Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263
DBigXray
edit| Declined with prejudice. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning DBigXrayedit
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)
Discussion concerning DBigXrayeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DBigXrayedit
Since the day the article North East Delhi riots was started, I have been subjected to a concerted harassment campaign, that I believe is being managed off wiki using social media groups. These people have a common trait that they have a clear Pro-Right wing bias, and they consider anything not aligned with Pro-Right wing as biased and something that needs fixing. Of late I have been on receiving end of harassment that includes sending abusive, derogatory, disparaging comments/emails some of which also included death threats. I had to get my talk page locked and emails disabled. Other editors who are more familiar with WP:WIKILAWYERING have tried filing frivolous cases such as one on WP:COI and now this WP:AE. I hope some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is handed down to the filers of this case for harassing me and wasting everyone's time. Lepricavark, has been extremely prejudiced against me (based on his comments attacking me in past 2 week), and I have been avoiding any interaction with them and ignoring them. But my ignoring them, is not stopping them from repeatedly pinging me and trying to get involved in discussion threads I am active on.
Statement by LepricavarkeditI was part of the ANI thread mentioned above, and I think
Statement by Kautilya3editDBigXray has been doing the lion's share of the work in handling requests, complaints etc. at Talk:North East Delhi riots, which has turned out to be a highly sensitive topic. As I was tied up with RL work throughout last week, I had admired from the sidelines the diligence and patience with which he dealt with all the discussions. I don't see the kind of substained misconduct that requires AE intervention. There are some content issues on which DBX might have gone overboard in giving warning messages. That is about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Spasiba5editI wonder why I was pinged. Anyway, at this link Talk:North East Delhi riots#Islamophobia as a cause for riots, we can see he has cited references which do not mention Islamophobia (it was he who cited them). Here he removed what precipitated the riots. Here he reverted me by re-inserting a snapshot of Kapil Mishra, but in his edit summary, he wrote, "Expanding article", probably to circumvent the 1RR rule (he had already re-inserted that image, see here). As Lepricavark says, DBigXray has indulged in a lot of "Original Research" - for example, this, which Lepricavark reverted. He keeps adding the words, "most of who were Muslims". This is another edit for the same. At this link Talk:North East Delhi riots#Ishrat Jahan arrest, we can see that he doesn't want Ishrat Jahan's arrest to be mentioned, so I replied that then even Kapil Mishra should not be mentioned in the article (Ishrat is a Muslim)!—Spasiba5 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Result concerning DBigXrayedit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Peregrine Fisher
edit| Vexatious litigation. Bishonen | tålk 02:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Happened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Peregrine_Fisher Lot at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Race_and_intelligence
Statement by Peregrine FishereditPlease 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) Statement by qedkeditStatement by (involved editor 1)editStatement by (involved editor 2)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Peregrine FishereditResult of the appeal by Peregrine Fisheredit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dey subrata
edit| There was a consensus to uphold the block before this appeal became moot due to the block expiration --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
I am the one who posted this, so notification was not necessary. El_C 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Dey subrataeditHello dear admin, to my understanding I have been blocked for addressing a user of disruptive edits as "vandalism" which was not the case per WP:NOTVANDAL. What I understood from the policies is that, edit war is not vandalsim and removal of materials from an article with misleading edit summary is disruptive edits but not vandalism. For multiple instances of removal of same thing from the article made me warned him but I've added an extra phrase of "is a vandalism", which I should not have done as per policies. I've also gone through WP:VANDTYPES, and understood what can be called as vandalism. I have read them very carefully and understood what type and when an edit can be called as vandalism. I have also gone through WP:GF and understood its policies and most importantly how to demonstrate good faith and dealing with bad faith and to avoid accusing other user of bad faith without clear evidence. I have also read the WP:DE policies along with the WP:GF to better understand disruptive edits and assume good faiths. Along with these important policies I have even taken time to go through the important guidelines of WP:LGL and WP:EQ to understand and enrich my editing behaviour and to avoid conflicts infuture. I apologies for my mistake out of misunderstanding of a VANDTYPE policy. I hope my block can now be revoked and I can assure you a fair and justified approach from my side, I will not make any mistake by tagging any disruptive edits as vandalism in future. Dey subrata (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by El_CeditIt took a while to get a response that introspective from Dey subrata. No objection to an unblock, though I'll deffer to the judgment of my peers rather than do so myself, at this time. El_C 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Aman Kumar Goeledit" So now after failing to prove my edits as vandalism per 2 rejected unblock requests by Dey Subrata which he attempted to remove, he is now trying to misrepresent my edits as "disruptive edits" even after getting warned on ANI by Black Kite that " Statement by (involved editor 1)editStatement by (involved editor 2)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dey subrataeditStatement by DBigXrayeditI had commented about the ANI thread of this case. And I have collaborated with Dey, on a few articles. Based on their appeal, I think they have understood the problem. I support an unblock, since the block has served its purpose.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Dey subrataedit
|
Preemptory review request
edit| Withdrawn by OP. Guy (help!) 08:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC) EllenCT This is not a noticeboard, use the button given above to file requests, which automatically preloads the necessary pre-requisites for you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please review [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)
|
Calton
edit| Blocked for 72 hours --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Caltonedit
After I posted on Calton's talk page, reminding them of discretionary sanctions and requesting that they self-revert, Calton edited Wikipedia three times, meaning that they should be aware of my request: 05:01, 4 March 2020; 05:17, 4 March 2020; 05:17, 4 March 2020. More than a full day after Calton's violation, Objective3000 has now reverted Calton's offending revert (16:05, 4 March 2020). However, Calton was given ample time to address my request to self-revert, and continued to edit Wikipedia without undoing their violation of the "consensus required" arbitration remedy. It should also be noted that since shortly after Calton's restoration of the quotation BullRangifer included, there has been a discussion at Talk:Julian_Assange#Block_quote_for_an_opinion_piece_etc about the material. Calton has not discussed their revert there.
Discussion concerning CaltoneditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CaltoneditStatement by Objective3000editI removed this earlier today (despite the fact I agree with it). What's the point of wasting time here? I seriously dislike weaponizing drama boards. Close this, or withdraw this before a boomerang. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Springee (subject:Carlton)editIn 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) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Caltonedit
|
Jweiss11
edit| Jweiss11 and Dlthewave are warned against edit warring. All editors interested in Race and intelligence are reminded that this forum is not to be used to gain an upperhand in content disputes. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Jweiss11edit
This is related to a content dispute concerning the Global variation of IQ scores section at Race and intelligence. The section was removed due to concerns that it was off-topic/poorly sourced and is currently under discussion.
In its current state, the only thing that connects the section to the Race and intelligence topic is the unsourced sentence
Discussion concerning Jweiss11editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jweiss11editThis is a really ridiculous action by Dlthewave, littered with falsehoods. I've merely restored well-sourced and and long-standing content to the article, and have engaged on the talk page. I have made a single appeal to BLUESKY, which I have reiterated a number of times to different editors. The argument is that the claim that "residents of sub-Saharan Africa are overwhelming black and that residents of East Asia are overwhelmingly East Asian" is so obvious it falls under BLUESKY, and that that BLUESKY argument connect studies of sub-continental populations to the topic of race. It's time to sanction to Dlthewave for contentious POV pushing and his attempts to game the arbitration process to eliminate opponents. He's simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich (Jweiss11)editI'm concerned by the repeated restoration of challenged content without consensus, in apparent violation of WP:ONUS, such as here and here, and with the use of questionable sources such as Richard Lynn, and describing that as "well-sourced" in the comment above. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by PudeoeditDlthewave claims that the section is undue and
Cambridge University Press won't publish just anything, and Personality and Individual Differences is a peer-reviewed journal. There is a disruptive pattern with Dlthewave misunderstanding basic sourcing requirements, as was the case with his WP:PRIMARY claims noted in the earlier AE thread about Peregrine Fisher. As for whether citing WP:SKYBLUE is disruptive, "nation" and "race" do not mean the same thing, but Lynn's and Vanhanen's 2002 IQ and the Wealth of Nations was a part of the "race and intelligence controversy" without a doubt. Though it is true that this terminology should be directly attributed from a source. It is worth noting that this is the second AE thread about pretty much the same content dispute, yet there hasn't been a requests for comment. --Pudeo (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by MaximumIdeaseditThese are all edit disagreements that should be discussed on the relevant talk page, not in arbitration. I see the restorations mentioned above by Levivich, which JWeiss11 restored, were longstanding content on the page in question, and no consensus was ever reached to remove them. Further, the sections are sourced to papers in respected academic journals or which, in one case, is plausibly BLUESKY. Whether or not one thinks the content should be changed (a legitimate area of disagreement!... which has been debated extensively on that article's talk page) JWeiss11 clearly acted within the rules in restoring established content sourced to respected academic journals. It would only be a violation if a consensus had been reached to remove the content, or if there were consensus against any of the restorations. But participants on the page were nowhere near such a consensus. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by IP editoredit@El C: Please read the earlier Arbitration Enforcement thread that Dlthewave posted about Peregrine Fisher on February 26, in particular the comments there from myself, Mr rnddude, SMcCandlish, Paul Siebert, and DoubleCross. Dlthewave has been blanking three separate longstanding sections of the race and intelligence article, which include much more than the material that's currently under dispute. (See the diffs that I posted in the earlier report.) The four other editors that I mentioned all expressed the view that Dlthewave's previous AE report was a tactical attempt to take out one of the editors opposing his removals. However, his report ultimately was successful at causing Peregrine Fisher to be topic banned. The result of Dlthewave's earlier report demonstrated that using AE to take out one's opponents can be an effective strategy, so of course he's going to try the same strategy again against another of the editors opposing him. It's only been two days since his previous report was closed. For the reasons I explained here, Dlthewave does not seem to have any real interest in resolving the current dispute on the talk page. He apparently hasn't looked at the sources for the content he's removing, and he also isn't willing to be specific what he wants changed about this section before he'll allow it to be restored. Please think carefully what message you and other admins wish to send with your decision in this report. The decision in Dlthewave's report about Peregrine Fisher inadvertently sent a message that content disputes can be won using AE instead of the article talk page, and if the current report is closed in a similar way, it will strongly reinforce that message. 2600:1004:B101:7AD0:40CB:6C80:E343:A94A (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Springee (subject:Dlthewave)editIf there is any editor who's behavior is questionable it's Dlthewave's. They were warned about engaging in a slow edit war a few hours prior to filling this report. The content in question may not be correct but I think it's clear we have a case of no consensus on the article talk page. WP:NOCON is clear that in a case such as this one the article should revert to the last stable version. Rather than try to come up with a new compromise suggestion, Dlthewave is using a slow, bludgeoning edit war and filing complaints about those who object to the changes. What is particularly troubling is that they are totally ignoring that per WP:NOCON they are in the wrong. If they feel Jwiess11's arguments aren't sound then they should have called on outside help (RfC, dispute resolution etc) to adjudicate the new consensus. If Jwiess11's arguments are poor then the issue should be quickly solved via the dispute resolution channels. Simply reverting only raises everyone's blood and makes compromise that much harder. Such behavior is every bit as destructive as the filibustering they have accused Jwiess11 of. Springee (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by GuettardaeditWithout commenting on the merits of the rest this appeal as a whole, Jweiss11's repeated appeals to BLUESKY are disruptive. You can't invoke BLUESKY as a way to claim that contentious claims don't need supporting citations. There response has been a solid IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and they have continued to edit war their claims back into the article. Repeatedly claiming that you don't need to source controversial claims, in ad article that's subject to DS is disruptive, even if it's civil. This is the kind of thing that AE exists to deal with. Guettarda (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlisheditThere's a danger here, when someone says they're concerned that the material in question has a cn tag in it. Just because a cn tag was placed doesn't mean it was legitimate or isn't easily resolved. In this case, if someone really think's the claim that East Asia is full of East Asians and Africa is full of Africans needs a citation, one could be provided in a matter of minutes from any good source on demographics. Nit-picking a paragraph to death with cn tags for the obvious isn't an excuse to delete large swathes of material. I'm not going to comment at present on the merits of all the material, just on this procedural matter. It's not AE's job to create a WIKILAWYER/GAMING/FILIBUSTER loophole via misuse of dispute tags. Really, I think several people need a long break from this topic. It is controversial and not everyone it temperamentally suited for dealing with it. But AE cannot settle the content dispute, and at its heart this is entirely a content dispute. If one party needs to comply with even tedious citation demands, then just tell them to do it. If another party needs to avoid using questionable citation demands as a "WINNING" tactic, then just tell them to do it. I don't think anything reported here about either side of the dispute yet rises to WP:AC/DS-level disruption, though that could happen eventually if the tendency to get angry and combative is not self-restrained. So, I would say no action at this time, admonish better behavior on both sides, and warn that escalation is likely to lead later to DS action. When it comes to the content, the editorship at large will resolve it over time. It's not like this topic has a shortage of watchlisters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by ජපසeditThere seems to be some racism at play with User:Jweiss11's advocacy. My guess is that this is part of an affinity for intellectual dark web claims that border on race realism. The argument is, apparently, that because we know where the races live, then we can use the results of IQ tests from various countries to make blanket statements about race and IQ. Pretty WP:SYNTHy approaches, in reality. The issue is that Jweiss11 seems to be so convinced that he is right that he thinks it obvious when it, in fact, really is not only not obvious, it is in contravention with the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of race. I know that AE is not for content arbitration, but I think the record shows pretty clearly here that User:Jweiss11 is an agenda-driven editor. His opponents seem to be standing up for the sourcing guidelines we all agree with which is to avoid citing walled garden literature that is heavily criticized as enabling white supremacy. jps (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Jweiss11edit
|
Dev0745
edit| I have already topic banned the user independent of this report. El_C 16:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dev0745edit
Discussion concerning Dev0745editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dev0745editStatement by (username)editResult concerning Dev0745edit
|
ContentEditman
edit| ContentEditman is warned about edit warring, particularly making repeated reverts without meaningful talkpage collaboration. ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning ContentEditmanedit
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) @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)
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)
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:
Xenagoras (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
ContentEditman notification. MrX also received a notification. Discussion concerning ContentEditmaneditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ContentEditmaneditI did not violate the 1rr as you can see even by even Xenagoras listings above. I also have posted several times on the TALK page for this and other topics. Xenagoras was even asked to articulate his so called visitations but never did. He on the other hand has a history of edit warring and not editing in good faith. There is an active complaint against him now here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xenagoras_-_WP:NOTHERE I believe this falls under WP:boomerang and maybe Xenagoras should, at minimum, be topic blocked from American Politics. He also seems to be WP:CANVAS on this topic when he did not get his way on the TALK page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xenagoras#Your_spamming_via_WikiMedia_Email ContentEditman (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich (ContentEditman)editTulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Feb 21–23:
Same article Jan 31–Feb 2:
WP:BRD should be followed. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC) There's also this exchange in the "2020 presidential campaign" section:
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: Statement by MrXeditAs 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 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)
Levivich's analysis lacks depth and insight. The Tulsi Gabbard article should absolutely not be subjected to the deprecated "enforced BRD" restriction because it advantages drive-by reverting and gaming by users who are here for the sole purpose of promoting and maintaining a flattering image for a subject. Enforced BRD has been tried in the past, and it has mostly been a failure. Why use the talk page if you can simply create a new account, or edit from an IP, and remove content that you don't like? Speaking very generally, I strongly suspect (and I'm not the only one who does) that the Tulsi Gabbard topic area has been affected by 2-3 overzealous editors who likely work for Gabbard in some capacity. One of these editors is probably her congressional chief of staff. If true, that is a problem for Wikipedia's integrity, and it would be further harmed by placing lopsided restrictions on editing. If the goal is to communicate to devoted editors that Wikipedia is not worthy of being defended, then such a restriction would would certainly help accomplish that. - MrX 🖋 12:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by JzGeditPer Levivich, the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed material, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. And now that's clear, everyone can go to the talk page and settle this nicely please. I hope we don't need to start wielding cudgels at what is really quite an early stage here. Guy (help!) 14:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by HumanengreditIn his Statement, ContentEditman claims "I … have posted several times on the TALK page”. While literally true (he has written on the Talk page), he does not engage in productive communication. Of his 12 total posts, 5 merely repeat or say 'MrX is right' in terms of vague generalities (here, here, here, here, and here). Further evidence of failure to communicate is ContentEditman's misdirection and non-responsiveness to issues raised by other discussants: 1) Re the content issue Awilley remarked on (last sentence), ContentEditman misdirected repeatedly in response to my edit. (For context, the 'Political positions' § has an 'LGBT rights' subsection. As of 2/18, it had 2 paras, the first recounting Gabbard's support at age 17 for her father’s conservative activism and then similar activity at 23 as freshman state legislator in 2004. Both the age 17 and 23 material are also in Early life §; the age 23 material also in Hawaii House §. I saw the need to copy edit to remove duplication, reorder, and include a brief statement of present political position at the start as in other candidates' position statements. If my edit shows I misunderstood WP:BOLD re ‘copy edit’, kindly advise. Also, as the issues of ordering, duplication, etc., of LGBT content and equal treatment of candidates are raised here only as context re ContentEditman's behavior, I ask that those issues be considered apart from the current discussion.) ContentEditman reverted saying "… This was discussed on the TALK page in depth. …" On Talk, I asked where the issue of "… starting the political positions section … with material from 21 years ago when she was a minor child that duplicates material … included elsewhere in the bio?” had been discussed. ContentEditman responded that there had been but did not point to discussion that addressed my question. (MrX responded similarly; I asked again; MrX responded without pointing to a discussion that addressed my question; ContentEditman did not respond.) At that point The Four Deuces remarked, “… We don't start the political positions sections of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren with what they once believed when they were conservative Republicans or Trump when he was a liberal Democrat”. ContentEditman's response misdirected in multiple ways — TFD's example indicated positions that were not just older but also contrary; the Gabbard § was not the Political positions § but the LGBT subsection. (See also Xenagoras's critique.) 2) In response to BurroBert's request to include material on the "the effect of her military experience on her policies", [emphasis added] ContentEditman misdirected by responding that "her military career" was already covered. 3) ContentEditman asserted "I don't see her calling herself Asian" in response to my comment where I had written "The source was the first citation, Gabbard's house.gov site (not the campaign site), which states 'A practicing Hindu, she is of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent.'" [emphasis added] 4) ContentEditman's response to Xenagoras ignored the central part of the criticism that MrX "repeatedly removed [links to] Gabbard's current pro-LGBT stance from the lead to leave only her obsolete anti-LGBT stance in the lead to misrepresent a living person." 5) ContentEditman's response to Xenagoras failed to address any of the substantive points made in response to MrX. 6) In response to a comment on the lack of a statement in the introductory paragraph that "Tulsi is a candidate for president in the 2020 election", said, "There is already language in the lead about her running for president." [emphasis added] Introductory paragraph ≠ lead. @El C: I see the above as a clear failure to communicate in the form of repetition, misdirecting, and denying reality (#3 above). Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Result concerning ContentEditmanedit
|
Zarcademan123456
edit| Zarcademan123456 is cautioned against making mass changes when these involve contested edits. Similar problems are likely to be met with sanctions next time. El_C 16:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Zarcademan123456edit
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
Notified, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Zarcademan123456editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zarcademan123456editI 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.
Although, as I am now removing this proposal below, Number 57 saw something I reverted, so maybe I reverted something and just can’t find it, idk.Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Number 57editAs 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)
Statement by Levivich (PIA)editOccupation, annexation, confiscation, expropriation, I don't believe we haven't had an RFC about this yet that we can point to. If not, just launch one, for both the Jordanians and Israelis. One RFC would be a lot better than having this discussion on the talk page of every article about every Palestinian village–and also better than trying to resolve this via AE. Also agree with N57's concerns. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC) @Zarcademan123456 and Huldra: Surely you both agree that the WP:NOTBURO quickest way to definitively resolve this issue once and for all is through one or more RFCs, and that an RFC is also the only path to stable consensus on the issue of what word(s) to use in wikivoice, and that any and all time spent at AE is a detour off of that path? Why not agree to restore to last stable version and not make changes pending the outcome of RFC(s)? And then afterwards whoever violates the RFC consensus first can be insta-blocked, ok? :-) – Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by selfstudiereditLast time around I said that I was assuming good faith, I am finding it exceptionally difficult to stand by that assessment. I and others have in fact been trying to engage with and ease his introduction to WP, unfortunately it seems that if once he has an idea in his head, then no amount of engagement appears to help. If no solution be found, I suspect we will be back here time and time again.Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by NableezyeditBut it strikes Number 57 as reasonable to have to go through 40 articles and correct the problems introduced? nableezy - 22:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpiaeditMy two cents' worth:
Statement by (username)editResult concerning Zarcademan123456edit
|
Pectore
edit| Pectore is topic banned indefinitely from Indian and Pakistani subjects, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed no less than six months from now. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Pectoreedit
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;
Not previously sanctioned.
Notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning PectoreeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by PectoreeditI'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:
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.Pectoretalk 04:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning Pectoreedit
I would also go for a IPA topic ban --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC) As would I. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Sotuman
edit| Appeal is declined --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by SotumaneditI 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. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#Topic_ban_violation_by_Sotuman WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive307#Block_appeal Please see my current talk page Responses by Sotuman to Statementsedit@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) Statement by BishoneneditI'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). Statement by JzGeditAs 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) Statement by TgeorgescueditPerhaps 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 Statement by (involved editor 1)editStatement by (involved editor 2)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SotumaneditResult of the appeal by Sotumanedit
|
Moksha88
edit| Moksha88 is warned for canvassing. Bishonen | tålk 11:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Moksha88edit
The 8 March 2020 messages consist of the following, with minor variations:
The above message is inappropriate, because it presents an argument to the recipient ( The 13 March 2020 messages consist of the following:
The above message is inappropriate, because it directly asks the recipient to participate in the discussion (
Discussion concerning Moksha88editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Moksha88edit@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) Statement by (slatersteven)editAs 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) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Moksha88edit
|
Crawford88
edit| Crawford88 is topic banned indefinitely from Indian and Pakistani subjects, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed no less than six months from now. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Crawford88edit
Notified. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Discussion concerning Crawford88editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Crawford88editStatement by GRubaneditDiff 1, the source cites a tweet from a journalist: "Tanushree Pandey @TanushreePande· Feb 24 This is a riot! Protesters from both sides heckling & thrashing media persons." So it does, actually, back the statement. --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning Crawford88edit
|
Patapsco913
edit| Closing as No Consensus. This has been open for over 2 weeks and has gone without new comments for a couple of days. Currently there are 2 admins (including the OP) who have expressed a preference for no action, 1 who has expressed a preference for Option 1, 2 who expressed a preference for Option 2, and 2 who haven't expressed a preference that I can see. I will log a warning and make it clear to Patapsco913 that poorly sourced edits/original research for categorizing people as Jewish will result in a formal sanction, and there are multiple admins here (myself included) who are able to place that unilaterally without the formality another thread here. ~Awilley (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Patapsco913edit
I originally imposed a flexible ban from BLPs [116], giving the following reasoning:
(Those with access to oversight OTRS, see ticket:2020030210009186 for background info; it's probably fine to move that ticket to info-en-q though since there's nothing oversightable there.) Levivich objected to my sanction, arguing that the edits made were not BLP violations. I think it's pretty clear that the Jacobs edits were sanctionable BLP violations, especially in light of the user's history of warnings, but it seems Levivich feels strongly about this. Therefore, I'm vacating my sanction as a courtesy and filing here for possible action. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Patapsco913editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Patapsco913editBradley S. Jacobs. If you look at the history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_S._Jacobs&action=history I was reverting numerous edits which turned out to be 15 sockpuppets Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aussietommartin. I did not think it controversial stating that he was from a Jewish family since both his parents had Jewish funerals (both stating “Shiva will be observed… or “Shiva will be held”). As far as the warnings received from User:Coffee, User:TheSandDoctor, and User:Oshwah. I think it started with my edit on Edward Kosner where I added he was from a "Jewish family" with two citations. I could have used the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115654273560545904 "Mr. Kosner grew up as the precocious only child of a marginally middle-class Jewish family." but it was behind a paywall so I left it out since others cannot see it. It was requested to be removed via OTRS for "Concerns of undue weight, and request for removal." I do not know what the OTRS request was about but it seems that it involved more than Edward Kosner. I then received a warning from User:Coffee on my talk page User talk:Patapsco913#Discontinue violations of BLP. User:TheSandDoctor and User:Oshwah then briefly chimed in support of Coffee. When I queried about what standards are required to list someone as Jewish, I was told that they would tell me later after he reviewed all my edits which he started https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Coffee&offset=20200116185617&target=Coffee and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Coffee&offset=20191225102214&target=Coffee I disagreed with his standard which I rehashed based on his edit comments as "In order to document a subject as ethnically Jewish, I have to have at least 3 unquestionably reliable sources describing the subject as ethnically Jewish. In order to document a subject as religiously Jewish, I have to have at least 3 unquestionably reliable sources showing that they self-identify as a practitioner of Judaism and that the fact they practice Judaism is part of their notability." This would seem to preclude adding any Jewish designation on most biographies. As I understand it, this is not the standard that wikipedia uses. Maurice Kremer. I did not think this was controversial since he died in 1907 and was a founding member of Congregation B'nai B'rith (now the Wilshire Boulevard Temple) and there are reliable sources that state he is Jewish (see talk page for Kremer). I changed it from "raised in a Jewish family" to "Kremer is Jewish" to try to alleviate Coffee's synthesis concerns so I really did not add anything. I then posted on my talk page that when I look over the contributions by the various Jewish wikiprojects Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Women, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture, I did not see that strict standard being followed. I posted on Wikipedia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 37#Identifying who is Jewish to get some clarity. Eventually Coffee's edits (where he was removing Jews from lists some of which he first cleared all supporting references in their biography) became a discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316#Coffee removing Categories and Lists Inappropriately. Several editors seem to have disagreed with this strict standards either on the Wikiproject Judaism or the Noticeboard or my talkpage (Sir Joseph, Dialectric, Debresser, Cullen328, Levivich, Bus stop, Johnbod, Jayjg) although you should read their comments yourself. The fundamental problem I see is that there is not a standard for identifying someone as Jewish. Some believe it is contentious to be Jewish (which i do not agree). I stated on the ANI: " I think the problem is that there is not a clear consensus on when we can identify if someone is Jewish and what kind of sourcing we need. I cannot find anything directly on point in the various discussion boards. As Jewish can be both ethnic and religious (generally Judaism is the term for the religion), it crosses several lines. If a source says they are Jewish (e.g. Jewish Women's Archive, the The Jewish Encyclopedia, or the Jewish Virtual Library), can we include even if it is not relevant to their notability. If a subject's parents are both Jewish, is the subject? If one had a Jewish funeral and burial, are they Jewish? If one is born to a Jewish family, are they Jewish? If the subject is an atheist but of Jewish heritage, are they Jewish (Woody Allen, Albert Einstein)? If one becomes a bar mitzvah, are they Jewish? These nuances should be explained in the biography just like we say that someone is of Italian descent." The standard that I think we should follow is that which was left on my on my talk page by Jayjg (who is very active in Jewish topics) that "All one needs is to follow Wikipedia policy: that is, find a reliable source indicating that the individual is Jewish. Two or more sources would, of course, be better, particularly for living people." I admit this was a mistake I made with many of my edits thinking that stating that someone was from a "Jewish family" was better than stating that someone "is Jewish" and that was original research (which I could remedy) and which is what I did when I re-edited Maurice Kremer (see User talk:Patapsco913#Other business people you might be interested in). I have not been editing any biographies to a great degree since then nor have I touched the edits Coffee made since I do not have a clear standard to go by. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich (Patapsco)editKevin (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) @Awilley and JzG: Any editing restriction would have to be limited to the DS area of BLPs, right? I'd ask you to look at the evidence again and note that Patapsco has made, at most, one bad BLP edit, and this doesn't justify an editing restriction. There's this idea that he was warned multiple times, but he wasn't. Those previous warnings were not merited, and most of them weren't even to BLPs. Nevertheless, in response to the concerns brought up on his talk page, Patapsco added additional sourcing to these articles, or did not reinstate the objected-to edits. You can see this for yourself by looking at every article that was discussed in this AE report or on Patapsco's talk page:
If there are other articles with problems that aren't on this list, I apologize for missing them, but I'd ask that the evidence be looked at closely, because there isn't a pattern of BLP problems here, but rather a problem of bad warnings. The only BLPs are Kosner (sourced to his own autobiography), and Jacobs, the arguable case. It's understandable, if a user receives four bad warnings on his talk page, he may not pay attention to the fifth, even if the fifth was merited. But one mistake doesn't merit anything more than a reminder–not even a warning. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Re Statement by Sir JosepheditI echo Levivich's statement. Does an obituary of a Jewish person have to say, "the death of a Jew?" As per BLUE, it mentions sitting SHIVA, more importantly, which Levivich missed it also mentions "no flowers" which is also something in Jewish mourning rituals. It's as if there was an article about someone which mentioned "she took communion" but didn't explicitly say "she is Catholic." Someone who takes communion is Catholic (I think I got that right) and someone who sits shiva is Jewish. I just want to add that if there is a source, then we should treat being Jewish as any other religion, even if other's disagree, as some in the AN thread said. It is no different than any other fact, if we have RS, then it's good for Wikipedia, as long as it's notable. You don't need extra sourcing just because it's Jewish, as Coffee said (I should note that I, and others, are still waiting for the answer to the question, "How is being Jewish contentious" which Coffee never answered, but that's an aside). Also, since you did bring up the AN, I should point out that consensus was against Coffee's actions in the mass removals and his edits, AFAIR. I am also not sure how someone who died decades ago has BLP concerns. Regardless, I don't see anything actionable here. Finally, just to clarify or theorize to Levivich Charlotte didn't sit Shiva for a year, after the death of a parent, a Jew is in mourning for a year, see Aveilus for more information. Which itself is more proof that we are dealing with an observant or at the least very traditional Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish, on Patapsco913editI also agree with Levivich, pretty much word-for-word. I'll add that this is very unlike the Statement by (username)editResult concerning Patapsco913edit
|