Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive163

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Obsidi

[edit]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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
Obsidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Obsidi (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Protection Pending Changes Level 2 of the page Gamergate controversy as can be seen in the Protection Log and the Discretionary Sanctions Log
Administrator imposing the sanction
HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
[1]

Statement by Obsidi

[edit]

This page is currently under Discretionary Sanctions which means that all editors are expected to take extra care that they “comply with all applicable policies and guidelines.”. In this case HJ Mitchell has protected the page in direct contradiction to the Protection Policy which states that Only what is known as "Pending changes level 1" should be used, which is labeled "Require review for revisions from new and unregistered users". Pending changes level 2, or "Require review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers", should not be used at this time per WP:PC2012/RfC 1. I have asked the admin to reconsider their actions, but he refused citing Ignore All Rules. There is nothing in the arbitration decision that suggests that it is appropriate to ignore the current protection policy, and even if there were The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. If even the Arbitration Committee does not change policy, why should the actions of this one administrator, acting alone without community consensus, do so? If this case is a proper exception, I ask that reason be explained and that we get community consensus that we should use PC2 in those situations. Until such time, I ask that the page protection level be raised to Full Protection or lowered to Semi-Protection.

@RGloucester These are not "political positions," they are policy positions. The policy position currently taken by Wikipedia. And they have relevance as to why PC2 is not currently allowed by policy unlike most other protection levels. It is not the letter of the rules that is important it is the principles. I was trying to express the very principle upon why PC2 is not allowed but in this case is being violated. I am not "filing this appeal to make a point", I am appeal it to get the protection level changed. I requested that the admin change the protection level himself, he refused. I would prefer not to have to appeal this at all. There is nothing in the "ArbCom sanctions regime" that even suggests violating policy in this way. --Obsidi (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ Mitchell

[edit]

Can I just copy and paste what I said on my talk page instead of wasting more time on this non-issue?

I'm keeping the situation under review, but I consider this to be a legitimate invocation of IAR—"if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". That's policy. There are very few legitimate invocations of IAR (I can count on one hand the number of times I've invoked it to justify an admin action, out of some 40,000 logged actions), but where we have unusual situations, it can be applied to slightly unorthodox solutions. In this case, the intention of PC2 is to keep BLP violations and other crap out of the article, and reviewers are under instructions to let everything through that isn't grossly inappropriate, even if they decide to revert it afterwards. Semi-protection alone would be insufficient given the sheer number of good-faith but inexperienced editors and bad-faith editors with sufficient determination to make ten edits and sit out for four days who are and have been active in the topic area, and I suspect the very application of PC2 will act as a deterrent to the latter. Especially given the high-profile nature of the article, I think concerns for the real lives of real people discussed in the article far outweigh our internal policy wonkery.

I'd just add:

  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy—we don't enforce policy for its own sake, though ironically both IAR and NOT are policies (compared to a suggestion in the protection policy made as the result of an RfC which reached no clear consensus).
  • I believe this to be a necessary measure to prevent and deter drive-by BLP violations while keeping the article open to editing. Given the nature of some of the edits to this and related articles (many of which have been RevDel'd or even suppressed), I believe extreme measures are both necessary and justified.
  • Long before Obsidi's complaint, I offered guidance to reviewers on what to accept, including the instruction that all legitimate edits should be accepted, even if the reviewer decides to revert them as part of the BRD process. I've even pitched in with the reviewing myself to keep delays in acceptance to a minimum.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: With the greatest respect, that's not my intention behind the PC2 (and it would be the same with semi-protection alone, tough not with full protection). You're quite correct that a lot of edits are being reverted as being against consensus, or being controversial, or being problematic in other ways. My intent is to prevent defamation and other grossly inappropriate material from reaching the readers, and I would (again respectfully) suggest that it's doing a decent job of that. I'm keeping a close eye on things, and I'll fully protect it if needs be, but I'd rather keep it open to legitimate contributors as far as possible. I guess we can agree to disagree on the philosophy behind it, but I think it is working as intended. Or at least as I intended it, for whatever that's worth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker: Interestingly, there haven't actually been any of the sorts of BLP violations I had in mind when I enabled pending changes. Not on the article itself anyway. I don't think pending changes is being used the way you say: a lot of edits are being reverted, but in most cases after acceptance, so the pending changes protection is having relatively little effect on good-faith editors. The reverting and editing against consensus is a separate issue, but I don't think it's any worse here than on any other controversial article. Full protection would, in my opinion, unnecessarily impede the development of the article. Of course, we can disagree as to its effectiveness in good faith. I respect your opinion, I just think this is worth trying. If it turns out that it's an unmitigated disaster and I should have listened to you in the first place, we can fully protect it, and at least we can say we tried something to keep it open to editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RGloucester

[edit]

This is an absurd request, as I said at Mr Mitchell's talk page, and is exactly the type of bureaucratic nonsense that Wikipedia discourages. As I asked the filer at that talk page "Is there any reason why it shouldn't be used in this particular instance? That's the better question. Why should this particularly policy be enforced in this particular instance? If it is just for policy's sake, that's bureaucracy hindering the encylopaedia's improvement, and a waste of time". PC2 may not have consensus for general usage, but in this very specific and unique case, with an ArbCom sanctions regime behind him, Mr Mitchell made the right choice. As I said at the talk page, "WP:IAR applies. If a perfectly good tool is available for use, and an ArbCom sanctions regime gives an administrator the power to do whatever he needs to do to halt disruption, there is no reason for him not to use it, old RfC be damned". We're all aware of the disruption that has surrounded this article, and of the unique nature of its circumstance. If a tool that has not been tried before is available to stop disruption, it should be used. I'm really saddened by the filer's behaviour, because he is filing it to make a point. As he said at Mr Mitchell's talk page, "It shouldn't be used because it adds to stratification among editors. It says that those with the reviewer right are first class wikipedians who get to decide what the content of the article is and everyone else just makes suggestions". These kind of political positions, which he has taken, have no relevance in this particular case. Preventing BLP violations is an imperative, as is curtailing disruption. Let's not start attacking the people that keep our encyclopaedia intact, as was done during the GG case. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

[edit]

I see no reason to remove the current use of pending changes/semi-prot on this article based on past behaviors all around per the ArbCom case. The GG situation will continue to remain a hotbed for some time, and given there continues to be evidence of off-site organized attempts to affect this article from multiple areas, this maintains reasonable order. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avono

[edit]

The protection should stay per WP:IAR as the it intended to prevent disruption and is more practical than a fully protected article.Avono (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AtomsOrSystems

[edit]

I agree with everything said above by RGloucester, Masem and Avono. The article is still a source of considerable interest from a variety of sources, both within and outside Wikipedia. It seems to me that full protection would be overly restrictive, while semi-protection wouldn't offer enough, well, protection. PC2 appears to offer a good balance.
I think it's also worth noting that I personally have had no sense of "stratification" among the editors of the article based on the implementation of PC2 (or anything else, for that matter). AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

[edit]

I agree with the majority here about the PC2 protection on the article, but I feel this might be a good time to ask: With PC2 doing this good work, do we really also need it to be under 1RR?

It hasn't exactly been a problem yet, but considering that one of the big factors in this whole debacle has been the nigh-endless horde of gamergate supporters ready to throw themselves into the grinder, it seems like 1RR could end up being a hindrance to a minority of legitimate editors.

Statement by (involved editor 2)

[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Obsidi

[edit]
  • A few factual notes here.
    • There are, at this writing, over 7700 individuals with permissions that allow them to "review" pending changes. This encompasses the majority of Wikipedians who were active editors at the time pending changes was first adopted for its trial run, all administrators, and anyone who has been granted the permission since the first trial.
    • Any of those individuals can accept changes, and none of their edits require pending changes review.
    • Several of the individuals recently sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee in relation to this topic area hold permissions that will allow them to edit without being subject to pending changes review and can also accept/decline pending changes.
    • Although PC2 is essentially not permitted by policy, there have been a few very specific exceptions to date. To the best of my knowledge, they have all been discussed at an appropriate noticeboard and the exception has received consensus. Although in this case there has not been such a discussion, I think it is probably reasonable to assume that if such a discussion was held, there would be community approval for this application. After all, the community had already approved exceptional action in this topic area long, long before the Arbcom case.
  • My own opinion is that, while it may restrict some accounts from directly editing the article, we already know that editors who hold the necessary permissions have been sanctioned for their actions by Arbcom, community sanctions, or other processes in relation to this topic area. It also invites any editor with the necessary permission to review the edit and accept it, whether or not they have fully reviewed the talk page for consensus, or are aware of the subtle and creeping nature of some of the changes that have been proposed. Remember that essentially only vandalism or obvious BLP violations can be flat-out rejected, under the pending changes policy; the vast majority of edits being proposed through PC should actually be accepted. I would actually prefer seeing full protection of the article over PC2, so that it does retain the high level of control that is probably needed at this point; PC2 just isn't strong enough, because it still allows a lot of editors to make modifications without requiring consensus. Risker (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that there seems to be some concept that PC2 is "working" on this article. Looking at the revision history of the page, there's actually some pretty good reason to believe it is not actually helping anything; there are a huge number of reverts of "good faith edits" and edits done outside of consensus, and just above we've seen an editor sanctioned for making edits that were acceptable through PC2 despite consensus and content discussion on the talk page. Some evidence that it is actually changing behaviour in relation to this article should be expected by this point, but it seems quite the opposite is happening. Risker (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, it may be being used in the way you personally intend it to be used; however, in the last two pages of the history none of the edits reverted from the PC acceptance screen were BLP violations or vandalism. They were all strictly content edits. Given that it is very much against accepted policy to do that (the instructions are "accept the edit and then revert if you disagree with it" to paraphrase), and the majority of acceptances are from editors who have been very active in the article (i.e., they are not being done by neutral third parties), PC2 is not being used the way that the community intended PC to be used. Posting "instructions to reviewers" on the talk page should never be necessary, and is never appropriate because the reviewing interface doesn't take the reviewers there. No, what's happening here is content control; it's not being used to prevent BLP violations or vandalism. Risker (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Isotalo

[edit]

I would gladly support full protection, but only when or if all-out edit war breaks out. I'm not a fan of preemptive protection, especially with articles that are being watched by so many experienced users. Peter Isotalo 12:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Roger Davies

[edit]
  • Hi Tim. page restrictions mentions types of page protection rather than allows or disallows them. And while that could be more explicit, it is specifically mentioned in the sanctions available for this topic. On the broader points, the protection policy page says "In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention)" (my emphasis) which is the situation here.  Roger Davies talk 08:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Obsidi

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

I am inclined to accept HJ Mitchell's statement and decision in this case. It appears not to have been taken lightly, and at first glance HJ Mitchell seems to be putting in a dedicated effort to make pending changes work with this particular article. Balancing the desire to leave as many of our pages open to contributions from as many people as possible (the first sentence, after all, of Wikipedia:Protection policy) with the strict requirement to prevent the publication of defamatory, harrassing, or otherwise damaging content about living persons (WP:BLP) is sometimes quite difficult. HJ Mitchell's choice seems to strike a balance for this specific unusual circumstance; it's an application of WP:IAR in the way it is intended.

Beyond the philosophical objection, is there evidence to indicate that PC2 is not working correctly or is being abused in some way? Looking at the logs, PC2 has been in place for five days now; has it made things better or worse than they were before? Obviously I would support lifting PC2 (or converting it to some other form of protection, now or in a future appeal) if there were evidence to indicate that it was detrimental. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been presented to demonstrate how removing PC2 would benefit the article or the encyclopedia. Months of contentious editing, general sanctions, and a hotly disputed ArbCom case have proven that the normal way of doing things is inadequate in this case, so merely saying "we're not supposed to do this" is insufficient here. Besides, as ToAT said, is there any evidence that it's not working or being abused? Given all of this, I see no reason not to support HJ Mitchell's action here. Gamaliel (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see bureaucratic arguments in favour of removing the protection, but not pragmatic ones (other than Risker's argument). Is it hurting the project? Is it helping? Guettarda (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decline appeal. Apart from the beaurocratic reason to grant the appeal I see no reason to remove PC2, regarding Risker's point if PC2 does end up working then it can full protected later at the moment I'm not seeing a justification for it. One thing I will say though is that I don't believe that invocations of IAR should not be protected as discretionary sanctions but rather should allow other admins to modify them if they don't believe that there is sufficient justification for them, however that is person opinion and not a reason to decline the appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddly enough, WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions allows only "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)", which doesn't include pending changes. While the PC2 protection is probably a valid invocation of IAR, it is not currently an allowed discretionary sanction. That said, its omission from the list is probably an oversight, as I don't seem to remember any discussion related to this (pinging Roger Davies to confirm). We may want to request an amendment from arbcom to allow pending changes protection as a DS. T. Canens (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

[edit]

Collect

[edit]

{ {hat|Closing with the filer's consent. If this issue needs further discussion, ANI is probably the most appropriate venue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}} This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.[reply]
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Collect

[edit]
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons :Collect warned of DS on BLPs
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Collect removes infobox religious affiliation category as well as “Jewish” from the phrase “Jewish neoconservatives”, removing the aspect that makes the religious affiliation blpcat notable.[10]
  2. @MrX: agrees that sources meet blpcat and notability in terms of relevance.[11]
  3. @Nomoskedasticity: agrees that sources meet blpcat.[12]
  4. Nomoskedasticity indirectly warns Collect against reverting against consensus[13]
  5. Collect claims that blpcat policy overrides consensus between the three editors commenting on the thread.[14]
  6. MrX adds sources and queries Collect about collaborative editing.[15]
  7. MrX asks Collect if he intends to restore categories, etc. removed in this edit, which Collect had initially reverted and after which further sourcing was provided and the above-mentioned consensus reached.
  8. I repeat blpcat notability and ask him to abide by consensus.[16]


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.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since I have already mentioned, in a different context in relation to the appeal above, the very edit with relevant blpcat portions of which have been reverted edit, it I decided to file this complaint instead of querying Nomoskedasticity and MrX about the preferred course for seeking redress.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC) The NNDB sourcing issue was resolved three days ago, and I have certainly learned more about blpcat than I did then. There was a consensus built over the past three days collaboratively in relation to numerous sources, as the threads demonstrate. Collect has tendentiously been insisting on three points, basically: that references to "Jewish" and "Jew" in the sources refer to ethnicity, not religious affiliation; that Klein's religion (ethnicity) is not relevant to his notability; and that Jewish neocons were not a specific issue for Klein, eliminating an important reason that Klein's religion (ethnicity) is related to his notability, as described on the Talk thread.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Collect's behavior becomes more astounding by the minute. His assertion of an attack by me was a reply I made to a comment by @MastCell: that Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit[reply]
And below it seems that two uninvolved editors commenting have only read Collect's comments, not the relevant BLP/N or Talk threads, because they otherwise would know that
three editors have explicitly agreed that the sources support categorization of Joe Klein as Jewish and as having notability as such, and Collect, insisting that his interpretation of policy was correct instead of ours, reverted the consensus based categorization and supporting text.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I'm redacting and addressing a couple of the points in the Arbcom decision that are relevant, which is probably the last edit I will make tonight.

  1. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
Here, when Collect objected to material being included, it was removed, and when sources supporting inclusion garnered "local consensus" categorization and text were re-added, in accordance with blpcat, but reverted on what two editors found to be obstructionist grounds.
  1. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
Collect has refused to collaborate, simply acting as arbiter, saying "nope", and belittling the import of the discussion. The statements after his last revert were seen to be as pointy and not in good faith.

Collect makes statements irrelevant to interviews content and context, so I remind him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Klein&diff=645770180&oldid=645767379 I thank Collect for reading article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Klein&diff=645810543&oldid=645808207 I query Collect as followsAm I correct in assuming that you are now satisfied that he is in fact Jewish, but disagree with that the Atlantic interview qualifies him as "self-identifying" with respect to his religious affiliation? But receive only an evasive answer.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Klein&diff=645888466&oldid=645827337 repeating policy jargon].
Clearly that is not indicative of collaborative content creation, but evasiveness, which is in effect an implicit misrepresentation of the sources in os far as he refuses to even discusses aspects that three other editors are clearly in agreement on.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.
@Obsidi: For one thing, would there be any possible problems with categorizing someone as Jewish only by ethnicity without religious affiliation? The BLP is misrepresenting Klein in terms of his notability in relation to his religious affiliation, and that was caused by reverting well-sourced categories and text supporting notability. It is highly unusual that the article at present states that Klein is ethnically Jewish, but does not indicate that he took a stance as a Jew against Jewish neocons, which is the primary reason his religious affiliation (or Jewish ethnicity) is notable in the first place.
There's no question that it is tendentious editing, including WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI but the result has a direct bearing on the public representation (or misrepresentation) of the personal attributes and notability of Klein with respect to his self-identified religious affiliation, or denial thereof. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: If this is misplaced, sorry. Please close it and I'll take it to AN/I, or consult with the other two editors in consensus on the content to determine the most appropriate course, as they are more experienced with BLP than I. I've never filed a case here before, and maybe misunderstood the relation of DS to BLP violations.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[17]

Discussion concerning Collect

[edit]

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

Statement by Collect

[edit]

I have sought to abide by WP:BLPCAT and when a source was finally provided to source "Jewish heritage" for Joe Klein I made that specific edit. WP:BLPCAT specifically requires "self-identification" for claims of religion made in Wikipedia's voice. One should note that I started an RfC on whether this should continue to be policy. Absent a change oin BLP policy, I believe I was on firm ground in following that policy, despite repeated and iterated addition of the claim of religion as "Jewish" on the Joe Klein article.

[18] shows an editor insisting that NNDB is a source for claiming religion in Wikipedia's voice. [19] etc. have the editor explain his rationale as "I don't know whether the characterization belongs in the lead or whatnot as I don't work on BLPs very often, but it isn't even mentioned in the article despite the high-profile he's received in media coverage of the debate. I don't have time to sort out a text for the article.", [20] has a second editor excuse the violation of WP:BLPCAT with "Yes. "Danny Postel is Associate Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies". Jewish is not a pejorative term" and so on. The problem was that the editors were unfamiliar with the policy in WP:BLPCAT. On this current noticeboard page you will see a large number of edits where the aim is to label a person or persons "Jewish." Were WP:BLP to be amended as the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#RfC asks, none of this would have occurred, but WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear unless altered.

[21] shows my prompt request at BLP/N for opinions on NNDB as a source for the claim. [22] expands the statement.

In short - the complaint has no merit here, and the fact that I was the personto finally add the proper source for Klein having Jewish background should indicate that the word "Jewish" is not the problem Collect (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


And this is not the only case where I have made assertion of BLPCAT - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Timothy_McVeigh_Religion_and_Political_categorization (long list of cases where I invoke that non-negotiable policy, in fact) where I show an exactly parallel concern. If Ubikwit wishes to alter the policy, I set up the RfC precisely for him to opinion. Complaining here is poor form indeed. Collect (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appending: The OP here posted:[23]

The problem is your obstructionist rhetoric and refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. Three editors disagree, explicitly with your "parsing" regarding the meaning of "Jewish" and "Jew" by both Klein and others, and others referring to Klein as Jewish in the above context means that his Jewishness is notable to the controversy

Now the issue to be determined is:

Do "Jew" and "Jewish" as claims and categories in Wikipedia's voice fall under WP:BLPCAT or not?

If so, then can 3 editors state that the material is relevant even when the term s not from "self-identification" (presume that the source I do accept which was finally proffered does not exist, as it was not even mentioned until far on in the discussions - and I accepted it).

Is "Jewishness is notable to the controversy"

a valid exception to the policy? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Another source proffered:[24]

Enough sources have been listed, but you refuse to recognize the obvious; furthermore, the Atlantic article links to the response from ADL's Foxman

We were deeply troubled by your outrageous assertion on Time Magazine's "Swampland" blog that Jewish neoconservatives "plumped" for the war in Iraq and are now doing the same for "an even more foolish assault on Iran" with the goal of making the world "safe for Israel." ("Surge Protection," June 24).

[25], which includes a link to Klein's response.

Unfortunately I do not see Klein saying anything in that blockquote :(. The Time source did allow me to be the one to add Klein's Jewish heritage to the BLP, but I fail to see what else I can do with this current interesting interpretation of WP:BLPCAT. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just ran across an interesting attack on me:[26]

I would say that Collect flew under the radar of making overt accusations, so I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do consider his insinuations of anti-Semitism, particularly with respect to the Monoweiss source related thread, to be a highly offensive and disruptive form of baiting

Which appears to me to be an accusation against me of insinuations of anti-Semitism at which I take justifiable umbrage. Collect (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Obsidi

[edit]

A few things here:

  1. You are arguing that he was WP:Tendentious editing in that he was editing against consensus. This is not a BLP violation (it might violate other rules but those should be brought before ANI not AE).
  2. This seems to fall within WP:Local consensus, the fact that you and two other editors came to a consensus that Collect disagreed with does not matter if it is about a policy that has been accepted by a wider consensus. In this case that is from WP:CAT/R: Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question. If this person is or is not religiously Jewish should not be said in WP voice without the person making that claim themselves. If you think this policy is wrong, propose a chance to the policy.

--Obsidi (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think, assuming that what the complainer said is true, this may be a good case for WP:BOOMERANG. Basically what the accuser has said is that he and his two other editors repeatedly insisted on adding poorly sourced material about a LP being religiously Jewish to a BLP page despite an objection by another editor and while they were aware of the BLP discretionary sanctions. --Obsidi (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisGualtieri

[edit]

This seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by Ubikwit. WP:BLPCAT is clear that it requires the subject publicly self-identify with the belief or orientation in question. Jewish atheism is well-known given the prominence about many Jews who are "ethnically Jewish", but do not subscribe to the religion or other perhaps subscribe to an entirely different set of religious beliefs. We have a category dedicated to such persons "Category:Jewish atheists and members of this category should meet the requirements of WP:BLPCAT as well. Few editors will remember Philip Roth of another Wikipedia drama who is clearly a Jewish atheist. Roth's inclusion comes from the well-stated and public beliefs that are cited in Roth's article. As a result, I am not convinced by the complainant's argument because it does not allow such a distinction to exist. Collect is right to protest on those grounds. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Collect

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This appears to be a case of WP:Tendentious editing, but could the parties instead discuss specifically how this does or does not violate the policies covered by the discretionary sanctions? Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the conduct being reported is a BLP violation (and thus how it's covered by discretionary sanctions or any other arbitration remedy). Note that disruptive editing or editing against policy/consensus on an article that happens to be about a living person is not a BLP violation in and of itself. Unless something is posted promptly that suggests discretionary sanctions are applicable, I suggest this be closed an deferred to ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit

[edit]

NorthBySouthBaranof

[edit]

Gouncbeatduke

[edit]

Retartist

[edit]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarieWarren

[edit]

Arzel

[edit]

Ritsaiph

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive163&oldid=1363198434"