In fact, there's an entire article devoted to Criticism of Wikipedia which has reliable sources. No examples are provided of a lack of editorial oversight or inaccurate reporting, so it seems the discussion is based more on retaliation than reason. Blacklisting sources without sound reasoning risks NPOV which worries me. In your experience, what's the best way to refute these assertions?

The above message is inappropriate, because it presents an argument to the recipient ("No examples are provided of a lack of editorial oversight or inaccurate reporting"), states an opinion on the discussion ("it seems the discussion is based more on retaliation than reason"), and was directed at specific editors instead of a neutral venue.

The 13 March 2020 messages consist of the following:

Worth a Look

Hello, I hope you are well. I'm concerned about the arguments raised here. I think there's confusion about whether WP:DOX applies here and whether Swarajya fails to meet WP:RS criteria, especially since little evidence has been presented in the discussion over the past week. Take a look at these policies and chime in when you get a chance.

The above message is inappropriate, because it directly asks the recipient to participate in the discussion ("chime in when you get a chance"), suggests a position ("I think there's confusion...") relative to the consensus of the discussion, and was directed at specific editors instead of a neutral venue.

@Bishonen, El C, and RexxS: Thank you for your helpful feedback. I have rewritten my report here as a warning, and posted it to User talk:Moksha88 § Inappropriate canvassing on India-related discussions. In hindsight, I should have submitted this to the administrators' noticeboard as this incident is one of many canvassing incidents (on- and off-wiki) motivated by related to Wikipedia's coverage of the 2020 Delhi riots. In the future, I will ensure that an editor is sufficiently aware of the relevant policies and guidelines before submitting an AE report about them. I noticed that El_C posted an administrator note about canvassing in WP:RSN § Swarajya. With that note and the warning to Moksha88, this report is probably settled for now. — Newslinger talk 23:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switched "motivated by" to "related to" after Moksha88's clarification. The discussion does affect the 2020 Delhi riots article, but there is not enough evidence to discern motive. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/945320444

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.

@Bishonen, El C, RexxS, and Newslinger: Thank you all for giving me the benefit of the doubt. My posts were to clarify a question I had about what I saw on the noticeboard, and as El_C mentioned, I was not made aware that what I posted initially was in violation of the canvassing policy. Newslinger, to be clear, I have no connection with the 2020 Delhi Riots article as evidenced by my lack of edits there. I will avoid posting on the noticeboard thread in question and pledge to be more mindful of this policy for future edits. Moksha88 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As they have not been warned I think only a warning is in order. But I also have to say that this is part of a wider pattern with a group of people both on and off wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Newslinger, I don't mean to split hairs, but I can't find that the editor has previously been given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict. The link you provide is merely for a DS alert, which, as it states, "does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date".

  Also, have you or anybody you know of warned Moksha88 about canvassing, and told them to stop? I don't see it on their talkpage — I don't think you've posted there before your notification about this request. Do they know canvassing is not allowed? Bishonen | tålk 12:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Warn for canvassing — indeed, that key step seems to be missing. Somewhat puzzling such a warning was not issued on the 8th (unless it was and I, too, am just not seeing it). El_C 14:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Although Moksha88 has been editing (lightly) since 2006, I can confirm that nowhere in their talk-page archives does "canvas" appear, so it looks like they have never been warned. As we can't be certain that they were aware of WP:CANVASS, I propose giving an "only warning" about canvassing. They've certainly been around long enough to understand that. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Crawford88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 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 [105] does not support the claim; Crawford's edit was entirely original research.
2. 03:16, 3 March 2020 Removes content describing the cited source as an opinion piece from an unreliable source. Source in question [106] is the Huffington Post; the header describes the piece as "news".
3. 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 [107]. (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.
4. 23:51, 8 March 2020 If the previous diffs weren't bad enough, there's this one, which is essentially reverting historical revisionism back into the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 01:03, 18 May 2018 Topic-banned from anything related to India, for egregious original research.
2. 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 [108], [109], [110]) may not be sanctionable in and of themselves, but bear out a pattern of ignoring source material and editing based on a personal POV instead. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Patapsco913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

NEWBLPBAN DS

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

1. July 2019 (BLP violations, see below for details)
   1. Repeated restoration: [111] [112] [113] and more in the history of Bradley_S._Jacobs
2. Previous final warning by administrators for the same issue [114]

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 [115]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I originally imposed a flexible ban from BLPs [116], 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 [117] [118] in legacy.com for his parents, neither of which even mentions anything about any of them being Jewish. When this content was removed, you vigorously and repeatedly reverted the removal with edit summaries such as "sorry you need this for the category he is in" (that's kind of putting the cart before the horse) and most strikingly "You do not have a source that he is not jewish" (this edit was made less than a week ago). WP:BLP is pretty explicit that the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. It's the burden of the person who wishes to retain or restore material to provide high-quality sources to verify the material; in this case, the sources didn't even mention anyone (much less the article subject) being Jewish. (Not to mention concerns about the quality of the source itself -- often obituaries in local newspapers are written by family members, not editorial staff, and legacy.com does not give sufficient information to determine who wrote a particular obituary. I personally spent a considerable amount of time trying to find these articles from another source, to no avail.)

I see that there have been several previous notes and warnings about BLP issues. In December, Coffee, TheSandDoctor, and Oshwah extensively wrote about the sourcing requirements for BLPs in the specific context of your edits inappropriately identifying a particular person as Jewish, and especially in categorization.[119] 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. [120]

Accordingly, I feel I have no choice but to impose a sanction. I'm sorry to do this, Patapsco913, but I am imposing the arbitration enforcement sanction described in the next section. I will look favorably upon a request to ease or lift this sanction with an acknowledgement of the BLP issues thus far and a commitment to avoid further issues in the future, after a record of contributions that shows a strong understanding of sourcing and verifiability requirements across Wikipedia. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notice

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@TheSandDoctor: @Newyorkbrad: The first diff (Special:Diff/940254355) cited is supported by an article by the well-known genealogist Nate Bloom (see below) who writes for numerous respected Jewish publications and is used as a resource by mainstream news sources as well. "Jewish people" are listed in bold in his articles. The second diff (Special:Diff/943104971) was wrong on my part to mention Jewish but as I detail above but I was reverting an edit that made major changes to the page by a series of editors (who I suspected were sockpuppets) and even posted a note to their talk page [[121]] for discussion

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

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 [122] and [123]. 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 [124] (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 [125] [126]. 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 [127]. As I said on Patapsco's page, these are Jewish biographies of people who are receiving Jewish funeral rights from a Jewish funeral home, and we're not sure if they're Jewish? Of course these sources establish that the parents were Jewish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Having spent a fair bit of time over the years removing these kinds of designations from articles, I'm no fan of their seemingly unending addition to articles. Nevertheless, in this specific case, the fact is Jews are an ethnic group, so WP:ETHNICRACECAT (which specifically uses Category:Jewish musicians as an example) applies. That means that any arguments about "religion being notable etc." miss the mark, that the bar is no higher than a couple of reliable sources, and that, for better or worse, ethnicity (unlike religion) is typically a matter of ancestry and/or cultural background (not belief). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a fairly obvious case of IDHT, confusing the AN discussion about lists they hadn't edited with their actual edits and blatant disregard for WP:BLP, despite the clear warnings given to them. This cannot be allowed to continue ad nauseam. I agree wholeheartedly with JzG that the "warrior behavior" Patapsco913 has displayed for months (and even years) in this topic area, has to be stopped.
  
  In addition, "You do not have a source that he is not jewish" is an extremely worrying sign that Patapsco913 simply does not understand how verification works nor WP:BURDEN, which states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (emphasis in the orginal)
  The response to Awilley further shows the user continues — after months of warnings — to believe that low quality sources and use of various forms of original research are acceptable for claims in BLPs. They never are, and attempts to justify asking others to prove the negative based on their frustration shows a lack of the temperament required when dealing with such a sensitive topic area.
  While I understand the points raised by Jayjg, this issue is much broader than the user simply adding ethnic descriptions or categories (albeit Patapsco913 appears to know how to define purely ethnic identification); indeed, it includes many such edits that have been to attempt to define people as religiously Jewish by synthesizing source material (this edit, which made presumptions not stated in the source explicitly, is an example of this).
  Based on all of this, it is my belief that we should look at the whole of a person's conduct in a topic area when deciding to issue a sanction. As such, I believe one is heavily warranted here. I think a 12 month restriction, with the standard enforcement procedures, is the best route to go here to prevent further disruption. Lastly, I want to note that WP:CANVASSING is not permitted in any manner; this is especially so if it is directed at people whom the user believes are biased in their favour. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ordinarily as a sitting arbitrator I wouldn't comment here, since the issue might come before the Committee, but this has been open for a week now and needs progress, and there are important principles involved, so I'll go ahead. I agree with everyone that we can't be describing a living person, or for that matter a deceased person, as "Jewish" without a solid reference that he or she is or was Jewish. General references to Jewishness in the person's or the person's family's background are not sufficient; on the other hand, there does come a point where the evidence is overwhelming that the person is or was Jewish, especially for historical rather than living persons, even if the exact words "he is/was Jewish" do not appear. I think Patapsco913 has been trying in good faith to get these things right, but sometimes has misjudged where the line separating sufficient from insufficient sourcing, on this sometimes sensitive point, should be drawn. My suggestion going forward is that Patapsco913 only add a reference to an article subject's Jewishness is the sourcing is crystal-clear, and that otherwise he should post to the article talkpage or ask a trusted editor for a second opinion. If Patapsco will do these things, can we agree that a topic-ban should not be necessary? Also, even if the consensus were that a topic-ban is warranted, am I right that all the BLP issues involve disputed claims of Jewishness? If that is the case, at most a limited topic-ban from adding references to that specific topic would seem sufficient, and a very broad topic-ban from all editing about living or recently deceased people would seem to be overbroad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes sense. Can I boil this down into specific proposals?
    • Option 1: Patapsco913 may only categorize article subjects as Jewish if those people are explicitly referred to as such in reliable WP:Secondary or Tertiary sources; otherwise they should post to the article talkpage or ask a trusted editor for a second opinion.
    • Option 2: Patapsco913 is prohibited from categorizing article subjects as Jewish.

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

My first preference would be Option 1 with whatever tweaks people think are needed, but I won't oppose option 2 if that's where the consensus leans. ~Awilley (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) I now support "no action" per [128]. ~Awilley (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC) I think the commitment Patapsco made above is good enough that a formal sanction isn't necessary at this time. Also note that Kevin (the admin who initiated this) also thinks this can be dropped. ~Awilley (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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