Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:19, 18 December 2021

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Nableezy

Bob drobbs topic-banned from Israel/Palestine content for six months -- Euryalus (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bob drobbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Repeated calls in an AFD and article talk pages calling for me to be banned IMO cross the line into intimidation and harassment violating WP:CIVIL:

11/30 "Delete, and sanction the creator" in response to the AFD for Collier
11/30 "Exactly why you should be blocked" over a disagreement about wp:coatrack.
12/9 "... you will find yourself reported to arbitration enforcement" in response to a non-violation of 1RR while I'm trying to get consensus.

This is especially true as he continued this behavior after I asked him to stop. "Please stop making threats - if you're going to report me, then report me. But I think your accusations are groundless. Stop making threats implied or otherwise" [1]

David Collier (political activist) has personally attacked Nableezy (I cannot share the link), and I believe Nableezy knows this, but he denies that he has any COI in regards to the person who attacked him. Below is how Nableezy refers to Collier. This might violate WP:COI or WP:OR among other things.

The RS which are being used generally refer to Collier as an "independent journalist" or "researcher", though a few mostly older sources do refer to him as a "blogger". His blog is never mentioned in anything more than passing, but his reports on antisemitism are covered in depth in RS. Nableezy's personal opinion that material covered by RS is "wild claims" should play no part in these discussions.

12/7 "...handful of partisan sources parroting a blogger's claims"
12/7 "...incessant push to include the rantings of a blogger"
12/8 "This fetishization of the most breathless recounting of what is uncorroborated innuendo by a blogger"
12/9 "This fetishization over the "report" of a blogger making wild claims"

Regarding COI, I recognize something of a Catch-22 if anyone with a wikipedia page can attack a wikipedia editor, and then that editor can no longer edit their BLP page. But on the flip-side, if a notable or possibly notable person attacks an editor, that editor must be extra careful editing their page or pushing for exclusion of their work. Nableezy seems to be completely failing there.

Finally, this isn't any sort of "gotcha" trying to silence an opponent. I repeatedly told Nableezy that I felt these calls for me to be banned felt like threats or intimidation and asked him to stop[2][3][4] He refused. Then I asked if he'd join me in a mediation process.[5][6] Again he refused.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

5/2011 Topic banned for 2 months
1/2012 Topic banend for 6 months - ban on "Palestine" wording

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

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

He just filed a report: [7]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regarding WP:POINT, ...

As for edit warring, Huldra systematically went through wikipedia removing every mention of Collier[8][9][10] outside of his page with the exact same edit comment: "WP:ONUS and WP:DUE and WP:RS...". I did put much of that text back at one point or another while making good faith efforts to engage in talk pages. And in at least one case, she was right so I undid part of my revert[11]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I respect your opinion. But every time that I've asked him to stop with these implied threats in talk pages, he's refused. I'm legitimately not sure exactly how much harassment I should put up with before filing here. If I had waited until the next time, and does anyone doubt there will be a next time, would things be different? My goal in regards to the harassment section is simply a change in behavior. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: You might not see the difference, but there is an important difference between saying "I believe you violated a rule" and shouting to a room "sanction this user". If you're willing to (1) try to take these comments to talk pages, and (2) try to voice them as opinions unless it's factual (e.g. a clear 1RR), then that is all I'm looking for. Somehow I couldn't get that through to you through comments in article talk page, through a comment on your talk page, or through a request for mediation.

I still think you're incapable of showing anything resembling impartiality toward David Collier's reports on antisemitism, and you should excuse yourself from such conversations. That's not based solely on his attacks against you; it's also based on your comments about him. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I appreciate polite notices on my talk page. Just recognize that sometimes you will be right and sometimes wrong.

Admins: -> I'm now fine with closing the harassment half of this report. As for Collier, he certainly has his faults, but even his critics acknowledge that his reports uncover and document legitimate antisemitism. These reports have significant coverage from RS. All mentions of these reports should not be removed from wikipedia, based on the views of someone who seems unable to see Collier as anything more than a "blogger". This is contrary to solid RS. The Jerusalem post calls him an "investigative journalist", and The Times an "antisemitism researcher". [12][13]

@Huldra:: AR was completely the wrong venue, a mistake which I acknowledged[14] and corrected with a move to ANI[15]. And yes, there was zero result, but here's how two non-involved editors described your behavior:

Ravenswing: "near to hysteria ... doesn't greenlight you to lash out at random editors"
Coretheapple: "The kind of behavior noted above ... is not acceptable, and creates a chilling effect'

Johnuniq made an early comment in that ANI, but for whatever reason did not weigh back in after those comments.

I've been editing on and off, for 10 years not just in the IP area. I may get permanently banned for daring to question an admin, but Johnuniq's call for a permanent ban, when I've never even been reported before, feels like an attempt to silence one side of these discussions. I'm imperfect, but so is almost everyone who edits IP pages. On the positive side, if you look you'll find examples of me making real effort to work with the "other side" including Nableezy [16][17], and when I misgendered Huldra, I apologized profusely.[18]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I did not systematically go through and add everything possible about Collier. I carefully evaluated things and only added content which I felt was well supported by multiple sources. The Amnesty International text, for example, has two solid sources. When there was only one source, or a bad source, I did not include it. When you pointed out things that were badly sourced, I agreed with you and removed them [19]. I treated you with real kindness once. You are under no obligation to return that favor. But I'm going to ask you to speak up on my behalf anyways, so we can work together to make pages better in the future, fairly representing all sides. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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 Nableezy

David Collier is a blogger. That is how he is referred to by the BBC. The US State Department describes him as pro-Israel blogger. Do I think Bob should be sanctioned for violating WP:POINT? Yes, I do, his creation of the Collier article, really a hagiography, was on the heels of a dispute at NPOVN about using some material from Collier. He, after creating the article, wrote on NPOVN that David Collier is notable now. He very purposely created an article as part of his push to include material in other articles, material that a consensus at NPOVN found should not be included. COI? Because Collier called me a terrorist? How does that make it so I have a conflict of interest with him? I dont give half a shit what some random person on the internet thinks of Nableezy. That somebody thinks I am a terrorist is their problem, not mine. I have never engaged with Collier in any way whatsoever anywhere, and the idea that one can make up some wild claim, and yes I am going to say the idea that I am a terrorist is indeed a wild claim and a ranting on a blog, and can then disqualify that person from editing their article is asinine. OR? What edit to an article have I ever made that was not cited to a reliable source directly backing it up? Yes, there has been an incessant push to include Collier's claims, in which he demonstratively fabricates material as documented here, carried out by Bob and the now blocked latest reincarnation of NoCal100. And yes, I do think that is a problem. A content problem that I am addressing on talk pages. Warning Bob that if he continues to violate WP:ONUS and edit-warring (not 1RR as he claims above) is what we are supposed to do. We let people know what they are doing is against policy before reporting them. Such as when I gave him the opportunity to self-revert previously. Bob seems to be under the impression that if he does not violate the 1RR that he may edit-war to enforce his position, as he has done here, here (and again same article same revert), here, and here. Every single one of those is a violation of WP:ONUS, and yes every single one is part of an incessant campaign to include a bloggers view in our articles. nableezy - 20:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collier has attacked a large number of editors here, claiming that we are antisemites, terrorist-supporters, literal Nazis. The idea that somebody can disqualify a set of users so that only those users whose views align with his own may edit material about him is so silly that I cant quite put into words how dumbfounded I am that somebody would seriously suggest it. By Bob's standards, only Collier's fans can edit material about him, and if I or anybody else does not want a blogger quoted at length in encyclopedia article then we fail COI. I have no external relationship with Collier. I have no financial relationship with Collier. He has tried to out me, he has tried to out others. That does not mean I have a conflict with him. I very literally do not give a shit about David Collier, or anything he has ever written or said. I do care about our articles, and I will continue to make sure that they remain encyclopedia articles and not filled with unimportant trivia like what some blogger thinks. nableezy - 21:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FFF (if I can call you that), youre not wrong and I will make a better effort to bring up user conduct issues on user talk pages. But informing a user that they are violating our policies and telling them if they continue doing so they will be reported is not harassment, as Bob says above, and calling it that is nonsense. nableezy - 22:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I can honestly say I dont care what you think about my views of Collier or his reports, and no I will not be excusing myself from discussions about them. But I will try my best to only warn you on your user talk page. If youd prefer I just report you for edit-warring I can do that too if you like, but I always appreciated a heads up that a report was going to result if I did not correct some error; if you do not then no worries I dont need to give them. nableezy - 23:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add another ONUS violation and instance of edit-warring here, having previously reverted multiple times (here and here. nableezy - 00:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Mentioning the possibility that you might complain about a user's conduct on-wiki is not a "threat" and describing them as such is a pet peeve of mine. I am surprised to see that Bob drobbs considers this sanctionable behavior; he's done the same at least once, in this comment at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In a topic area with such frequent misconduct, including some that is accidental and quickly corrected, it's no surprise that content disputes commonly include mentions of ANI or AE as a potential next step.

I would prefer to see these mentions take place at user talk pages, so that content discussions can stay more focused, so here's me asking: nableezy, please consider bringing conduct concerns to user talk pages, followed by ANI/AE/and admin's page if needed. It's vanishingly rare to see editors respond well, and it usually devolves into misconduct side conversations that detract from the project far more than they resolve any disputes. I have said, and will continue to say, as much to any editor that I think might take the feedback well, but again, this type of warning is so ubiquitous that sanction here would be surreal. Firefangledfeathers 22:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, nableezy, and FFF is fffine with me. I feel much the same about 'harassment' as I do about 'threat": we're on the internet, and enable anonymous editing, which means actual threats and real harassment are ever-present. Firefangledfeathers 22:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I will not directly address the complaint filed but rather discuss issues I raised on complainant's talk page, if I may.

Re the BDS article & Approaching Inf-in_MD & The "one last chance" refers to the discussion mentioned by "FFF".

Complainant has a tendency to overreact when things are not going the way they would wish & "I have a busy day and don't have time right now to figure out how to do it myself" The whole talk page may be read to get the gist of my argument, it's not that long and elements of it explain in part why Nableezy is justifiably exasperated.

There are other issues around use/misuse of dispute resolution procedures that I will address if needs be. Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Just this month, Bob drobbs first reported me to arbcom; link

Then he reported me to WP:AN/I; (see link); both with zero result.

And now he reports Nableezy here. And we are still only the 10th of the month. If you don't topic-ban him; can you please at least ban him from filing more "reports"? Far, far too much time has been wasted on this.

And just the idea that if people are harassing you off-wiki, then you are disqualified to discuss them on-wiki? This is 100% absurd, IMO. (Alas; it would of course be wonderful for the harassers iff it was true) Huldra (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob drobbs: I would never, ever want anyone sanctioned for making an honest mistake; I even thanked you after you fixed your mis-gendering mistake, remember?

BUT: after I have showed that Collier falsifies in his "report" about Ireland, you still insists on using the "report" in the Antisemitism in Europe-article.

AND; after Zero has shown that there are similar problems with Collier's "report" about Amnesty; you still insists on adding it to the Criticism of Amnesty International -article.

And yeah; I "systematically went through wikipedia removing every mention of Collier"; but you forgot to mention: that was after you had "systematically" added each and everyone of those addition of Collier. Basically: I was "cleaning up" after you. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

I don't see much merit to the complaints relating to David Collier, which leaves us with 2 incidents of Nableezy stating that they think Bob drobbs should be blocked, at which point Bob drobbs asked them to stop. 9 days later, Nableezy asks Bob drobbs to stop edit warring at Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, where they did go back and forth a few times with Huldra, as part of the discussion to resolve the dispute on the talk page. This case is flimsy enough that I would consider WP:BOOMERANG sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rosguill. Nothing much in the complaints (though FFF makes a good point that the user page is the better location). A short (possibly circumscribed) topic ban for Bob Drools may be warranted if only to give them the opportunity to show that they have at least a passing interest in Wikipedia beyond this area. I'm a bit concerned, for example, with the edit warring on Criticism of Amnesty International. Repeatedly pushing a point through edit warring or excessive talk page postings can be very exhausting for other editors. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kitchen-sink enforcement requests like this provide evidence of battleground behavior. The complaints concern disputes regarding David Collier (political activist) which was deleted at 22:26, 10 December 2021 as a result of this AfD. The first link is [20] which shows Nableezy making very valid points at an AfD with a mild "And possibly block creator per WP:POINT." At the time this request was filed (19:54, 10 December 2021) the AfD did not support keeping the article and in fact it was deleted 2+1⁄2 hours later. Continuing with this issue does not show good judgment. I don't see any evidence showing Nableezy making anything other than reasonable policy-based comments. Mother Teresa might not have included all of Nableezy's text but if there is something sanctionable there, I don't see it (that's an invitation for anyone to post a single link with an explanation). The final item of evidence is "He just filed a report: [21]" which refers to the report above (#Inf-in MD) where the reported user has been blocked as a sock. A topic ban of Bob drobbs seems appropriate in order to reduce the disruption. Re the request to extend past 500 words, please post more within a limit of 1000 words but all that is needed is, say, two links showing something actually bad, with a brief explanation. Re the duration of a possible topic ban, I think indefinite is the only useful approach in a topic like this where the editor needs to show an understanding of why the sanction occurred and why it would be reasonable for it to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with a topic ban for the OP plus a warning about weaponising dispute resolution forums to "win" content disputes. I see some of these previous frivolous dispute resolution filings are now being characterised as "daring to question an admin," which further illustrates that the OP doesn't understand WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TE, or why their approach is disruptive to collaborative editing. More positively: agree with the topic ban being indefinite but not infinite - a good record editing unrelated articles might pave the way for a future appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May as well proceed to closing as this has been sitting here for a few days without further input. There is consensus for a topic ban of the OP but less consensus on its length (indefinite vs shorter). Have therefore gone for a milder option with a six-month ban. I note Rosguill's comment here re ban length: in the spirit of AGF am content to assume that six months editing in other areas of Wikipedia will induce a less battleground approach. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The History Wizard of Cambridge

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

[22] Revert of Nug on 21:34, 11 December 2021.
[23] Revert of Volunteer Marek on 22:00, 11 December 2021. Mass killings under communist regimes is under a strict 1RR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[24] Received a 48 hour block for edit-warring earlier this year at Cecil Rhodes on 09:06, 3 April 2021.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 06:29, 10 December 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I explained the discretionary sanctions and asked The History Wizard of Cambridge to self-revert the 1RR violation prior to filing this AE report, deliberately declining to revert it myself or to take any particular stance on the underlying content, but The History Wizard of Cambridge refused to do so.

The History Wizard of Cambridge previously deleted content in two non-consecutive edits on 5 December ([25], [26]) although those edits were not reported here because it was ambiguous whether they qualified as reverts and whether the user was then aware of the discretionary sanctions in effect at Mass killings under communist regimes (notwithstanding the prominent notice that displays whenever editing the page).

Under the former account name of BulgeUwU, which was considered obscene and had to be changed, this user was the subject of an ANI report by Pudeo detailing what other users called "mass POV changes" (Pudeo), "ridiculously blatant POV-pushing" (Ineffablebookkeeper), "deliberate falsification or just incompetence" (Red Rock Canyon), and "improper synthesis" (Fences and windows). Among other things, The History Wizard of Cambridge/BulgeUwU wrote in wikivoice that British historian Robert Conquest (author of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties) "committed plagiarism" using a source that failed verification, after which the user conceded: "Even though the word plagiarism is not used [in the source], I don't know how else to accurately describe [Conquest's] actions."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

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 The History Wizard of Cambridge

Statement by Paul Siebert

I myself noticed this edit war, and I posted this warning on the talk page. There is a clear 1RR violation here, but before making a decision, two considerations must be taken into account.

First, this edit by @Nug: restored the source that is, according to this RSN discussion is unreliable. In addition, several users ([28], [29]) objected to that. Therefore, the user whom The History Wizard of Cambridge reverted clearly violated consensus. Similarly @Volunteer Marek: repeated the same edit, and that action also was against a consensus.
Second, there is a serious reason to suspect that the opposite party was acting as a tag-team. I believe, many admins are aware of that reason, but if they aren't, I can explain it, either here of by email.

My opinion is that this article has a very bad karma, but we currently are starting to work productively and collaboratively on fixing its problem. Thus, a dispute resolution is currently in progress, and Nug is an important participant in it. I think that AE sanctions will bring unneeded drama, which will immediately create a very toxic atmosphere. However, if admins decide that sanctions are needed, then both warring parties must be sanctioned. In my opinion, a final warning to all parties would be the most fruitful solution.

@RegentsPark: I think you are absolutely right, but in addition to that, I propose to look at the problem that I partially discussed in my previous statement. This article is a focus of interest of two warring groups of users. The 1RR restriction does not prevent an edit war between the groups, as each user in the group only makes one revert in 24 hr. It is easy to see that this type edit war has already begun. The reverts made by The History Wizard of Cambridge are just a part of the long series of reverts and re-reverts made by the two opposing parties: the full history is this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). As we can see, we have a full scale edit war between two parties. More importantly, three users who restore this text are ex-members of WP:EEML. And, in this situation, to block or warn just a single user, who was not patient enough to wait 24 hours, would be the least logical step. It would be a clear signal to all parties: "You may continue your conflict, just try to observe some formal decorum". Therefore, it would be fair to apply additional restrictions prohibiting the execution of the second revert independently on whether the first revert was done by the same user or by another editor. If necessary, I can make it a subject of a separate request. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to ping @Seraphimblade: too, for it seems there are some aspects in this story that he overlooked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the 'tag-team' edit war still continues. I am seriously contemplating a separate AE request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Does the filing party really think that the best way to improve this article, which was the subject of the largest AFD in the history of Wikipedia, is to identify an editor or editors who have violated 1RR and sanction them? I don't think so. I suggest that we warn the reported editor, and advise the reporting editor that this sort of enforcement by clock isn't useful either. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) IP editor

I don't know if uninvolved persons are allowed to comment..if not, my apologies. @RegentsPark: and @Seraphimblade:: I strongly urge you both, as well as any other admins that may happen to review this, to thoroughly read the statements by the editors directly above and carefully consider the entirety of the whole situation here; first of all, 1RR is clearly failing to prevent disruption on this page. 1RR does no good if there are a tag team of 10 (or whatever many) editors each taking their turn to revert once a day! To block one editor for reverting twice against a tag team of editors - who were adding unreliably sourced (per RSN consensus) material, no less (which is not just some frivolous content dispute, mind you, and is a violation of WP:V), is not reasonable. On a final note, I remind all admins reviewing that WP is intended to not be a bureaucracy, that IAR is a core policy intended as a safeguard against situations when the enforcement of the letter of the rest of policy would result in a broken system, as well as a countermeasure against editors, or groups of editors gaming the system. And that's all. Do the right thing! Peace! 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C2:BB5:D65F:F72A (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

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

This is a clear cut 1RR violation, and on highly contentious articles, 1RR is an absolute bright line. I'm also not at all impressed by the failure to self-revert when notified of the issue. I was waiting for the reported editor to respond here, but by now they have had plenty of time to do so. I would suggest a week or so block from editing the article (though not the talk page or any other page, so that discussion may continue), but the point needs gotten across that 1RR means 1RR, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a clear cut 1RR violation that was pointed out and not self reverted. But, I think a warning is probably a better bet than a block. Everybody has a bad moment and the response here seems like one of those. That offending edit was reverted by someone else, History Wizard seems to have taken a cool down break of their own accord, time to move on. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Maneesh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Maneesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:GENSEX

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

[30] I have no problem saying "transwomen are male" ... Not POV, just a simple facts. I'm terribly uninterested in a wikpedia that censors such simple truths. Please do go out there and do your best to ban me if you think your efforts will be successful - this pretty much speaks for itself.
[31] Removal of sourced article content to comply with the POV noted above.
[32] Revert-warring that preceded the above outburst.
[33] More of the revert-warring, over the same WP:GENSEX issue.
[34] Maneesh promoting the same POV in the Talk page of Man.
[35] Maneesh revert-warring against consensus and ONUS to promote the same POV in the article text of Man.
[36] Maneesh editing the Man article to erase the mention of transgender men and women (text that was previously arrived at through consensus on Talk).
[37] Maneesh opening a discussion on Talk:Man by equating gender identity with mental delusions.
(added by Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)) [38] proposed article text for Man that would replace references to trans men and trans women with some men identify as as women and some women identify as men - I have added this here because I referred to it in response to Springee, below.[reply]
(added by Newimpartial (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)) [39] In their filing below, Maneesh has announced their intention to continue to disrupt the WP:GENSEX subject matter area while denying that discretionary sanctions apply to their editing, against site-wide consensus.[reply]
Added by Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC) [40] An additional reply, right here.[reply]
Added by Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC) [41] right here, again. Maneesh characterizes gender identity as a harmless folk notion saying, anyone can identify as anything they like and there is generally nothing wrong with that - this statement runs flatly counter to the MEDRS and is purely disruptive. Competence is required.[reply]
Added by Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC) [42] Virtually nothing NewImpartial has said here has made any sense, I now understand the mentality of who I am dealing with. - Clear personal attack, at AE, concerning a GENSEX issue.[reply]
Added by Newimpartial (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)This response to this question posed at Maneesh's talk should make clear that Maneesh feels that the site-wide values embedded in MOS:GENDERID have nothing to do with my general civil conduct on this website and that accepting the scientific consensus on gender identity, even as an appropriate way to treat people in general social situations is equivalent to being asked to accept Zork as their lord and savior. I asked that question because I wondered whether the explanation here, that the edit containing the "space alien" comparison was only a confused expression of Maneesh's understanding that intersex people are like everyone else, and nothing more. From the scandalized reaction documented in this diff, it seems clear that recognizing the scientific consensus about gender identity - or even acting as though it were true - is so offensive as to be obscene. More disruption undoubtedly awaits, then - clearly this filing was premature, compared to what is in store from Maneesh's "scientific" (but, alas, also "folkloric") POV.[reply]

Explanatory note discussing key points from diff 10

By posting this to AE, after having been notified of the GENSEX DS and (presumably) reading the filing, Maneesh has helpfully announced what to expect if they are allowed to continue editing on GENSEX topics. First, Maneesh denies that the removal of material about trans people from the articles Man and Sex differences in medicine is in scope for WP:GENSEX at all, insisting that doing so is not part it a gender-related dispute or controversy since the edits are focused on biology and medicine, as though the two were mutually exclusive. The idea that removing material about trans people from such articles as Man isn't covered by GENSEX suggests either WP:CIR issues or truly blinding POV, and is, in any event, very likely to continue to produce disruption.

Later, Maneesh makes the unsubstantiated claim that MEDRS in all these cases uses male/female man/woman men/women synonymously (just like the english you read in the news) - that isn't likely to be true, and certainly isn't self-evident. For example, the news I read typically uses male/female and man/woman in context-specific ways: these terms do not always mean the same thing, sometimes including and sometimes excluding various trans identities, and recent MEDRS I have read do the same. While I am not suggesting that Maneesh's POV on this is beyond what is acceptable on WP, the fact that no other perspective about these terms is imaginable to Maneesh makes further disruption inevitable, the longer editing of GENSEX topics is allowed, since Maneesh will keep running up against the site-wide community values embodied in MOS:GENDERID.

A couple of Maneesh's specific explanations are of particular interest. The defense of this edit is The edit does not mention "gender identity" or any delusion, that's all that is needed verify that this complaint is meritless. Whatever Maneesh meant by males or females can identify as males or females or ... alien beings, it represents either WP:CIR issues or deep POV not to recognize that while the comment may not mention gender identity, the most plausible interpretation (from a qualified reader) is that it is a statement about gender identity. Doubling down on the comparison between gender identity and identifying as ... alien beings in an arbitration enforcement discussion is a clear signal that the editor will continue to disrupt the subject matter because they have done nothing wrong.

Maneesh also defends this edit, replacing article mentions of the (standard in recent MEDRS) terms transgender men and transgender women with a notation that some men identify as as women and some women identify as men, later in the same discussion - though strangely the option to identify as alien beings is not proposed. The defense is, Totally appropriate suggestion that invokes the (plural of) the article title and supported by RS provided earlier in this post - I am not saying that such a proposal could not be made, for example by an editor inexperienced in gender-related issues, but to insist on doubling down on this proposal in the context of arbitration enforcement discussion is a classic example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and a very clear promise to continue to disrupt discussions in this subject matter area.

It is difficult enough to edit on sensitive topics without the additional disruption caused by editors who believe that site-wide consensus and civility norms do not apply to them, that their opinions carry more authority than the recent, reliable sources, and that they do not need to enter into meaningful dialogue with other editors because they know better. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory note for diff 11

Trebling down, Maneesh is now insisting that MEDRS consistently use male/female man/woman men/women synonymously, saying How anyone could take NewImpartial's claims seriously beggars belief. This suggests a lack of familiarity with recent MEDRS such as this one, which says, For example, a cisgender woman is a person who identifies as a woman and was assigned female sex at birth (ie, the sex listed on their birth certificate). Yet, people of many genders—women, men, genderqueer, nonbinary, and more—can and do carry pregnancies. Presumably some of the sources Maneesh prefers use women and men in a different sense than this. My statement that these terms do not always mean the same thing, sometimes including and sometimes excluding various trans identities might not be absurd or represent flat-out ignorance of MEDRS and English. Again, the promise of more disruption. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13 December 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The diffs above, documenting POV-pushing and disruption in Article and Talk space, were chosen judiciously and are all from the last week. It seems that Maneesh has decided to "level up" their insistence that trans women are men, etc. It is particularly difficult for trans editors to carry on CIVIL discussion with an editor who insists on this POV, and who questions the ready evidence that trans people exist. See for example, the discussion on Talk:Man that began when Maneesh posted - in defense of removing text about gender identity from that article - that Both males or females can identify as males or females or basketball players, royalty, alien beings or just about whatever they want: in other words, a trans person's gender identity has the same status as an institutionalized person's belief that they are a reptoid, or the Queen of England. That isn't WP:CIVIL, and is disruptive in WP:GENSEX editing.

I would request that Maneesh be topic-banned from the area of gender and sexuality, broadly construed, to prevent further disruption. Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: you appear to have misunderstood the nature of my filing. I am not suggesting that Maneesh's POV is beyond all reasonable limits, and must therefore be removed. Nor am I am saying that all of the diffs in this filing represent "bad" edits showing bad faith.

What I am actually saying is that they are all disruptive edits: it is UNCIVIL to taunt and insult trans people because an editor does not "believe in" gender identity. It is disruptive to revert-war over article content to pursue a POV crusade against ONUS and/or BRD even when the editor is right about the content. (I am not saying that Maneesh is right about the substance of any of these edits; I am saying that it doesn't matter to this filing what position is "right", so Crossroads' lawyering about this seems besides the point.)

There are plenty of editors on GENSEX topics with whom I disagree, including those who have already rallied in support of Maneesh, and I am not trying to remove them from the topic area. But there is only one editor currently engaged in this specific style of disruption: Maneesh.

As a postscript, I am very careful about (and reluctant to use) the term "transphobic". However, I understand that edits (and arguments) intended to erase trans people from the article Man are correctly termed "transphobic" - indeed, I didn't think this was especially controversial. And if Crossroads knows trans people who are comfortable having their gender identity compared to having a delusion of being an alien, good for them, I guess? But I believe that viewpoint would be rather WP:FRINGE among trans people. (And outside these issues of civility and decorum, I don't pretend to speak on behalf of other trans and nonbinary people - we are a rather diverse group and perhaps the only thing we have in common is that we prefer neither to be erased nor insulted.) Newimpartial (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Crossroads, while this is not the place to resolve content issues, I hope you can understand the difference between the position you articulate below, that recognizes the language use in the MEDRS article I linked but calls it FRINGE, and the position Maneesh "articulated" on Talk:Sex differences in medicine, denying that this use of language exists in the RS, at all. This is the difference between interacting with an editor like you, which can be difficult and frustrating but at least allows some reference to sources and policies for guidance, and interacting with Maneesh who will ignore evidence and insult interlocutors without any constraint arising from Wikipedia norms. The point of the source I offered was not, "this is the way WP articles should be written" but rather "these sources exist" - something you (grudgingly) accept and Maneesh seemingly does not. As far as the extent to which Sex differences in medicine needs to reflect the emerging scholarship in transgender health, that is a question for another day, but all I was doing in the linked discussions was pushing back at Maneesh's POV crusade to expurgate that material from the stable versions. And I don't really see how you can invoke WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS in service of Maneesh's BOLD changes to those articles...that seems to me to be an "original" interpretation of that policy. Motivated, even. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, @Crossroads, you are right: the IP falsified my quote by removing self-avowed and queers, fags (and) dykes ... remain. My comment was always about queer identities and not at all about queer (or "homosexual") bodies. I wouldn't say the same thing now in those words, of course; I felt provoked by Pyxis's rhetorical "queer-bashing', q.v. I don't do queer theory, and it's queer practitioners and their enablers that are the ones desperately trying to change common sense... You can say you're a human green monkey, but there are no human green monkeys except for the one you invented. At the time, I felt that I was replying in a proportionate way; I don't see it that way now, but my unfortunate statement has been a useful litmus for socks, though - that's a bright side. And your apparent belief that it is fine to mock the identity "queer" but not "homosexual" seems, erm, inconsistent to me. I have stopped undermining the latter long since, but Pyxis keeps on keeping on against the former and you seem fine with that. Also, I have queer and nonbinary insignia right on my User page; it is not as though my identities are somehow concealed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: my reference was to a "mug", as in someone duped by a shell game. And I was addressing the room at that point, and more Sideswipe9th than anyone else (as I specified here using the equivalent term, "gull"). Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I certainly didn't intend this filing to have anything to do with WP:GNL - it is a conduct complaint regarding civility, tendentious and provocative argumentation, and POV editing against consensus (particularly revert-warring against IMPLICITCONSENSUS). But I clearly have no control over how other editors interpret the situation. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: as you saw me note at Talk:Man, the statement that Maneesh removed from the article amounted to essentially, "some AMAB people are trans women" and "some AFAB people are trans men" ... the same as "trans people exist". Interestingly, Maneesh eventually counter-proposed language something like 'some men identify as as women and some women identify as men ...' which is, as I then pointed out transphobic language that denies transgender existence - the only mention of transphobia I made on that Talk page. And since Maneesh had opened that discussion with both males and females can identify as ... alien beings (diff 8, above), I don't see any way the slight to trans people could have been inadvertent.

And Springee, I don't think it is reasonable for you to state that I am too quick to assign -phobia type motives to other editors, since I essentially never do so. Even in the case of Maneesh, I have been careful to characterize only proposed language (or removal of content) as transphobic; personal beliefs or motives are opaque to me, and I express that recognition as clearly as I can. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish - I see it in the spirit of Comment on content, not on the contributor - it is the content that is transphobic, not the contributor, or at least that is how I see it. Springee was talking about motives, but I wouldn't presume. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn - I didn't think this needed to be pointed out, but Crossroads' filing against me was entirely unrelated to this one. In that instance, I acknowledged my mistake with respect to the page restrictions at Kathleen Stock, reverted myself, and haven't done anything similar since (it was difficult for me even to find my actual mistake, given the shotgun nature of his filing). Apart from Crossroads' desire to find fault with my editing (see below), I don't see any connection between the two aside from the aesthetic commitments editors may be feeling. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the IP contribution below, the hyperbole used here reflect the same POV and are stylistically reminiscent of an IP that contributed to the recent RfC on the J. K. Rowling lead [43] [44]. This IP was subsequently taken to ANI by Bodney.[45] The IP has offered a very peculiar mangled quote (attributed to me) on both occasions, this time and in November. I never have and never would say that I "can't wait until every last homosexual is dead and buried" - that is a misquote that almost inverts the meaning of my comment (one I made several years ago). In the ANI discussion, I concluded that To have seen that quote, the person behind the keyboard was almost certainly either (1) a participant in old gender debates, since indef-blocked or otherwise departed (there are a few of those) or (2) someone acting as a MEATPUPPET who was pointed towards old debates by one of their participants (or bystanders). I stand by that analysis, and would therefore propose that the FRINGE POV comments of this IP be given very little WEIGHT, if any. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtobias - the simple difference between my situation and that of Maneesh is that, in the two years since the diff you are talking about, I have resolved to, and actually have, stopped responding with queer activist sloganeering even when acutely provoked (something about personal growth). Maneesh has today expressed his unwillingness to change his approach, however.

I have also given voice to additional thoughts here in response to further commentary by the IP; you might be surprised to see that they overlap with some of your own observations.Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970 re: Maneesh is being threatened with a topic ban because they have made the banal point that how you identify does not affect your body. This complaint should be thrown out. - if this is your sincere interpretation of the diffs I presented, then you should not be editing in this topic area (or participating in related sanctions discussions). Nobody in this discussion has suggested that how you identity would affect your body, and none of Maneesh's disruptive comments are limited to making that (red herring, irrelevant) point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie - the factor you seem to have missed is that the Admins who have commented on this filing are mostly unINVOLVED in GENSEX discussions, while the non-Admin comments are almost all from INVOLVED parties. I think you will find that explains a lot. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in Death - thus response doesn't seem at all relevant, since it is addressed at STRAWMAN issues rather than the actual filing. See my explanation of this here and OID's response (quoting my 12 year old) here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Maneesh was first notified of the GENSEX discretionary sanctions in January 2020, by Doug Weller. It is not that they were unaware of the sanctions until recently, just that the 12-month period has lapsed. And Maneesh's response to the notice was not any kind of surprise or repentance, but to ask Sideswipe9th, "to what end?" That isn't something I often hear from editors who intend to modify their behavior. (And neither is Please do go out there and do your best to ban me if you think your efforts will be successful - this also was following, though not in direct response to, the DS notice renewal). Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the first of the diffs Black Kite linked below was made after Maneesh responded to the DS reminder. In other words, the disruption continued after the DS notification. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark - I completely agree with your insight that consensus on terminology is critical. However, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to have productive discussions with editors who engage in the tactics of moving the goalposts, as Sideswipe9th has documented, and who deny that large components of the RS literature (such as the MEDRS on transgender health) need to be considered in topics, like Sex differences in medicine, where they are of quite obvious relevance. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

Discussion concerning Maneesh

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 Maneesh

Crossroads has done a far far more detailed breakdown than I can motivate myself to do here. I apologize to Crossroads for this activity taking up time that could be used for their continued valuable contributions to WP. Crossroads has almost certainly done better counting of reverts etc., all I can say to cover all points is that I keep an awareness of revert count rules and do not intentionally violate them or even like to edge up to them, generally taking things to talk. Point by point as tersely as possible, not one of NewImpartial's claims has any merit:

On WP:GENSEX

1. "..individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender." No individual has been discussed anywhere here, all the edits are focused on biology and medicine.

2."...systemic bias faced by female editors..." Don't see that here.

[47]

Transwomen are male. If someone finds that claim impolite, I recommend not bringing things to the point of someone else having to tell you that on the talk page of an article titled Sex differences in medicine. No one is plastering it in anyone's face, but it is necessary to make in these cases when discussions veer into absurdity. You cannot escape the fact that humans are a gonochoric species, and that trans-identification is one thing and sex is quite another. If wp tries to censor claims like "transwomen are male", it will be impossible make good quality articles on things like Sex differences in medicine, as editors will try to use mealy mouthed language to obfuscate the reality of sex-imbalanced or sex-specific illnesses. MEDRS in all these cases uses male/female man/woman men/women synonymously (just like the english you read in the news). To those who don't want to hear such claims, do not bring discussions to the point where the validity of such claims has to be discussed. I will not use mealy mouthed obfuscation in my edits around the important topic of sex differences.

[48] Removal of sourced article content to comply with the POV noted above.

[49] Revert-warring that preceded the above outburst.

This was removed by crossroads eventually, it was an odd specific claim about transmen (who are female) can suffer from ovarian cancer (obviously). That fact does not need to be in the article (as you would have to duplicate the lists in a nonsensical way for each condition) since the article is about sex differences. A fundamental attribute across all MEDRS is that there are only two sex categories: male and female, if you are uncomfortable discussing which categories trans-identified people belong to, do not discuss them.

[50] More of the revert-warring, over the same WP:GENSEX issue.

This was a super simple straight forward case and not a bold edit. The section titles use "men" and "women",almost each and every line about each illness uses man/men and woman/women. Mere inspection will show you how the underlying RS, overwhelmingly, use man/women men/women male/female synonymously as is standard in MEDRS. There is no case for objecting to simply make the two lines underneath the section titles consistent with the entire article. This was explained crystal clear in the talk page and the opposing editor was simply denying what was in front of their eyes. The edit is justified purely in terms of keeping the obvious consistency within the article and needs nothing else.

[51] Maneesh promoting the same POV in the Talk page of Man.

An obscene claim. The talk discussion highlighted the "definitional dilemma" the RS discuss in trans-identification (there are many definitions). If such a claim should be in Man, there needs to be a claim to relate to man/men. Claims about prevalence also have to be supported (this is in the talk page). The best that could be found was in Gynecologic Care of the Female-to-Male Transgender Man (139 cites), Table 1 provides this definition: "Transgender Man Biologic female who gender identifies as a male". That's a very sensible definition and links the concept back to man and ensures that the reader knows that the all the discussion about biology of men does not apply at all to transgender men.

[52] Maneesh revert-warring against consensus and ONUS to promote the same POV in the article text of Man.

No revert count rules were violated here to my knowledge and this change is now in the article. The sentence reads as an obscene euphemism given the para above is a detailed description of male anatomy and biology.

[53] Maneesh editing the Man article to erase the mention of transgender men and women (text that was previously arrived at through consensus on Talk).

The reason is given, namely doesn't relate back to the article man and rather vacuous. The complaint here seems to merely be that this edit was made.

[54] Maneesh opening a discussion on Talk:Man by equating gender identity with mental delusions.

The edit does not mention "gender identity" or any delusion, that's all that is needed verify that this complaint is meritless.

[55] proposed article text for Man that would replace references to trans men and trans women with some men identify as as women and some women identify as men - I have added this here because I referred to it in response to Springee, below.

Totally appropriate suggestion that invokes the (plural of) the article title and supported by RS provided earlier in this post.

As for the claims here about being notified of sanctions earlier, the notification says clearly: " It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.", I generally stop reading right about there as I am quite confident in the integrity of my contributions. Why NewImpartial is suggesting on this page that "...Maneesh's response to the notice was not any kind of surprise or repentance..." is baffling. Maneesh (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Newimpartial keeps adding material that I have better things to do than to keep falsifying. One point is a plain denial of reality:

"Later, Maneesh makes the unsubstantiated claim that MEDRS in all these cases uses male/female man/woman men/women synonymously (just like the english you read in the news) - that isn't likely to be true, and certainly isn't self-evident."

This is a simple flat out ignorance of MEDRS and English. Look at a public facing infographic of the NIH's Office of Women's Health Research and the way the "sex" points use "women" and "men" while the sex categories defined at the top are "female" and "male"; it's because they are synonyms and that is common knowledge. It is almost a creative exercise to find the best way to show how absurd the claim is. Let's take a look at occurrences of "men" and "women" ("males" and "females" if you are curious) in the journal Biology of Sex Differences in the last few years what do you see? Is anyone really surprised to see so many instance of those words there? No one should be because this is how the everyone I know writes and talks in both day-to-day language and virtually all MEDRS (textbooks, journal articles, clinical trials etc. etc.) involving humans. How anyone could take NewImpartial's claims seriously beggars belief. Maneesh (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite's claim that I or my comments are "leaning towards negative views of other groups - in this case trans, intersex or non-binary people" is obscene slander. How people identify has *no bearing* on matters regrading sex and I am certain I know much much more about intersex conditions than this user. It would be nonsensical to have "negative views" to intersex people given the umbrella term refers to people with a variety of conditions. Maneesh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite's reply does nothing to address his slander, there is is absolutely no aggression in my words. Maneesh (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark claims that this diff is problematic. It is an obvious truth, far more general than the folk notion of gender identity, anyone can identify as anything they like and there is generally nothing wrong with that. The original sentence "There are also intersex people who may identify as either female or male." is vacuous and suggests that the vast majority of intersex people are not plainly either male or female (they are!). RP also is confused about the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation and clearly has no understanding of GI in patients with DSDs. How regressive the entire tone of this discussion is. There is just no merit to the idea that the diff is problematic, it's an obvious truth about identities. Maneesh (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, if any user is reading this way-too-long discussion, just look at the quote the IP editor alluded to and crossroads found. Virtually nothing NewImpartial has said here has made any sense, I now understand the mentality of who I am dealing with. What a shame if WP collectively can't see what is going on here. Maneesh (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now see claims from editors that my edits reflect political beliefs. This is so deceitful. All of my edits being discussed here exclusively scientific (I rarely make edits outside of scientific matters). Maneesh (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C You are misrepresenting the diff. Read what what written. Read the original sentence in the article about intersex people, the diff is about intersex people. Intersex peoples identification in this context is as unremarkable (they are much like those of us without those conditions) since those conditions are largely sex specific and the vast majority of intersex people simply are male or female. There is a body of MEDRS that goes into specific GD/GI issues in subpopulations, that is a very deep story about parental wishes, laws, consent, deception and medicine (and, yes, choice) that I doubt you have any awareness of. Far far far too deep and undue to replace the sentence I had taken out or explain to you (and certainly too deep to be in article of the diff). The second sentence just says that identification of intersex people isn't limited to male and female, they can identify as anything the way everyone else can (and does); from the unremarkable ("basketball players") to the implausible ("aliens") without any dependence on verifiability. That you take these plain statements of the plain nature of identity as offensive, I can't help you with that. That you seem to want to suggest that such reasoning is not appropriate in the talk page in the course of unremarkable reasoning about claims around intersex people is reprehensible. Maneesh (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now NewImpartial has posted a this childish attempt at coercion on my talk page. If I just "accept" NewImpartial's words and parrot what is "appropriate" in "social situations" it just "might help resolve the AE discussion in [my] favor". What I accept or deem appropriate has nothing to do with this AE request where the primary matters at hand are the encyclopedic nature of my edits (verifiability, scholarly consensus , due weight etc.) and my general civil conduct on this website, both of which I have full confidence in. NewImpartial's brazen attempt to use the AE process to compel testimony from a user about aspects of their life that have nothing to do with wp is obscene yet in the spirit of this entire stunt. Just imagine if a user A opened an AE request on a user B whose edits focused on what scholars said about the historicity of Zorp but then, in the middle of the AE process, A offered B a favorable resolution but only if the B had accepted Zorp as their lord and savior? How does this type of abuse apparently sit ok with admins? Maneesh (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‎Dtobias, I don't really think it would matter if I was being asked to testify 1x1=1 and that holding doors open for people carrying heavy things is a good thing to do. What I accept or testify to doing in social situations has no bearing on this matter. There are people out there who don't believe in things like 1x1=1, or wouldn't hold a door open for someone carrying heavy things. They are free to do so and that has no impact any sanction request here. Maneesh (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossroads

Disagreeing with Newimpartial is not an offense, which is what most of these diffs consist of. Newimpartial actually was one against many regarding many of them and engaged in their own poor behavior. And a case of injudicious wording or frustration is not sanction worthy. Diff by diff:

1. I wouldn't word it so directly myself, but the sex and gender distinction is real and important, and the topic of sex differences in medicine cannot be edited or even understood without clear thinking on what the biological trait of sex is. And while in most contexts only the social gender is relevant, medically, the biological sex of a trans woman is... well, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Some may be uncomfortable filling in that answer, but medicine is not for the fainthearted.

2. This removal is absolutely correct and removed WP:UNDUE weight. We don't interrupt every sentence about sex differences on Wikipedia to give a shout-out to transgender and non-binary identities. Even after removal, it said these sex-specific conditions were "mostly" in women even though most medical sources would say "only" in women. Yes, contrary to what Newimpartial claimed on that talk page, it is still the norm in WP:MEDRS to use "women" to refer to adult humans of the female sex. This can be seen by searching Google Scholar for "only in women" or "pregnant women", in quotes, and selecting "since 2021": [56][57] Newimpartial continues to argue tendentiously in that discussion, attacks Maneesh by saying he is playing a shell game, then doubles down and attacks GoodDay, saying, Don't be a mug.

3 & 4. As I explained, it is normal in MEDRS to refer to "men" and "women" in reference to the sexes, so there's nothing POV about these edits. "In female humans" does read oddly and sort of alien. While BRD would have been better, Newimpartial is also guilty of edit warring in the same timeframe as the edits they reported here ([58][59][60]), and against 3 different editors rather than 1, so any "guilt" logically applies to them as well.

5. This is the same thing I addressed in diff 1. Biological sex is a huge aspect of the topic of being a man for the vast majority of them, and we need to be able to speak about that and about what may be WP:UNDUE in that regard. The article still mentions transgender men even now, regardless, without objection from Maneesh.

6. Hypocrisy. This is the same series of edits I mentioned under point 3 & 4 where it was Newimpartial who was edit warring against three editors, with a fourth editor having spoken against it on the talk page, and they only stopped when they ran up against WP:3RR. Maneesh removed it once. And WP:ONUS actually says that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which means that the onus was on Newimpartial to get consensus for that material.

7. This material was unsourced (see WP:BURDEN) and poorly written, such as by erroneously treating intersex conditions (a.k.a. disorders of sex development) as some sort of third sex. Things are supposed to be sourced to establish WP:Verifiability and WP:WEIGHT.

8. I'll grant that this was a poorly thought out comparison, but in context it was about the aforementioned misleading claim about intersex that has since been removed from the article without objection. It said they can "identify as" female or male, which is true of anyone, and not even clarifying the existence of gender identity, just throwing around "identify". "Identify" can indeed mean lots of things to people unfamiliar with gender discourse, and we are supposed to write understandably for them.

The "additional comments" links the exact same diffs already discussed, and there Newimpartial claims they can speak on behalf of "trans editors", even though there is a diversity of views in the trans community about how to conceptualize who they are, their biology, and their past. Questions the ready evidence that trans people exist is a dishonest framing of this discussion where, in response to the 'crime' of Maneesh adding "citation needed" tags to unsourced text, Newimpartial engages in self-righteous grandstanding and calls the tagging "transphobic", despite Springee's good explanation of why citing that is a good idea.

This seems to be an attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area. Newimpartial's tendentiousness, edit warring, and creating a chilling effect on discussion of biological sex is what is disruptive. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping RegentsPark.

Regarding Newimpartial's diff 11, Maneesh is correct that the overwhelming majority of MEDRS regularly use "men" and "women" when referring to adults of male and female sexes. [61][62] Newimpartial's "MEDRS" is a cherry-picked article in an open access journal making an explictly "right great wrongs" argument for language reform, among other things. Frankly, the position that in ordinary medical articles we can't simply say "men" and "women" to refer to sex, as the vast majority of people do, without getting caught up in exceptions, is held by very, very few of the authors of MEDRS as shown by how they write, and is therefore WP:FRINGE. And this has been the norm on Wikipedia since the beginning as well, including at sex differences in medicine, as documented at WP:GNL. It is Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th who are being disruptive at Talk:Sex differences in medicine by ignoring that prior consensus and making a huge deal out of a routine additional use of wording that is already on the page (!) and WP:FILIBUSTERing removal of a random shout-out to transgender identity. Literally disrupting good editing. And this sort of obstructionism in transgender articles is rampant. It is very unfortunate to see it spread into medical articles that have nothing to do with gender dysphoria. It is no wonder that an editor would get frustrated when faced with this behavior. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow-up to Sideswipe9th: No, a decades-long sitewide implicit (and explicit) consensus across thousands of medical articles cannot be overturned by two editors at one article suddenly deciding they don't like that consensus. And you seem to have missed where WP:GNL#Precision and clarity say, Do not use gender-neutral speech when it gives undue emphasis to tiny minorities and Per consensus at the WP:Village Pump, "the terminology in articles, especially medical articles, is dependent upon the support of reliable sources and it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources." Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Newimpartial's response to the IP, the diff where they made the statement is here. Newimpartial there stated, This has nothing to do with "queer theory" although, as an aside, I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain. And this was in response to a user who clearly described herself as homosexual on her userpage. Very revealing as to their POV and strength thereof about sex, gender, and sexuality. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh has been an editor in this area for a long time, for at least as long as me, so at least 2.5 years. And he's done much good work in that time. Maneesh's few instances of poorer choices of wording here are an outlier from all that time; this is not typical. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I have to concur with Crossroads's detailed analysis [+ follow-on commentary], which was much more in-depth than I would have mustered. Newimpartial treats "transphobic" and "disagreeing with Newimpartial" as synonymous categories, and that is not okay. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 16:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur entirely with OID's statement below. I was in the process of writing up something like that, in response to Black Kite's complete misunderstanding of Maneesh's meaning in some out-of-context diffs, but Kite has recused, and OID said in fewer words what I would have about MEDRS and the biological sex / gender identity distinction in certain topic areas. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

Why was I called a mug? I'm not a cup full of beer. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can people self-identify as a different age? I'll leave it up to you folks to decide. But one thing's for sure. I'm not a mug. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this report have any relation to MOS:GNL? -- GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Seraphimblade Maneesh was originally made aware of the sanctions in January 2020 [63]. The diff that Newimpartial used above was my refreshing it as twelve months had passed. Not sure if that changes your view on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with everything Newimpartial has said in their initial analysis. However there is some additional context I'd like to add. My first interactions with Maneesh were reverting two changes they had made to Sex differences in medicine [64], [65] which changed the context of that section as I stated in the talk page [66]. Maneesh's reply to this on the talk page was deeply offensive [67] by stating that Transwomen are obviously also men, adult males. Whenever I attempted to point out to them the inaccuracy of that statement [68], I was accused of religious thinking [69]. Newimpartial has already addressed the brief edit war that occurred on the article where Maneesh refused to acknowledge WP:BRD, which ran concurrent to a discussion on the talk page:

My asking Maneesh to self revert [70]
Maneesh refusing to self revert [71]
My attempt at explaining BRD [72]
Maneesh accusing me of tendentious editing [73]

As part of this exchange, Maneesh invited me to count the number of occurrences of "men" and "women" below each respective title out of the total number of points [74]. However Maneesh then moved the goal posts to synonymous use of men/male and women/female [75] within the MEDRS in the article, before extending it further to the same synonymous use in any news media [76] while simultaneously attacking my English language skills. This is I believe what Newimpartial correctly identifies as the shell game. I stated my objection to this movement of the goal posts [77], however Maneesh doubled down and accused me of falsifying my claim[78].

I'd also like to point out that I am also not the only editor Maneesh has accused of religious thinking or editing [79] in this topic area. I would argue that Maneesh is engaging in some very heavy WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour over the last couple of days at Talk:Sex differences in medicine, Talk:Woman, and possibly Talk:Man. Although I wasn't a participant in Talk:Man so I'll leave summarising that to another editor. In addition to making a generalised battle out of the discussions, Maneesh is also very clearly engaging in an ideological battle by casting aspersions on multiple other editors for editing on "religious grounds". As I said before, I agree with Newimpartial that a topic ban in this area is warranted as it is seemingly impossible to carry out a civil discussion with them to build consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark, I agree completely with what you're saying on consensus building, as that is standard practice on the site. However my interactions with Maneesh over the last day, along with this conversation in July this conversation in July on Maneesh's talk page, as well as the discussion on Talk:Man which I've now read in full, and their recent contributions above lead me to the opinion that Maneesh's idea of compromise and consensus building is exactly whatever they say, and no more. If that is the case, it is very difficult if not impossible to build a consensus through any of the regular avenues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, @RegentsPark, how can you build a compromise consensus when Maneesh has only a single acceptable outcome for the language choice in the article? [80] Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads, you really want to lay of the hyperbole. Firstly, consensus can change. Secondly, since the creation of Sex differences in medicine back in 2003, there has never been a discussion on whether Man/Woman or Male/Female is the appropriate language to use throughout the article. This is easy to verify as the talk page has no archive, and precious few discussions. I'm also not sure you want to be linking to WP:GNL because under WP:GNL#Precision and clarity it states The sex and gender distinction may be helpful in choosing words for some subjects. and more importantly Generally speaking, prefer female and male to make statements that are exclusively about anatomy and biological sex, and for writing about non-human species. In an article titled Sex differences in medicine, I would argue that WP:GNL compels us to use male/female over man/woman. As such I'd like you to strike the accusations of tendentious editing against myself and Newimpartial made in your most recent reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, based on these diffs [81], [82] would a one way IBAN between Maneesh and Newimpartial (Maneesh at fault) also be warranted in addition to the TBAN? They're very close in content to being the transphobic attack helicopter meme. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

This is a subject area I'm not overly involved with so I can't say I understand all the history. I do think that NewImpartial is too quick to assign -phobia type motives to other editors and too quick to assume their POV is the sky is blue correct one. For example in the [Man] article there was a section outside of the lead that was addressing trans- cases. The material had no citations. NewImpartial felt that was fine and actively removed CN tags. If one looks at the Talk:J._K._Rowling#Bludgeoning_of_D-preference_editors discussion where NewImpartial has been far and away the most active participant. I believe several editors complained of -phobic accusations again. A big issue with many of these topics is they are often very expansive so PROPORTION is critical. I suspect NewImpartial's understandable, good faith interest in trans topics results in a feeling that it's often one of the most critical aspects of any particular topic vs one of many and one that many readers wouldn't find significant. That is fine but they need to understand that others might not agree yet that doesn't mean they are "denying trans people" [83]. Such accusations aren't helpful and certainly come off as POV pushing, especially when combined with bludgeoning talk page discussions. Springee (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I have been careful to characterize only proposed language (or removal of content) as transphobic; personal beliefs or motives are opaque to me, and I express that recognition as clearly as I can. reads a lot like No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite my thumb, sir. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aircorn

This is the worst topic area in Wikipedia to edit in. Never have I seen so much passionate arguments based on so few policies or sources. A large part of that reason is the inability of editors to remain impartial about it. That includes some key admins (see Black Kites statement below and compare it to their one for Newimpartial here). If discretionary sanctions serve any purpose to help the encyclopaedia it is to trim the fat so that the editors in the middle can actually improve articles. But at least try and trim it from both sides. Take a look at Talk:J. K. Rowling#Response count for classic bludgeoning by the "other side". It should all really be so simple. Aircorn (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite. You are consistent I will give you that. Disagree with some of your other comments. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia first and it is simply not true that we are inclusive. We are inclusive to certain groups and not others. Most of the time this is fine as we generally base this around reliable sources, but when it comes to politics and culture this often falls down. There are hard questions to discuss in this topic area and it is not as black and white as some editors make out. I am not arguing against a topic ban. We have discretionary sanctions for a reason and that means that editors have to be on their best behaviour. I am simply asking that we apply them evenly across all editors and look at the disruption from all directions. Aircorn (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP editor

I strongly second Crossroads' response and thank him for taking the time to be so thorough and detailed. I would like to add that I support topic banning Newimpartial from this area. Their primary purpose here has been to engage in battleground POV pushing that, despite its apparent good intentions of liberating one marginalised group, erases and oppresses others - particularly gays and lesbians (the latter of whom they've engaged in multiple crusades against various BLPs who dared to assert their right to exclusive same-sex attraction). This user has made no secret their personal derision against homosexuality, because it's "not inclusive"; nobody who isn't gay or lesbian (as in, actually homosexual, not bisexual persons identifying as such and such) themselves can fully understand the feelings of panic and horror and traumatic memories of the not so distant past that kind of talk conjures up. And this user, in the heat of an intense debate, once said that they "can't wait until every last homosexual is dead and buried". Then clarified they don't actually want all of us to die, they just want all of us to be genderqueer - as if that makes it okay! That is as blatant as hate speech can possibly get, and while they can deny they really meant that all they want,their editing behaviour is still effectively warfare against the very existence of homosexual people (for, if you erase biological sex, you've redefined homosexuals out of existence; the effective parallel of genocide, if the affected group were a nationality or ethnicity). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C2:BB5:D65F:F72A (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

I agree with Crossroads' comments here. This diff is especially notable; it puts the user who initiated this request in the position of the person in the proverb who lives in a glass house and shouldn't throw stones. There is some rich irony to somebody expressing their views in this manner then attempting to tone-police others in their own expression of different views. While it's true that Newimpartial isn't literally calling for homosexuals to be dead and buried, they're calling for that identity to be erased entirely and replaced with other labels many of which are regarded as slurs by many others. It's hypocritical to do this and then go on to label others' views on gender identity to be denying the existence of a marginalized group. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite:: You say you're recusing yourself, but then you added yet another comment nevertheless. I'm not sure what your point is in dragging in Billy Bragg and his alteration of an old song to suit the current trendy topic (something musical artists sometimes do to try to appear relevant, as in Elton John's retooling of a song about Marilyn Monroe to be about Princess Diana), and it's even murkier to contemplate what you think Wikipedia needs to do about "transphobia"; do you mean for this site to drop its ideological neutrality and demand editors accept the catechism of gender ideology ("Trans women are women, Trans men are men, Nonbinary idenitities are valid") or face banning? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(But I think you're correct that the whole cluster of issues regarding gender and its culture wars are destined for an ArbCom case; that might in fact be the best way to go, where the whole subject can be examined without being limited to examining the actions of one person or the subject matter of one article at a time, something that leads to not seeing the forest for the trees.) *Dan T.* (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maneesh:: You seem to have linked the wrong diff; this is probably what you intended. While I agree in principle with your objecting to being asked to assent to a particular viewpoint in a hotly contested issue in order to continue to participate, I'm not sure I'd actually disagree with that statement myself; it's a fairly mild form of the gender ideology that merely posits the existence of something termed "gender identity" (at least in some people) and suggests that for certain social purposes it is reasonable to treat people in accordance with their conception of their own such identity. This doesn't necessarily imply any of the more extreme things demanded by various activists. But your mileage may vary. I would suggest that you try to be polite and civil especially in hot-button areas; I got chided for failing to do so earlier, and am trying to be more reasonable now. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

My name was pinged and I see that Newimpartial's comment regarding homosexuals — directed at me in the "Lesbian erasure" article on 23 January 2020 — has been highlighted. My response regarding that particular incident and my experience with Newimpartial is above, here. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from Crossroad's section as a clerk action) In July 2017, I added content to my profile page with a collapsed section titled "p.s. ... I'm not Queer". In March 2018, "I am a homosexual female" was included. I am an avowed, proud homosexual. I never bought into GLAAD's censorship of the word, and just like lesbians reclaimed the word "dyke" and made it a declaration of lesbian pride and strength, many lesbians and gay men have also reclaimed the word "homosexual" — because homosexual is unambiguous. You can't avoid what it means, nor can you twist it around to mean something else.
Newimpartial's comment to me about homosexuals was written on 23 January 2020. He They knew that I identified as a homosexual and he they knew precisely what he they meant when he they wrote "I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried....". The dead giveaway (in case it went over some heads) is "self-avowed ".
So, whatever c.y.a. Newimpartial is now trying to wipe ~~his~~ their chosen words with (I misspoke, it was misunderstood humor, blah, blah) — I don't buy it. He They is quite at ease with shit-stirring, as evidenced by two recent incidents involving another editor and I: (1) What is this called?: an editor I am unfamiliar with left a message in my talk page regarding Newimpartial's reply to my comment in a Kathleen Stock article discussion; and (2) Warning: Personal attacks and casting aspersions: where I warned an editor after he made two, separate personal attacks (I could have taken the editor to AN/I, but I let people have a long rope until they finally hang themselves with it).
I am not familiar with User:Maneesh, but I am familiar with Newimpartial: the logorrhea in RfCs of gender-related subjects, the tendency to use offbeat humor as a backdoor way for ridiculing what another editor says, the pushing of the WP:CIVIL envelope (particularly with WP:BAIT), and the lack of self-reflection when accusing other editors of wrongdoing. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

Maneesh is being threatened with a topic ban because they have made the banal point that how you identify does not affect your body. This complaint should be thrown out.

@Black Kite: So what’s your point? Both Aircorn and I have expressed the view that you should not be participating in this case, because you’re biased. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: You are misinterpreting my point. I have not said that anyone has said that how you identify would affect your body. I have said that the diff complained about says the opposite. Do not muddy the water. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maneesh: and @Newimpartial: in particular, but also to anyone else interested in this case: I have started a discussion at WP:NOT. [84] I am proposing a new section Wikipedia is not the Thought Police. I believe that the wording I am proposing expresses what is already Wikipedia policy. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tewdar

Apparently, if I 'identify' as multilingual, even if I can only speak one language, I can improve my GCSE results. Apparently, one can 'identify' as something one is not, at least according to the Journal of Language, Identity & Education. Is that why we're banning Maneesh? For saying the same thing? Tewdar (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, lest I be accused of 'punching down', I don't think that people 'choose' their gender identities, nor do I believe that transgender people claim to be something they are not. Tewdar (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of recent, high-quality, MEDRS sources refer to "men" when they actually mean what we might refer to as "men and trans women", or "those assigned male at birth". So they are technically calling trans women "men". But they aren't really being transphobic when they do this. They are just using "men" as a synonym for (biological) male, despite the existence of our article which continues to bravely insist that sex and gender 'are distinct'. Probably better to use more precise language, I suppose... Tewdar (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a related note, the sex differences in medicine article is currently almost unintelligible and indeed packed with falsehoods and inconsistencies, flagrantly mixing sex and gender to give us claims such as "99% of breast cancer occurs in women." Which links to woman. Which we are told is a gender identity. Oh dear. At this point the entire topic area is an uneditable monstrosity. Tewdar (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

AE is always a bit Kafka-esque. Here we have a general consensus among the non-admins weighing in that this is not sanctionable behavior. One of the admins supporting a sanction even said, in a similar case a few weeks ago but with the "sides" flipped, that the filing is a standard attempt to remove an "opponent" from a subject. At least we can openly see the about face, and even if that admin doesn't seem to care, it's in the record. I've also seen that admin defend far worse "incivility" here at AE when it was by editors they liked. Sanctions ought to be used to combat disruption in article space, not a few comments on a talk page that someone here or there takes offense over.

I also agree with Tewdar that the talk page is really a mess. Medicine is a science based field, and does not usually comport with activism. Finally, it's perfectly reasonable to examine the filer's behavior. In fact the instructions up above explicitly say as such - If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:Maneesh)

I support a TBAN for Maneesh. I think we should continue to be a stickler about formal awareness rules until the DS system is reformed, and I encourage everyone to sign up to be updated. That said, Maneesh's edits since the DS alert and his doubling down on comments made prior are sufficient grounds for a sanction. He continues to defend an anti-trans dogwhistle ("identify as ... aliens") and outright transphobia ("transwomen are obviously also men").

Many editors in this topic area, including ones that frequently disagree with each other, have expressed deep frustration with the level of discourse. There are tough, good-faith debates to be had, but basic respect for trans people shouldn't be optional. I don't see any other way to a higher level of debate.

I know that posting here means one's own conduct is up for review, but if bringing up a Newimpartial comment from 2 years ago is meant to be a defense of Maneesh, well, that sucks. I would oppose any sanction against Newimpartial, if that's their point, because (again) it was two years ago. And if it's unrelated to a defense of Maneesh or a call for action against Newimpartial, then it's just space-wasting mud-slinging. Firefangledfeathers 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

I don't think I have much to contribute that isn't already obvious from Maneesh's comments, and especially their insistence on doubling down (when this almost certainly would have been closed with no action if they hadn't - due to the notification issue if nothing else.)

But given some of the comments above I suppose it's necessary to say something. The entire point of AE is that controversial topic areas require that editors be on their best behavior; no one is universally perfect - I think that if you have to dig up diffs from two years ago to argue that a longstanding editor is uncivil, that's probably pretty good evidence that they are generally civil - but if an editor is unable to restrain their personal beliefs to the point where they feel the need to continue belaboring them in an AE discussion after multiple admins had already told them to be more cautious, then it's reasonable to assume that they're not going to be able to (or even willing to attempt to) restrain them in more casual settings, and to conclude beyond that any contributions they make that align with those beliefs may be tendentious. (Similarly, multiple editors above seem to be trying to defend Maneesh by arguing "they're right tho", which totally misses the point - this isn't a content dispute; you can argue that in the article text, but if you're at the point where you're trying to convince editors of your political beliefs then you've gone pretty far awry.)

I also take issue with the argument that inclusiveness with regards to someone's immutable identity is comparable to inclusiveness with regards to political beliefs like these. Editors absolutely shouldn't be randomly insulted based on their beliefs (just like anything else), and it's important to have editors with diverse perspectives, but in general the ideal is that your politics shouldn't keep showing up in your comments and edits. If someone (as Maneesh definitely has here) comes in swinging with their politics on their shoulder, and is unable to put it down even when they're told it's a problem, that's a serious concern. This is especially true with beliefs that are frequently considered divisive or exclusionary - even if you disagree, even if you think your beliefs are just common-sense, our ability to maintain a civil editing environment and a diverse userbase depends on editors being willing to keep it in their pants with beliefs like those, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Black Kite says below that the Wikipedia environment gets too hostile for those will certain POVs -- I agree, although this can be said to happen in both directions, and in this AE (based on the admin discussion section) it seems it's largely Maneesh's POV being deemed undesirable, with little consideration to the evidence presented against the filer. It may well be that the evidence isn't solid, but it clearly isn't years old stuff, and seems reasonable enough to warrant a response from the admins, which so far it hasn't gotten. It seems, to me, entirely arbitrary when BOOMERANG/"typical attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area" is cited to analyse the filer's conduct, vs when If you want to discuss Newimpartial's conduct, please open a new AE thread or request an ArbCom case. is used to completely ignore looking at such evidence.

I haven't reviewed the evidence against Maneesh or Newimpartial in depth, and I'm not claiming misconduct on eithers' part. I don't really have interest in this topic area, or substantial interactions with either participant. My only concern is with fairness, more specifically the appearance of fairness, at this venue. Too many recent cases have shown inconsistent standards applied to similar conduct. More specifically to gender, judging by Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead (among other recent discussions) I think this should probably be kicked over to the Arbitration Committee. It's better to do a holistic review of the conduct of various participants, and not just in the GamerGate context (2014 – Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate – which was the last time ArbCom reviewed this topic area). If AE is unwilling to do that, then ArbCom should. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Going to keep this one short: The current gender-based activism that is attempting to insert ideological positions into many wikipedia articles is problematic, not because it is in itself a bad thing, there are many many articles where the gender viewpoint is necessary and the right thing to have, but because when there is legitimate pushback editors are immediately accused of bigotry. There are very few areas where the gender view is not appropriate - sex in medicine is one of those areas, as medically, and as reflected overwhelmingly in MEDRS compliant sourcing when it comes to sex, the biological sex is relevant, the gender isnt (except in cases of treatment or where the condition is specific to transgender issues). If this dispute were taking place in any other group of articles, Maneesh's comments would be inappropriate, in the context of medical sex, they are basic factual necessities. The *risk* here is that skewing sex in medicine articles away from the biological facts towards ideological positions risks real world harm to readers who wont understand the context. The reason we have MEDRS is specifically to have a higher standard of factual accuracy to prevent harm. Ultimately the only real reason this dispute is taking place is the unwillingness of editors to follow basic "follow the source" guidelines. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maneesh

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

It looks like most, if not all, of these diffs come from before the editor was made aware of the discretionary sanctions. Is there still a complaint there with edits made after the awareness was in place? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* Seraphimblade Apparently first notified in January 2020 ([85]). Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Black Kite, that awareness would have expired in January 2021 until notified again. I am not (to put it mildly) a fan of that particular rule, and hope that the discretionary sanctions review makes it better, but as it stands now I'm not seeing how this fell under a time when the editor was, for our purposes here, "aware" as required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::* Yes, that's problematic. If the second of the diffs I highlighted below had come after the 2nd DS alert (the first one does, but that's the milder) I would definitely be suggesting a topic ban, but that particular piece of admin suggests a warning may be indicated. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

~~This and especially this suggests to me that this is an editor who may probably should not be editing in the gender area. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
This is extremely confusing. I read the entire discussion on Talk:Sex differences in medicine and came out of it thoroughly confused. On the one hand, it is true that Maneesh needs to understand that gender identity is a sensitive area and that a light touch, rather than a dismissive one, is the higher road to take. However, it is also true that Newimpartial occupies a rather large part of the discussion, perhaps to the point of bludgeoning. Perhaps, then, that high road is not as easy to take as it looks. I'm not too keen to issue warnings or bans in an area where the behavioral issues are muddy but it does seem to me that the editors participating in Sex differences in medicine (and I mean all of them) need to hash out a consensus on the terminology, shove it up there in the yellow area of the talk page, and then make everyone stick to it. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second diff that Black Kite refers to is definitely problematic and @Maneesh: if you don't see why, then we do have a problem. I get what you're trying to say, but it is generally accepted today that gender identity is not a choice that an individual makes. The implication that it is, which is what your post is making, is unacceptable. If you don't see that, then I agree with Black Kite that you should probably not be editing in this area. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: The usual way is to start an RfC, everyone gives their arguments, and an uninvolved editor closes it with a decision that is then binding, at least in the short term. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Maneesh is digging a deeper hole, I now think a topic ban is necessary. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Aircorn I'm simply being consistent. Wikipedia is meant to be an inclusive, collaborative editing environment and that's all that matters here. We don't tolerate racists, misogynists or homophobes here, and so it is always a concern where we see a group of editors leaning towards negative views of other groups - in this case trans, intersex or non-binary people. The second diff above that I highlighted is particularly problematic here as it echoes the sarcastic tropes of "oh, today I identify as a banana" so beloved of certain groups. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Maneesh Perhaps if you don't want to be seen as having a negative view of some groups, it might be best not to write passive-aggressive talk-page posts which appear to indicate you have such an attitude. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh If you don't see the problematic issue with those posts, especially the second one that I quoted above, then that makes me even more likely to believe that you are unsuited to edit in this area. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally —and nothing to do with the particulars here of which I know little atm— I don't think the word limit should be allowed to be exceeded to such an extent by multiple participants. El_C 14:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, RE: aliens and shit — it's highly problematic to conflate one's GENSEX state with the stuff of fantasy (if not mental illness outright). I, for example, might identify as an A10 Warthog (which of course I do), but all hogging aside, that is not a vital attribute of the human condition (at least in a universal, widespread sense). And, of course for the mostest part, there isn't any kind of medication or medical procedures for the fantasy-identity stuff. In short, it's a poor rhetorical device and an offensive one at that. El_C 18:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh, I'm not really looking for you to help me by talking down to me. El_C 22:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Well, that was fun. Doubtless there'll be some more along soon, such are the problems in this topic area. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Sweet6970 You're entitled to believe what you like. It is unsurprising that people who don't agree with someone quite often believe that they are "biased". Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading everything, I would support a topic ban here for Maneesh --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads: If you want to discuss Newimpartial's conduct, please open a new AE thread or request an ArbCom case. I suggest that you skip the evidence that is more than a month or two old since it is not actionable at AE -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: Boomerangs work when there is much more limited content. This thread has passed that by -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am recusing from this. I will let other admins who will presumably be more immune from various insinuations deal with this. I will say that I don't believe that Wikipedia is currently dealing with the problems in the field of transgender issues very well at all, and we may probably need to go back to ArbCom at some point before it gets to the point that the Wikipedia environment gets too hostile for those with certain POVs. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went to see Billy Bragg a few weeks ago. He sings a song ("Sexuality") which was originally a snap at homophobes - let's remember this is from 1991 - ("Just because you're gay, I wont turn you away ... I'm sure we can find some common ground"). He played it this time with a lyric change ("I'm sure we can find the right pronouns") and was "incredibly" unhappy that "some of the people I wrote the song for ... have turned round and done the same to others ... transphobia is the last issue we appear not to be able to cope with"). Wikipedia needs to consider this, very seriously, and very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death raises some interesting points. And while Maneesh may lack some tact, we are talking about medical articles, not cultural articles, and they aren't the same, my friends. Gender related disputes (in general) have turned into a real shit show, and I worry we are overcompensating, when we should not be doing so (and potentially causing harm) in medical articles. Wikipedians in general sometimes worry more about feelings and less about facts. We need to find some common ground, based in science. That's all I have to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringtar

Not actionable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Bringtar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bringtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIP

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

11 December: Wants to apply WP:BLPCAT on a person who died centuries ago.
11 December: rejects his own edit summary by telling "it removed due to failed verification and not because of BLPCAT" but the added sources supported the information
11 December: Falsely claims other user is vandalizing. See WP:NOTVAND.
11 December: When presented evidence of his wrongdoing, he removes discussion with edit summary: "removing false claims and lies".
11 December: Edit warring to restore misrepresentation of sources and BLP violations.
11 December Files a disruptive SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgethedragonslayer in retaliation.
12 December: Adds a name on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism in violation of WP:BLPCAT; the article does not mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism".
12 December: Same as above.
13 December Edit wars when above additions are reverted in violation of WP:BLP and shows his lack of understanding of WP:LINKVIO.
13 December: Adds a quotation to establish a conversion but the quotation does not verify his claim.
13 December: Same as above; quotation does not verify conversion.
13 December Edit wars to restore another name by adding 2 sources, none of which mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism", thus violating WP:BLPCAT again.
13 December: Restores his another BLPCAT violation when neither sources confirm the subject's admission of conversion from Hinduism to Christianity.
13 December: Showing lack of WP:AGF by alleging me of "using WP:LINKVIO at your whim".
14 December: Edit warring to restore his misrepresentation, LINKVIO and BLP violations with edit summary: "undo disruption"
14 December: Engages in WP:IDHT by repeating himself and shows his failure to understand WP:LINKVIO. Claims that there is no LINKVIO violation because the "youtube video is not uploaded here" on Wikipedia. See WP:CIR.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [86]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The above diffs are recent and they show that the user does not understand that who is alive and who isn't, what the sources say, what is a personal attack, what is a WP:LINKVIO and the importance of WP:SECONDARY sources. While the user shows a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLPCAT on the mentioned articles above, he happens to be strict about the policies when the article's main subject happens to be opposite.[87] This shows intended POV pushing.

The user is an WP:SPA with whom, together with several other editors, I have already tried enough to guide on the basics of Wikipedia for months[88] but this user is unwilling to learn. Given the continued display of WP:CIR and battleground mentality, I have zero hopes with this user. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [89]

Discussion concerning Bringtar

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 Bringtar

Statement by Vice regent

I don't see how this is an India-Pakistan issue. There have been some problematic editing at List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, where all sides have made bad edits: some have added insufficiently sourced content while others have removed sufficiently sourced content. If you click on those histories, you'll see half a dozen additional parties to this dispute (besides OP and Bringtar).VR _talk 19:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bringtar

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

This is a religion not an India-Pakistan issue. I will close this in 24 hours if there are no objections from other AE admins --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined every diff, but this does look troubling. Should it be moved to ANI instead of closed? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

probably. I think all of the Conversion to X articles need some sort of look at them due to how they are used to further disputes -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I had some involvement in this (as an admin) and I note that the person who is edit-warring with Bringtar is the filer, and I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area. I would simply decline this unless there's a socking issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 540: / Line 540: @@
 ==Bringtar==
+{{hat
+| status =
+| result = Not actionable --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 22:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
+}}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
@@ Line 598: / Line 604: @@
 :::probably. I think all of the {{xt|Conversion to X}} articles need some sort of look at them due to how they are used to further disputes -- [[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 :::: Mmm. I had some involvement in this (as an admin) and I note that the person who is edit-warring with Bringtar is the filer, and I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area.  I would simply decline this unless there's a socking issue. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
+{{hab}}

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards