Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Boodlesthecat

Boodlesthecat is indefinitely topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 14 September 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 Boodlesthecat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gwennie-nyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Boodlesthecat (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/Gender_and_sexuality#Remedies (primarily)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Remedies (secondarily)

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

Note: All times provided for diffs are in CDT, not UTC

15:47, September 7, 2021 first disruptive talk comment, claims individuals using the term TERF to describe others as "people who barely have a clue what they are talking about and know nothing about feminist history". Then compares situation to Palestine and Zionism. (Note, reasons for previous blocks in how they relate to Israel-Palestine.)
18:02, September 7, 2021 reply to admin TheresNoTime, beginning escalation in harsh, disruptive tone
19:42, September 7, 2021 accuses other editors of pov-pushing due to reverting their contentious edit
19:51, September 7, 2021 again, comparison of those who use "TERF" to "Iranian government propagandists often attack anyone who criticizes them as 'Zionists'"
21:28, September 7, 2021 calls into question reliable sources because based on initial information, they reported on the possibility that the incident was a hoax, which they refer to as an "apparently false narrative". Goes on the mock radical feminist and right-wing group comparisons despite reliable sourcing discussing the two groups in tandem (both online and in-person). Accuses other editors to trying to perpetuate "the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur", trying to setup opposition to Christianity and cisgender women.
00:11, September 8, 2021 harsh slippery-slope response to good-faith question regarding the usage of the term TERF
09:19, September 8, 2021 continued harsh replies from previous diff
09:33, September 8, 2021 continued harsh strawman arguments not conducive to constructive discussion
09:49, September 8, 2021 personal attack against me after unrelated reply to Crossroads who I was thanking for agreeing with my proposal and noting, as he did, how the talk page could use less WP:SOAPBOX/WP:FORUM, accusing me of trying to own the page and rigidly-control editing to suit my own biases
10:15, September 8, 2021 purveying a strawman argument in response to a reply of mine to another user for why I don't really think we should try to utilize/cite specific subsections of a social media platform which the article's RS state contributed to the spread of the incident itself, again calling our RS fabrications and calling a deprecated source more credible than our current ones
11:35, September 9, 2021 calls this AE request itself "gratuitous", claims current wording based on RS pushes false narratives, ignores RS, tries to pin blame to a specific group ("the Antifa camp") while ignoring we have RS specifically discussing that faction's actions, claiming it's probably related to the groups who stormed the Capitol, specifically calls me (Gwennie-nyan) out and casts aspersions (added 02:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC))
16:28, September 12, 2021 claims this AE is "specious" and a personal attack alleging that I am trying to trick them into edit warring (added 23:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC))

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2008 AE Block Boodles was blocked (at 04:11, December 23, 2008) for 1 year due to "heavily flaming and creating a disruptive, uncivil environment"
16:07, October 13, 2008 they were previously blocked for personal attacks and incivilty
User has other blocks due to edit warring, disruptive editing, and hostility

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

16:53, September 7, 2021 AntiCompositeNumber informed them of WP:GENSEX D/s on user's talk page
13:36, September 7, 2021 At time of first post on Talk:Wi Spa controversy, D/s alerts for both GENSEX and AP2 were clearly visible
17:22, September 7, 2021 admin TheresNoTime commented in-section to make everyone aware of D/s

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Boodles appears to be an editor that used to be primarily active in 2008. After review of considerable complaints logged against them on talk pages, ANI, and eventually AE, of which resulted in multiple blocks and restrictions, I felt in the community's best interest to file this report. Since their return to active status, it appears to me, as much as I try to assume good faith, that the prior behavior patterns have not changed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:51, September 8, 2021 (CDT) - Notified. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Boodlesthecat

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 Boodlesthecat

Happy to have all my cited edits reviewed in this specious complaint, as well as any review of my actions 13 years ago when I (practically single-handedly, and successfully) battled a cabal of antisemitic editors who had turned multiple articles on Eastern European Jewry into cesspools of Jew hatred. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Despite poring through my every utterance, where I've never once ever stated or hinted at my gender, Gwennie-nyan managed to misgender me in this jeremiad. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above, quite clearly. "19:42, September 7, 2021 accuses other editors of pov-pushing due to reverting her contentious edit. I wonder what led you to the conclusion that I was a her. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Isabelle Belato: Seems you and a few others equate "I disagree with you" with WP:SOAPBOXING. Oh well.

You say most academics don't consider "TERF" a slur. Therefore, some do. As well, many non-academics consider it a slur. Academics aren't the arbiters of what is or isn't considered offensive by a group of people. My argument that some who it's directed at consider it a slur is reason for not using it as a descriptor. If I had to keep repeating that, it's due to the WP:IDHT attitude you accuse me of. And if TERF is considered a slur against a group of people, by definition, it's entirely valid to compare it to other slurs.
I 100% stand by my comment that this entry was "subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints."
No one asked me for sources. Feel free to ask.

reply to WanderingWanda: What exactly is "inflammatory rhetoric" about giving an example of "an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be"? How you would phrase her POV? Is she to be treated as a racist for having an aversion to penises while she is naked? Even is she has PTSD from rape? Is she to be considered mentally ill, the way some try to treat trans people? Is the problem saying "biological woman?" What should I call her? Would a different term make her a different person? She's still who she is. Or are we trying to erase her? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Isabelle Belato Google TERF SLUR. It's a lively debate in the real world. It wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't opposing camps. It's not for academics, WIKI, you, or I to decide for some women what they consider to be a slur when directed at them. That's ugly patriarchal authoritarianism. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Deepfriedokra You write I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both

I find this attribution to some supposed emotional state on my part offensive. I have made fact based arguments for every edit I have made, discussed at length on the talk pages, and have engaged with editors who are obstinate in preferring their POV rather than simple facts.

My offending "penises" comment, if you read what I wrote in the talk page, was in the context of the use of the term "TERF" as being seen as a slur by some. I gave the example of it being tossed at an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be. Are you saying such women don't exist? Or if they exist, we cannot describe them in simple English because the very words used to describe this woman is somehow offensive to some? How would you describe such a woman? Perhaps one who is a rape survivor who is triggered by penises/male genitalia?

Similar, ideological/personal biases of other editors insist on blocking simple, factual mention that the LAPD has both considered the suspect to be a male, and cannot confirm their gender identity. So, due to biases of editors, we supposedly cannot say something like "the LAPD has described the suspect as male" even though it is a naked fact, and entirely pertinent to the police claim that the suspect pretends to be trans to commit sex crimes in women's spaces, and likely hints at what the prosecution will be claiming. I've simply countered, through discussion, the reality that we can't change actual salient facts (LAPD is claiming the suspect is male) simply because someone doesn't like that. That's something to take up with the LAPD. Changing facts in WP is not the way to for these "emotionally engaged" editors to deal with their feelings. I would appreciate it if people commenting on this case and recommending some sort of sanctions would deal with the facts, rather than their own "visceral" "emotionally engaged" responses before supporting arbitrary, one side actions. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gwennie-nyan

A reply to Johnuniq. Regarding the facts of the incident, as our sources say, the spread both online and developments of ensuing protests of the incident were specifically noted repeatedly as right-wing and trans-exclusive feminist spaces online. The explainer, which you said you felt is gratuitous, was supported by a few other editors in lieu of directly linked trans-exclusive feminists to TERF, which was seen as insulting by Boodles and a couple others, so it was changed. In interests of NPOV, the akas are include specifically to link and explain common synonyms for the ideological group. TERF and gender-critical feminists are the two WP:COMMONNAMEs for the group. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 11:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Boodlesthecat on misgendering. Where? I default to they/them pronouns. The people in your last AE referred to you as he. However I don't know your gender or pronouns. I did mention "he" in regards to Crossroads, however. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that typo. Has been fixed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also submit the uncivil behavior of Boodles at this venue, specifically at 23:31, September 9, 2021 (CDT) in which they assert that a fellow editor is not living in the real world and does not in any way AGF in said editor's comments. Also, in the same keystroke to negate the role of academics in understanding things is expressly contrary to a foundational aspect of the wiki, that is quality, reliable sourcing, as well as a NPOV, which academics often provide as secondary and tertiary sources. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq given it has been a few days, I am curious if your current comment is your final word on this matter. Boodles has taken your initial comment as permission to begin modifying the page to suit their wishes over the current page consensus, calling this request "without merit" and claiming I filed it for the purposes of "harassment and intimidation", claiming I've made no responses or modifications in light of your comment. I find the continual aspersions being cast very hurtful. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to GorillaWarfare's request for feedback regarding proposed sanctions.) I feel that currently the page would be served best by individual user sanctions (per this request) and also page-based sanctions at Wi Spa controversy. Regarding user sanctions, I support the proposed topic ban, broadly construed. Regarding the page sanctions, I think to minimize battleground and edit-warring, 1RR should be implemented and, should that not work, GW's proposed consensus-only modification can be then put in place. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheresNoTime

Responding solely to acknowledge the mentions above - I am probably involved at this point, so I will make no further comment than to remind everyone that civility is required and expected ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Isabelle Belato

Boodlesthecat continuous WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:IDHT attitude have turned the talk page of the article into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Despite most participants agreeing on suggestions to improve the wording (first by removing TERF, then by adding "a.k.a."), Boodlesthecat continued on their WP:SOAPBOXING. The diffs cover mostly the parts of the conversation where I was involved. After the last diff, I decided to bow out.

[1] Despite two users (myself and Firefangledfeathers) agreeing with the removal of TERF while maintaining "trans-excluding feminist", Boodlesthecat decides to keep WP:SOAPBOXING with anecdotes about the usage of TERF.
[2] Boodlesthecat complains about false equivalences to TNT, while doing the same themselves: equating TERF to "nigger" and "tranny" and to any number of slurs against non-straight, non-white, non-male folks;
[3] Boodlesthecat cites the TERF article to affirm that many consider [TERF] derogatory, ignoring that the article also says most academics do not believe the word can be classified as a slur, which I pointed to them (as well as explaining terms like this need to be sourced, which is the case), and they ignored for the remainder of the discussion;
[4] Boodlesthecat proceeds to question the reliability of the sources and begins casting aspersions on the major contributors (mostly Gweenie-nyan) by saying that this article as also subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints and subtly perpetrate the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur, by making a point that the main complainant was "Christian" (wink wink, we know how hateful they can be!), pointing out that they are "cis" (to subtly set up an opposition to transwomen), ignoring the fact that those are all supported by sources (and is no different than pointing any other group of a person in the case of a hate crime or similar cases);

At no point do they provide any sources to whatever it is they are trying to argue. Isabelle ^🔔 21:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat: See WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia:Talk dos and don'ts, specifficaly Present evidence. Repeating "many people think this" is not evidence. Isabelle ^🔔 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WanderingWanda

Note this inflammatory rhetoric from Boodlesthecat about trans women in the restroom: an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be.[5]

Slate magazine once wrote that scaremongering about trans people in bathrooms echos racist rhetoric about how Black men supposedly pose a sexual danger for white women in bathrooms.

The new Universal Code of Conduct forbids discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin M

I just want to respond to GorillaWarfare's comment about the reversions on this article. I think the recent work on the article has fallen in line pretty well with the pattern of WP:BRD, and editors have been good about voluntarily bringing disputes to talk rather than edit warring (though some incivility has sometimes crept into talk discussions, which is unfortunate). I guess there have been a lot of reverts, but each one has generally been concerned with a different piece of content, rather than there being any specific content that's being repeatedly added and removed back and forth. I don't personally see a CRP restriction as being necessary at this time. Colin M (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FormalDude

Boodles disruptive behavior is growing and they need to be banned from gender related topics as they clearly cannot maintain a neutral point of view with their editing in those topics. This is evidenced by their numerous WP:BATTLEGROUND-like disputes at Talk:Wi Spa controversy where they refuse to get the point. ––FormalDude talk 04:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Boodlesthecat

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

Possibly I need to be re-educated but I find it hard to understand the concerns raised in this request. The lead at Wi Spa controversy currently has a completely gratuitous "(a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to comment on the "TERF" vs. "gender critical" vs. [whatever other options were suggested] dispute, since that's a content question that should be left to the article talk page.
There is definitely some WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from Boodlesthecat here, which appears to be worsening over time. I am also somewhat concerned with Boodlesthecat's attitude towards source reliability shown in the 10:15, September 8 diff and edits like [6]. However I'm not sure anything here rises to the level of sanctions, so I would just warn Boodles to try not to let their personal opinions influence their evaluation of sources, encourage them to provide reliable sources for any content arguments they're going to make (specifically avoiding unsourced comments like 11:35, September 9; no one should have to ask you to provide sources on Wikipedia as you've suggested above), and ask them to stop with the accusations of dogmatism and bad faith against other editors on the page.
Besides the specific conduct complaint here, I am seeing a lot of reverting happening on that page~~—nothing passing 3RR as far as I can see, but certainly getting close.~~ I am inclined to introduce a consensus required discretionary sanction there to try to force discussion over reversion, but would be interested to hear from both the involved parties and any other admins about whether they think that would be beneficial. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see Boodles was actively editing the article as I wrote that, and I note two instances where they appear to be attempting to insert references to the suspect as male wherever possible: [7], [8]. Perhaps a gender topic ban would be in order. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am placing a 24-hour partial block on Boodlesthecat to stem the ongoing edit warring, since they don't seem willing to discuss changes and achieve consensus first before reimplementing contested content. This is just a temporary action while I wait for more admin input here, and should not be taken to be the final outcome of this AE. The pblock applies to the Wi Spa controversy article, but does not prevent them from participating at the talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted at User talk:Boodlesthecat#Unblock, it concerns me that the battleground conduct appears to be escalating (including bad faith and aspersions against the AE filer, against ColinM, and now against an uninvolved admin who weighed in here), and with no apparent understanding that there are any issues with their own conduct. I'm still thinking that a topic ban might be most appropriate here, though I am concerned that the battleground behavior might just reoccur in whichever topic area they find next. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Boodles has been here a long time and has thousands of edits. She should be fine in areas that are less upsetting. We can always revisit if needed. But I'd like not to lose a constructive editor if possible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the last bit is more of a musing—I don't think a broader sanction is justified at this point. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this with an indefinite topic ban from the standard gender topic area ("all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people", broadly construed), given general agreement among the admins who've weighed in. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. IMHO, a lot of emotional engagement about the subject in question. Again, might need to try editing in other areas. I'll defer to the judgement of other uninvolved admins, but this is how I see it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason they copied that message to my talk page just now. Just noting that I've advised them to leave any AE-related comments at AE: [9] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their behavior in this area is clearly well below the standards an area under discretionary sanctions is held to. They have been on Wikipedia long enough to know this is not appropriate so I don't think education is going to change the situation. I suggest that they should avoid this area so that they may focus in area that they are less problematic in. I agree with Deepfriedokra that they will not be able to do this without outside help so I think a topic ban for at least some duration is in order. As to the scope of that ban, I am not entirely sure how broad it would need to be. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheGunGuru73

TheGunGuru73 blocked indef as a normal admin action by Tedder. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:25, 14 September 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 TheGunGuru73

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheGunGuru73 (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/Gun control

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

08:12, 9 September 2021 Adds claim that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, this apparently refers to a lower court ruling that was struck down by the Supreme Court
09:00, 9 September 2021 Edit warring to reinstate the prior edit
09:03, 9 September 2021 Edit warring to reinstate the prior edit
08:35, 9 September 2021 Adds selective claim to lead, there are numerous stats cited at AR-15 style rifle#Use in crime and mass shootings regarding their use in mass shooting
08:58, 9 September 2021 Reinstates the edit despite it being a violating of the page restrction at Template:Editnotices/Page/AR-15 style rifle
09:04, 9 September 2021 How about just leave it alone? I know more about gun laws than you do

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/as

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was given two opportunities at User talk:TheGunGuru73 to self-revert, but refused. Their username is obviously problematic.

Note that since their block the editor has continued their disruption at a new article, claiming that the Firearm Owners Protection Act was unconstitutional here then edit warring after that change was reverted. FDW777 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning TheGunGuru73

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 TheGunGuru73

Statement by (username)

Statement by (slatertsteven)

I agree we should not bite the Newbies, but their edits, their attitude and their user name all scream wp:nothere. So I agree we should wait, I also think they will end up getting sanctioned or leave when they do not get their way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TheGunGuru73

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

I'm reluctant to sanction a new editor (account created 9 September 2021) but something will have to happen if similar problems continue. @TheGunGuru73: It should not be a surprise that the topic is controversial. At Wikipedia, that means disagreements must be calmly discussed on the article talk page with arguments based on reliable sources. If there is any continuation of edit warring or original research you will be sanctioned. That might be a topic ban or possibly just an administrator's indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the editor in question received a two-day edit-warring block earlier today from PhilKnight. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather concerned that TheGunGuru73 came off of a block for edit warring and went immediately back to the same edit warring, and seems to have ignored the advice of other editors in terms of reviewing policy. I'm also rather concerned by this diff in particular ([10]), as it seems TheGunGuru73 seems to think it is acceptable to edit the article based upon one's personal knowledge or views rather than the best available sources. An inability or unwillingness to listen to other editors combined with a rather aggressive attitude may indicate a poor fit either in that particular topic area, or with Wikipedia in general, but I hope that can be moderated. I certainly would encourage this editor to comment here at some point to indicate if any of this is getting through (if you're unsure how to do that, leave the comment you'd like to make on my talk page and I'll move it here). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where anyone educated them about unsourced/poorly sourced edits. I'll see what I can do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did what I could. They do look WP:NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW

TillermanJimW blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action; appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user: TillermanJimW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TillermanJimW (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: “TillermanJimW is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of gender and sexuality broadly construed anywhere on Wikipedia”

Reason given was “multiple incidences of disruption in the topic area including violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCACY), Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), and Wikipedia:Civility.” My “previous discretionary sanction block for the same behavior was taken into account when deciding on this topic ban”. Topic ban logged at Gender and sexuality and following “discussion” in the Gender section of my Talk page.

Administrator imposing the sanction: HighInBC (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHighInBC&type=revision&diff=1043608358&oldid=1043318970

Think this is sufficient. Please advise if not. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TillermanJimW

I would like to at least see the topic ban modified to exclude my own Talk page but would much prefer it to be entirely removed for the following reasons.

For one thing, I’m asking for a reconsideration of the whole topic ban as I don’t think the reasons HighInBC has given are particularly tenable. More particularly re “Not Advocacy”, I’m only advocating for putting the “controversies” front and center on the Gender page – as stipulated in the Lead Section of WP Better.

And “tendentious editing” is rather much in the eye of the beholder and is largely the result of too many editors involved in this “debate” refusing to consider and properly address those controversies – definitely NOT NPOV. Further, I haven’t actually posted anything further on any actual article topics other than on a couple of user Talk pages, including my own, on the topic since the closure of the “Explicit criticism” section of the Gender topic by user Johnuniq about a week ago. So the “discretionary sanction block” HighInBC referred to is irrelevant and a red herring.

And “Civility” is a bit of a joke and some evidence of bias given that another editor on my Talk page had first dismissed what I’d posted as justification for my arguments as “~~anally-derived~~ original research” (strikeouts in the original).

But more particularly relevant to those controversies, and that dismissal of the RS I’ve posted as “~~anally derived~~”, several such sources (PT, SEP, MP, JP, & MR) have argued that the “social construction of gender” – that’s part and parcel of the topic and of much of the “feminist ideology” that undergirds it – is biologically untenable if not “logically incoherent” (here & here).

Further, other RS have pointed to particularly untenable aspects of “gender ideology” – “self-identification” in particular – due to the “magico-spiritual undertone” present in the “merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition”.

But more broadly, many other equally credible RS (here, here, & here) have argued (here & here) that there’s a substantial degree of “ideological bias in the psychology of sex and gender” and that much of that bias is little short of outright and egregious Lysenkoism – i.e., “any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.”

Rather disconcerting that too many Wikipedians, in trying to sweep those controversies under the carpet, seem to be engaged in precisely that “deliberate distortion”. Too many are engaged in Wikilawyering over picayune details & rules - "Wikipedia has no firm rules" - while repudiating fundamental principles. Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, at least when it comes to gender, seems to be listing heavily to port (left), if not dead in the water.

You might consider rectifying that somewhat by removing my topic ban. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To HighInBC: Not quite sure that you qualify as an "uninvolved editor" as you were part of that earlier DS fracas. While I appreciate that you DID post my appeal, you were clearly less than sympathetic to my arguments.

As for the link between gender dysphoria and autistism, you might consider some factual evidence of it:

"There is increasing clinical evidence of an association between gender variability, gender dysphoria (GD), and autism spectrum disorder (ASD)"; Frontiers in Psychiatry --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But neither I nor FIP nor many others making the same arguments are saying that everyone with GD are autistic. Just that there's a strong correlation. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC) (

Clerk note: moved from HighInBC's section)[reply]

To GoodDay

Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here or to respond to your question - if not then you might ask for clarification in a section where I can respond.

But to answer your question briefly, the discussion on my Talk page Gender was all about a decidedly non-NPOV structuring of the Gender article. And the "language" I had used was - somewhat risibly - deemed beyond the Pale. But I think that's just an excuse to avoid answering the non-NPOV nature of the article. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC) (

Clerk note: moved from uninvolved discussion section, reply to GoodDay)[reply]

What makes you think that I think it is? Your evidence for that bogus accusation is what?

You might actually try looking at the evidence I've posted. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC) (

Clerk note: moved from uninvolved discussion section, reply to GoodDay)[reply]

Haven't the foggiest idea what you're getting at. Doubt you do either. The article is several thousand words long - if you can't state your point in a few words then it's a waste of time talking to you. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't; you tried to impose your way of looking at the issue. You have some biases and some preconceptions and an unwillingness to look at the facts on the table, to actually consider what I've said. --TillermanJimW (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Newimpartial

What makes you think that Peterson doesn't qualify as a "subject-matter-expert"? [SME] Clinical psychologist, professor of psychology, PhD McGill University. A raft of books and publications in reputable journals. You might try reading it in some detail.

And as I said before, I'm not saying Quillette is a reliable source; I'm saying that the author of the article they published does qualify as one.

And likewise with the Nature article, and the authors of it. I'd sure like to see your proof that they - Stephen J. Ceci & Wendy M. Williams - also don't qualify as SMEs. But if you'd actually read the Nature discussion then you might see that they explicitly say, "Yet the spectre of Lysenkoism lurks in current scientific discourse on gender, race and intelligence."

To GeneralNotability:

That's what I'm trying to show, that the "ban was made in error" because of manifest evidence that virtually everyone I interacted with has an egregious bias in favour of the orthodox position in the Gender article and absolutely refuse to consider the controversies surrounding the issue. That bias colours the accusations that they've all leveled at me.

You might note that GoodDay more or less agreed with me (thanks) about the bias in that Gender article. They agreed "with some things I tried to add", that "there's a wall there" - AKA, an egregious bias, a decidedly ~~NPOV~~ non-NPOV perspective [correction]. That's the problem.

I have to discuss the topic of Gender to show the bias, to show that a great many "reliable sources" accept the controversial nature of Gender which is not being addressed in the Gender article. That controversy is part and parcel of the entirely bogus and untenable accusations that have been leveled against me.

You really think Newimpartial's "~~anally-derived~~ original research" is "civil", is "rational", is anything other than a manifestation of that too common bias? You might look at their unwillingness to consider the sources I've posted. You seriously think ~~they hold water~~ those sources are "fringe", are not worth considering in the controversies surrounding Gender? [corrections, additions] --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections & clarifications above as noted; sorry about that.

But one thing further GeneralNotablity, something to emphasize as you brought it up: I am NOT arguing for anything in particular in the Gender article; I really don't know how to fix it though that was what the conversation on my Talk page was intended to address. What I am arguing is that there is a decided bias against addressing the many controversies on the topic, a bias that is manifestly evident in the discussions on my talk page and which undergirds and motivates this topic ban. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Firefangledfeathers:

And I “explained” to you that getting offended, making a big production out of being butthurt – “playing the victim”, doesn’t and shouldn’t carry a lot of weight. Which, as I also explained to you, is also the position of Wikimedia about people being offended by various uploaded images. You might try reading this Atlantic essay on the “Left-Wing Infatuation With Taking Offense”.

Although, as it is clear that those comments of mine have not succeeded in “persuading you to change your approach”, I doubt that that article will have much if any effect either.

However, somewhat more pertinently, you seem incapable of considering, or are simply unwilling to consider the evidence I’ve posted that what you consider as “disruption” is simply me trying to defend one of Wikipedia’s foundational principles, that of a neutral point of view. You seem incapable of understanding that there’s a great deal of controversy surrounding the whole concept of gender. And that much of the orthodox view – more or less exemplified and peddled by the Wikipedia article on it – is so much errant and “logically incoherent” moonshine. “Nonsense on stilts” as Massimo Pigliucci suggests.

Methinks you’re less bent out of shape at my so-called “disruption” than by me challenging what is, to no small degree, little better than a religious belief, an article of faith that “self-identification”, as a central tenet of gender ideology, is a coherent and useful concept - it ain’t.

But all of that is a large part of the reason why I’m in this particular docket. Which you apparently refuse to take some responsibility for. --TillermanJimW (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Deepfriedokra:

Another one who apparently thinks that defending and insisting on the unbiased application of the NPOV policy qualifies as “disruption” as that was pretty much the entire substance of my discussions on gender on my talk page.

Sure hope that you never wind up on a jury as it’s “pretty obvious” that you didn’t read or give much thought to my argument and to the evidence that I’d posted in support of it. --TillermanJimW (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Equivamp:

“Interesting” summary, though a rather egregiously biased one. Rather typical of most editors when it comes to gender – almost as if it’s a religion or an ideology. But more specifically:

”modified to allow him to discuss on his talk page”:WP:TBAN clearly and unambiguously says, “Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages”. On my Talk page I had explicitly asked the editor applying the ban to exclude that talk page with the idea in mind of being able to at least continue the discussion there.

” He does not believe he violated the policy Not Advocacy”: How does arguing for the NPOV policy qualify as “advocacy”?

” as he believes the guideline WP:BETTER advises”: Not a question of belief but of fact. The document explicitly says, “The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies”. Where’s your rational for why that “principle” should go by the wayside? But even the Wikipedia article on the “anti-gender movement” refers to the existence of “significant controversies and disagreements” within the “academic discipline of gender studies”. Where is the discussion of that within the lead of that gender article?

”limited his jeremiads to user talk pages for an entire week”: I had been explicitly excluded from posting anything on the Gender Talk page unless I came up with an “actionable proposal to add/remove/change specific text”. Not much point in doing that if there was no consensus at all as to what needed changing, was there? And, as several editors have noted, the chances of that were slim to none.

“policies against incivility”: what bloody hypocrisy, what a sad joke, particularly after you more or less turned a blind eye to another editor’s comment on my Talk page about my supposedly “~~anally-derived~~ original research”. Further evidence of egregious bias when it comes to the topic of gender.

”the viewpoint he is opposing as the orthodox position”: Wiktionary defines “orthodox” to be: “Conforming to the accepted, established, or traditional doctrines of a given faith, religion, or ideology” Seems entirely applicable as many people (here, here, here) see much of gender as more akin to ideology (“doctrine, beliefs”) than to science. Although, here again, there seems to be conflicting uses of the term probably due, in part, to the common use of “gender” to describe or refer to what many others define as “sex”. Many sources have deprecated that use but clearly many haven’t gotten the memo.

But relative to beliefs and religion, as I mentioned in my opening statement - though you seem unwilling to consider that, there’s the “magico-spiritual undertone” present in the “merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition”. Jefferson’s quip about the Trinity – and about the “priests of gender” – seems apropos as I doubt anyone has a “distinct idea about gender”:

”Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

Rather doubt that the Wikipedia article on gender is helping much to promote anything close to a "distinct idea" of the concept - more "unintelligible proposition" than not.

”As a general note, I have seen WP:NOTHERE indefs for a lot less”: As a general note, I’m not sure that that says much that is flattering towards those involved. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To GoodDay:

”Indeed (IMHO) a NPOV template should be placed at the Laurel Hubbard & Gender articles.”: Thanks. :-)

Quite agree, but I expect you mean the POV Template though I see that the article has half-a-dozen redirects.

”But it ain't gonna happen, because you're not going to get a consensus for it.”:

Definitely like pulling teeth to even get a discussion going on why one might be justified.

But not sure that it is entirely a matter of consensus. As that template notes, the tag can only be removed once there’s a “consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.” But it seems that any individual editor – in good standing – can apply the tag, and it has to remain on the article until the cows come home, or pigs fly, or the stipulated conditions have been met – whichever comes first.

Although there is a bit of a precondition to placing the tag in the first place in that a talkpage section has to be created more or less simultaneously to justify the application, and to create a place for that discussion to take place. See “How to initiate an NPOV debate”.

But as a point of reference, you may wish to take a look at what I’d done on the Hubbard page, main & talk (NPOV Dispute: Career). You may even wish to consider reverting those pages yourself and commenting in the latter section. :-)

"You don't need a weatherman, to know which way the wind blows": “Rome” wasn’t built in a day, and it won’t be torn down in one either. :-) --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Equivamp:

”what would be the point of that?”: hadn’t thought much about it at the time I made the request, though I think I had wanted to continue the discussion on the details while this ~~kangaroo court~~ “hearing” took place in the background.

”all the disruption currently seen at User talk:TillermanJimW”: you keep blathering on about “disruption” while studiously avoiding my argument that NPOV challenges can’t reasonably be seen as that. --TillermanJimW (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Seraphimblade:

”I see nothing here that convinces me ....”: I see nothing there that convinces me you’ve given any due consideration to anything that I’ve said here. Par for the course methinks. --TillermanJimW (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To GoodDay:

”Allow him access to only the talkpages of said-topic”: Thanks; sounds like it might be a workable suggestion and solution. However, I’d ask that that include my own as most of those commenting on my own page & on the Gender & Hubbard ones are clearly less than enthusiastic about any substantive changes re NPOV.

”… wouldn't go around those two articles”: I can sympathize – gender is clearly a contentious and convoluted topic. Though I was somewhat amused to see the range of topics under various sanctions and protections. Mountains, molehills.

But much of the controversy over sex and gender seems due to using various words in quite contradictory ways. As I frequently like to quote Francis Bacon, “Shoddy and inept uses of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways”.

Somewhat apropos of which, you might like this Imgur depiction of “There are three sides to every story”. Somewhat similar to the Spinning dancer, the leading OVG file in which I had fixed up some 15 months ago. Perspective really does tend to colour our perceptions and misperceptions.

”I got enough insulting responses, concerning my stance on userboxes”: Clearly, “civility” is the watchword around here ... ;-)

Hadn’t had time to take a close look at your “Userboxes” link before; somewhat shell-shocked & pressed for time – sorry about that. But can sympathize with this: “It's frustrating to see Wikipedia moving more & more to the extreme of censorship, concerning user pages. What's next? You can't express your support of the Yankees, as it might offend Red Sox fans?” Or support for a Canadian Republic ... ;-) But a rather too common problem these days. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Callanecc:

”… perfectly reasonable exercise of administrative discretion .... I believe, evidence enough that the topic ban is not only perfectly reasonable but the minimum necessary to prevent disruption”:

“believe” whatever you want, that Jesus walked on water, that calling a dog’s tail a leg makes it one – rather pointedly applicable to much of “gender ideology”. But where’s your evidence and reasoned argument that these “disciplinary sanctions” are justified, are not evidence of egregious bias and trumped-up charges?

These “hearings” are looking less and less like dispassionate and unbiased evaluation of evidence and arguments, and more and more like a Star chamber – “social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of ... power” – all the time. --TillermanJimW (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Firefangledfeathers:

”manufactured a straw man version of my argument”:

How so? Where’s your argument and evidence for that case? Something else you’ve pulled out of your arse? “anally-derived” in Newimpartial’s lexicon. Which I didn’t notice you asking him to apologize for – why might that be the case? Bias? Thumbs – to the shoulders – on the scales? What a bloody joke.

But since you quoted my “madder than hatters” comment, I have to assume that what you’re calling my “strawman argument” is my subsequent reference and link, here in this “hearing”, to an article on “self-identification”. Which has to qualify as one of the most incoherent and “unintelligible” concepts in all of Christendom – outside of the Trinity in any case, and certainly under the rubric of “gender”.

You may not have noticed a conversation on my talkpage between @Newimpartial: & @Tewdar: about “identifying as an attack helicopter” as a gender. Of particular note is Newimpartial’s more or less sensible argument about someone’s “internal feeling of gender identity [as] an attack helicopter”, and their “perhaps delusional” state of mind.

However, I think he subsequently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by papering it over with the fig leaf of “sincere conviction”. Rather large number of people have had “sincere convictions” that they were Jesus or the Mahdi or Napoleon. Interesting and informative, if rather long-winded, dissertation of a man – something of a “subject matter expert” on a number of topics including epidemiology and "detransitioning" – who also had a “sincere conviction” that he was a woman for some 13 years before “snapping out of it”.

The problem is that if what it takes to qualify as a member of a particular gender is entirely subjective then the concept and categorization is worthless, if not worse than useless – profoundly and fundamentally unscientific and anti-scientific. Interesting if rather biased review and analysis here of a CBC interview of Jordan Peterson.

But of particular note relative to that is the interviewer’s assertion that, “In Ontario, the law states that gender is a person's sense of being a woman, a man, both, or neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum." Entirely subjective – methinks Peterson was entirely justified to argue in response that that statement was “logically incoherent to the point of dangerousness”. Makes the whole concept little better than kids playing dress-up: “I’m Captain Kidd! I’m Superwoman! I’m Peter Pan! I’m Cinderella!” Yeah, yeah, sure, go play in the traffic kids ...

Though I’m not entirely sure that Peterson is entirely justified with his “binary gender” argument. “feminine” and “masculine” might reasonably be seen as two halves of a gender spectrum – as suggested by the lead sentence in the Gender article; somewhat analogous to the red end and the blue end of the visible colour spectrum – with a myriad of named colours between the extreme ends. Although, as with infrared and ultraviolet, that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be other “genders” – however the concept might be defined – that are outside of that particular binary. And that’s apart from all of the possible subdivisions of feminine and masculine.

But that’s why I’ve suggested that a “taxonomy of gender” is required or would be useful as some have attempted to do. However, absent that and some objective correlates for the myriads of different subdivisions, the concept is little better than pseudoscience: astrology and phrenology - "nonsense on stilts" in spades. And a large part of the social, political, philosophical, and scientific controversies that bedevil it. Which really should be “front and center” in that gender article.

”uncivil remark”:

What pretentious twaddle. Rather like many transgender activists with their “invalidate the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us”.

”attention to the over 2,200 words TJW's statement”:

false accusations tend to be easily and simply stated, but often require a great deal of time and effort to show that they’re predicated on untenable premises if not on so much ignorant moonshine or worse. I see the statements by other editors here – so far – total about 1700 words; what makes you think I shouldn’t be allowed to respond to them in sufficient detail to show that? --TillermanJimW (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Acroterion:

"I must question this editor's fitness to edit Wikipedia in any capacity”: And I must question whether you have a clue what my argument is, whether you actually did any due diligence and spent any time at all to evaluate it and the evidence provided.

And whether you bothered to even look at my Contributions tab. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Shibbolethink:

”I do not believe they are right”: You might note the rather large correlation between gender dysphoria and autism – here, here, here, and here. I rather doubt there’s much discussion of that in the Gender article; wonder why that might be ...

”Research has shown ...”: Which research might that be? Where? No doubt some are “happy” with the results, but many others are clearly not. See here, here, here, & here.

”From the evidence above, I do not believe they are”: Where’s your explicit review of the evidence I presented? Where’s your argument as to how the accusations against me – “advocacy”, “tendentious editing” , & “incivility” – aren’t anything more than trumped charges to avoid facing my argument that the Gender article is badly biased and is anything but NPOV?

”Wikipedia deserves better”: It is certainly ill-served by far too many editor’s abrogation of NPOV policy. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighInBC

I will expand on this later. For now in addition to the disruption that resulted in their first DS block which was appealed here, there is this gem where they suggest that sexual reassignment surgery is an "egregious euphemism" to "pander to the delusional" and turning "dysphoric and autistic children into sexless eunuchs". Given that this subject area is under a stricter standard due to discretionary sanctions I don't believe they are capable of meeting those standards. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to TillermanJimW's concerns about me being involved. Prior involvement in an administrative capacity does not make me involved such that I cannot act as an administrator afterwards. That sort of involvement means involved in the underlying content dispute.

As for being involved in this current DS action, that is another type of involvement where I am involved as the admin making the action. That is why I am posting here instead of the below section for uninvolved administrators.

I was going to post more but between what others have posted, and what you yourself have posted, I think it is covered. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

It would be difficult to formulate a more impressive worked example of WP:NOTTHEM than is found in the first four (!) paragraphs of Tillerman's statement above.

And the subsequent section, beginning with But more particularly relevant, is in fact particularly relevant as it offers an illustration of Tillerman performing original research (intended to support their POV on their principal interest of so-called "gender ideology") by citing non-expert sources (such as Jordan Peterson and Quilette) and even FRINGE sources discussing other topics (such as Race and intelligence) to argue that the actual reliable sources on Gender are all ~~wrong~~"Lysenkoist" and untrustworthy.

If this isn't an object lesson in editing that is disruptive in the context of a DS area, I have trouble imagining what would be considered disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

This user, while talking to a non-binary editor, said the following:

... society has a right if not an obligation to ask whether they're madder than hatters - ie., many if not most of the transgendered - or not.

I suggested they retract their comment, and explained that it was uncivil. They refused and ranted instead about "offense". The last diff was twenty minutes after their TBAN notification – not, I think, a violation of the TBAN, but also not evidence that they learn from blocks/bans. A one-week block and a TBAN have not succeeded in persuading this editor to change their approach. I urge the denial of this request, and I submit that either an intermediate-term or indefinite block is needed to prevent future disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TillermanJimW has manufactured a straw man version of my argument, and they are going ten rounds with it rather than acknowledge and apologize for an uncivil remark. I share Equivamp's analysis of this soapboxy situation, and I would like to call attention to the over 2,200 words TJW's statement has ballooned to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TillermanJimW, the straw man is that you think I asked you to retract your "madder than a hatter" comment because I was offended. I asked you, still am asking you, to retract a statement that was obviously a violation of WP:CIVIL.

TJW's statement is now at over 3,700 words. I apologize to the clerks and admins for bringing this up repeatedly, and I am not sure how I would clerk this if I were in your place. I mention it because it's further evidence of TJW's disdain for process and policy at Wikipedia. Since GeneralNotability's warning that "this is not the place for you to continue to push", TJW has not stopped soapboxing about gender. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

It's pretty obvious from the dif's here that the TBAN is needed. I urge appellant to find areas in which to contribute where they can do so less disruptively. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Equivamp: Yes, I'm getting that, too. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TillermanJimW

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 GoodDay

Exactly what is it that's being appealed. What does the editor want added into the Gender article? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll discover, this ain't no Ben Shapiro site. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( Clerk note: reply to TillermanJimW)[reply]
Take a look at the restriction discussion at WP:USERBOX & you'll understand what I'm alluding to. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( Clerk note: reply to TillermanJimW)[reply]
Tried to help you, but to no avail. You're on your own. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( Clerk note: reply to TillermanJimW)[reply]
You're wrong. I do agree with some of the things you tried to add to the Gender article. But, I'm aware that you're not going to 'ever' get a consensus for those additions. Rightly or wrongly, it's a wall that you'll not be able to break through. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( Clerk note: reply to TillermanJimW)[reply]
TillermanJimW. Indeed (IMHO) a NPOV template should be placed at the Laurel Hubbard & Gender articles. But it ain't gonna happen, because you're not going to get a consensus for it. "You don't need a weatherman, to know which way the wind blows". -- GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation to arbitrators. Allow him access to only the talkpages of said-topic, for 1-month. Allow him the chance to make his arguments & gain a consensus for his proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't go around those two articles or any articles bio or non-bio, that covers gender, transgender, etc etc topics. I got enough insulting responses, concerning my stance on userboxes. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-start editing articles outside your current topic-ban. It would be the best way to show others, you aren't gonna be creating a commotion. It's been a whole week, now. You've talked the talk, now walk the walk. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Equivamp

(edit conflict) This appeal appears to merely be utilizing WP:BANEX to continue advocating for your POV more than anything else, as it discusses a content dispute of the related matter more than it discusses the behavior for which the TBAN was given. If I were to give a suggestion it would be to retract this entire request and try again.... --Equivamp - talk 00:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone looking for a summary of this appeal at this time:
- TillermanJimW believes his GENSEX DS topic ban should be lifted. Or, barring that, his TBAN should be modified to allow him to discuss on his talk page (for some reason) topics he is not allowed to discuss or make edits to anywhere else. Specific reasoning for this offered by TillermanJimW is as follows:
  - He does not believe he violated the policy WP:NOTADVOCACY because he believes that including "controversies" in the lead section (front and center) of the Gender article as he believes the guideline WP:BETTER advises.
    - When later asked what specific changes he wanted made to that article, he demurred, and stated he actually just wanted to argue about the existence of controversies on the topic.
  - He does not believe his editing could have been tendentious, because he has limited his jeremiads to user talk pages for an entire week.
  - TillermanJimW's personal attacks directed at other contributors do not matter (is a joke) because someone else said that TillermanJimW's contributions were pulled out of his ass.
- Beyond these less-than-convincing stated rationales, this appeal has been used as another soapbox for TillermanJimW to continue the content dispute, to escalate his use of personal attacks, and to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of why Wikipedia has policies against incivility. Amusingly, he has repeatedly referred to the viewpoint he is opposing as the orthodox position, clearly demonstrating that he knows that his statements are not representative of a consensus viewpoint on which all Wikipedia articles are meant to be based, even as he abuses the concept of NPOV to argue for undue focus on other views.
As a general note, I have seen WP:NOTHERE indefs for a lot less. --Equivamp - talk 00:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TillermanJimW, I am aware that you want to be able to continue the "discussion" on your talk page. But what would be the point of that? If you cannot make changes to the articles, so the discussion would have no benefit to the project, and the only result is that you would continue to violate userspace guidelines in addition to all the disruption currently seen at User talk:TillermanJimW. In case you were concerned about it, you were not singled out when Johnuniq closed the section on Talk:Gender that you started. That's just basic talk page practice. Please spare yourself the time attempting to further the content dispute I wasn't involved in - I won't be participating in your gravedigging. --Equivamp - talk 04:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I have not much to say except that I think this user's appeal demonstrates even more why the block and TBAN were a good idea. I would support an indef. This user has said: society has a right if not an obligation to ask whether they're madder than hatters - ie., many if not most of the transgendered - or not. I do not believe they are right.

A wee bit of good ol' fashioned soapboxin'

In medicine, we define mental illness based on the impact it has on the patient's life and their relationships with others. Research has shown, time and time again, that transgender persons are healthier, happier, less likely to commit suicide, and better members of society when they transition. And especially when we help them transition in a safe and supportive environment. Of course there are risks of hormonal therapy, but these are typically outweighed by the massive benefits. To label this solely as a mental illness which needs to be "solved" is a gross misunderstanding of how medicine works. And, for whatever reason, especially in our current climate, everyone seems to think they know more about medicine than doctors and their patients. A troubling state of affairs.

To echo the user's sentiment, I believe Wikipedia has a right if not an obligation to ask itself if this user's contributions are a net positive for the project. From the evidence above, I do not believe they are.

Wikipedia deserves better. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by TillermanJimW

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

Speaking as an arbitration clerk: I have refactored the above discussion so that everyone has their own sections - apologies, the AE appeal template should have made it clearer that the "uninvolved editors" section should follow the normal section-per-editor format we normally use at AE.
Speaking as an uninvolved administrator: TillermanJimW, while WP:BANEX does allow you to discuss the area you are topic banned from while appealing, it is not a blank check. This is not the place for you to continue to push what you want added to Gender, it is the place to explain why the topic ban is either unnecessary or was made in error - and that does not require four paragraphs of argument about why your position is the correct one (to be frank - most people who are topic-banned are just as convinced as you are that you're in the right, and are just as happy as you to provide sources proving it). You are getting quite close to being blocked for violating your topic ban. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing here that convinces me that the topic ban was either improperly imposed or is no longer necessary, and would therefore decline the appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And given the editor's conduct at this appeal itself, I'm rather inclined to just indefinitely block for NOTHERE at this point. GeneralNotability and Callanecc, any thoughts or comments? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue with that at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here, Seraphimblade. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfectly reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and I would, therefore, decline the appeal. TillermanJimW's responses above are, I believe, evidence enough that the topic ban is not only perfectly reasonable but the minimum necessary to prevent disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal does an exemplary job of highlighting why the topic ban was necessary to begin with, to the point that I must question this editor's fitness to edit Wikipedia in any capacity. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CorbieVreccan

This report's complaint is not for a topic for which discretionary sanctions are authorized. The appropriate board for addressing edit warring is WP:3RR, and the board for addressing general behavioral disputes is WP:ANI. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 13 September 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 CorbieVreccan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Janiclett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CorbieVreccan (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:3RR

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

22:45, 13 September 2021 CorbieVreccan refuses to give explanations except by the vague reason of "Indigenous identity is not defined by DNA.", previously using an high tone.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:CorbieVreccan appears to be closed-minded in this dispute about American Indian DNA section in History section because is personally against the, according to user, against the idea of "Indigenous identity is not defined by DNA.". He not gives any explanation about re-remove that section by are an "History" sub-section in the article and justs sends Warning template messages in a potential high tone ([11], [12]), anyway, in the summary of the first of that "Warning" template messages user puts this: "/* September 2021 */: article talk is preferable.", this is a truly high tone and a repetitive behavior in the user: [13].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

Discussion concerning CorbieVreccan

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 CorbieVreccan

User is a disruptive edit-warrior, fighting three established editors, currently at the 3RR board. See the edit history at Janiclett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), specifically all the warnings the user has blanked. And the current case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Janiclett reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Blocked one week). This is a retaliatory filing in response to us stopping this user's disruption.

Also, I don't think this user is paying attention. They're accusing me of things that didn't happen. The content they blanked (mostly photos) has been re-instated. Other editors removed unrelated photos they added, for the most part. (Multiple, established editors are reverting this user.) The DNA section they moved up top was simply moved back to it's original place further down in the article, where it's been for years. No one deleted the DNA section. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CorbieVreccan

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

Iskandar323

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 Iskandar323

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Iskandar323 (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: [[15]]

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

20:31, 14 September 2021 restore of this revert [16]
22:35, 14 September 2021 second revert of the same material
[17] Personal attack

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)

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [18]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was given a chance to self-revert and he still can but he refuses to do so[19]. The user also violated WP:NPA when he was told that he broken the rules. For me it seems that this editor is uncapable to edit is such area and should take a break to learn our polices. --Shrike (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the banner was applied after offending edits but now that the user knows that his edits have direct connection to the conflict he can still self rv --Shrike (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the very least the user should understand that his statement "1RR is a guideline, not a rule" is not correct and 1RR should be adhered --Shrike (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: The reason that it was not tagged it because there was no content regarding the conflict by adding the text about the conflict you have turned the page to be covered by sanctions. It would be a good practice to add such tag yourself and understand that any content regarding the conflict is covered by sanctions --Shrike (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: He can add talk page notice to the very least and abide the rules even without the edit notice and that most of the regulars do. I will probably take it to ARCA as apparently you can break the rules even if you perfectly aware of them --Shrike (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra:,@HighInBC: The user still in his WP:battle mode calling me an "antagonist" [20] The user clearly here to WP:RGW --Shrike (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I don't think I said that the user is "partisan" If yes could you please show me. Maybe you confusing my statement with Iscander[21] --Shrike (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

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 Iskandar323

I made one revert, and then, within the same 24-hour period, made a second, modified edit following on from a discussion in the talk section of the page, where the consensus was that the content I had added had been given undue weight. Duly noted, the modified edit reduced the weight of the content. This discussion was civil and did not involve the accusing editor in the slightest. The other editors involved in the discussion have not voiced their opposition or made further reverts, though one has made further edits that have not affected the modified content, suggesting that, for that user at least, the content produced as a result of discussion towards consensus was appropriate. I maintain that the accusing editor appears to have a shallow grasp of Wikipedia's good faith principles, and I mean this in no way as a form of personal attack, but as a call-to-action for the individual to learn and engage in more civil and less belligerent forms of dialogue on the platform.

It is also worth noting that the accusing editor applied WP:PIA arbitration status to this article only after the discussions and edits in question, making the rather specific nature of his complaint somewhat retroactive in nature, but I personally do not think my good faith actions run afoul of the rules either way. I hope you will agree.

(Moved by HighInBC)Hi Deepfriedokra, consider me notified that 1RR is a rule in this subject area. I admit to being unaware that the restoration of substantially altered content could still be considered a revert, which I had though applied more technically to full reversions using undo functions. I am still not absolutely clear about whether my actions qualify in this instance, but I can see the sense of staying on the safer side of this rule, if only to prevent the waste of future resources (in the form of the valuable time of administrators such as yourself) on enforcement requests. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved by HighInBC)Ok, @HighInBC Noted. I apologise for my tone. But on the other point, in my defence, I had no idea that stricter arbitration rules could apply to pages not even tagged as such. I have had no engagement with such mechanisms, so I really had no means of knowing that this was the case. I still had not thought my actions constituted a second revert, but at least in principle, I had thought the standing rules for the page were 3RR, not 1RR, given the absence of any formal notice to the contrary. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely disingenuous WikiLawyering by 11Fox11. I didn't say that the 1RR rule did not apply to me. I said that it was a guideline, as are all rules on Wikipedia. I also said that in my interpretation, based on my movement towards consensus, I did not violate 1RR in the first place, or at least not intentionally. Interpretations may differ. On the subject of the Zakaria Zubeidi article, you are neglecting to point out that the reverts I have made only pertain to technicalities about linking and sourcing, not to the core content, and in each instance I have provided substantial commentary to help guide the new user concerned (AVR2012) - advice for which, in at least one instance, they have thanked me publicly. A much more experienced editor PatGallacher, has actually removed the material in its entirety, which has then been reverted repeatedly by the new user AVR2012, but I have not engaged with this minor edit war - I have only made technical edits where inappropriate links or sourcing have been added. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of these two alleged personal attacks is a duplicate of the original. I would note that in both I do not make any direct accusations, just suppositions from my own perspective. I use the word 'seem', not 'is' or 'are'. Saying that something seems a certain way is not the same as asserting it is like that. Therein lies a very crucial difference between the expression of personal opinion and the type of defamation alleged. However, I will certainly take the advice of Deepfriedokra to refrain from even such perceived slights in future given the readily exploitable nature of such statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@11Fox11 I provided two sources, one a UN document and the other a Reuters story, clearly mentioning the bank's name - to suggest that it is in some way difficult to see this suggests either a huge degree of oversight or the wilful peddling of mistruth. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra From reading WP:BRD in a little more depth, I would suggest that the edit that is being suggested by some is a 'second revert' actually falls more obviously into the category of a 'Cycle', given that I conspicuously, and openly acknowledged in my edit comment that I had been overruled in the discussion with respect to the weighting of the new content and reacted accordingly. I would also note that it was the other editors in the page's discussion that deleted the content more or less without discussion - they just left a message and carried out the deletion without waiting for a reply. The only two, genuine reversions I made (over two separate days), were to restore the content that was deleted wholesale in this manner by editors who made little to no effort to improve or refine the content. I also pointed out that the wider article had only one, dead link supporting it, but, tellingly, most of the other editors seemed totally disinterested in adding content or improving the page, right up until Inf-in MD came along and added sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Yes, I understand that I need to adhere to 1RR in this subject area moving forward, and that discussing and reaching agreement before reverting again is the way to avoid the sort of disruption that AE tries to stop. I will be more careful. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Hi, I responded to GN on their talk page. I'm aware that my pattern of edits was unusual, but it was a one-off - I was just backfilling pertinent information that appeared to have been missed or omitted (possibly amid the heady rush of the early days of the global pandemic). Most good company pages should have criticism sections. If they don't, that in itself is at least cause for suspicion that the page is undeveloped. Few companies are perfect. Perhaps I gave undue weight to the new content: that is a perspective that has clearly been expressed on the talk page in question in this AE, and which I already acknowledged I understood in my edit notes prior to this AE being called. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Is it not a problem for this AE that @Shrike is so clearly partisan? He is accusing me of WP:RGW, but if speculative opinion is all we are going by, the same suppositions could just as equally be said of them. Is none of this pertinent? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Words are words, but is anything more WP:BATTLE mindset than gratuitously escalating minor edit disputes, dragging people before AEs and calling for discretionary sanctions over edits on articles without edit notices? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra I hadn't even heard of canvassing before it was mentioned before, and I still need to read up on the rules on this, but I didn't intentionally canvas anyone: I accidentally looped in an editor while trying to reference another's earlier comment in the same discussion, as the context should make clear. I also corrected myself. Did you read the full exchange? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Isn't this AE supposed to be about my inadvertent breach of 1RR? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: What is the difference between accusing someone of WP:RGW and of being partisan? The very notion of WP:RGW is that someone is taking a partisan approach. It is bureaucratic to imply that one is a personal attack and the other is not simply because one is couched in technical language. I am not implying that you are intentionally being bureaucratic, but that the distinction is a bureaucratic one. WP:RGW is just a sub-category of WP:TEND, which defines partisanship. If an AE, outside of the context of normal talk pages and user talk pages, is not the suitable forum for raising the issues of the WP:TEND tendencies of certain users, where is?

@Johnuniq: But thank you for your clarification on the principle of concrete outcomes in criticism sections. Though I would ask if divestment (where actual sums are withdraw) is not, in of itself, a concrete outcome? You are also quite correct that I had not fully absorbed the implications of the alert notice posted on my talk page.

@Johnuniq: In answer to your specific questions about the Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot articles, I am not hugely vested in it and do not particularly care about the outcome, and I will not be trying to re-add a fully fledged 'criticism' section header or 'Involvement in Israeli settlements' section sub-header, because I now better understand the point about weighting relative to the article as a whole. I did not come up with these section headers spontaneously, but merely replicated the format from other similar sections on other articles, trusting that the editors who placed them there knew what they were doing, but where, in hindsight, the relative weighting may have been a little different. It still seems to me that a divestment by a large fund, as reported by Reuters, is a concrete outcome, and my tendency would still be to include a sentence on it, but I am not emotive about it. I merely made an addition that I thought was notable, based on sources that I thought were notable, in a format that I replicated from the work of other editors on other pages. All that I objected to was the wholesale deletion of material, by and large without discussion, by other editors.

@Johnuniq: If you haven't already, please do look at the edits involved in the twinkle episode yourself to decide whether I was undoing good faith edits or not. The title of that talk section is a highly leading one. I believe I was undoing disruptive edits that had re-instated information that was clearly incorrect by the standard definition of the infobox templates - a position another user quickly attested to. However, following the subsequent discussion, I undid the last revision all the same following the criticism and left it to others to edit out the demonstrably incorrect information if they so chose, which they did. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Yes, I now realise the distinction between what I thought a revert is, and what a revert is in the technical definition you have mentioned. I had though that a partial re-edit of some of the same material in a different format and location, arrived at as a result of efforts to move towards consensus as per a discussion, was not a simple 'reversion'. But I now realise that the definition is quite broad and that its interpretation can be quite ironclad, particularly on articles perceived to be IP-related, even if they don't contain an edit notice. I also don't think it was totally unreasonable for me not to have understood absolutely all of this prior to this arbitration referral.

@HighInBC: I'm getting the hang of the 'comment on the content not the editors' mantra as well. I had assumed that personal attacks meant actual insults, defamation or slander, but not the questioning of motives or truthfulness, but clearly, here too the Wikipedia definition is either very broad or very open to interpretation. I'll admit to getting a little emotive on the subject of my own persecution. But is it also not a problem for editors to demonstrably falsify formal statements in an arbitration forum?

NB: Let me once more state plainly that, while I was not aware of and certainly did not fully comprehend the 1RR rules with respect to this conflict area prior to this AE being called, I do now understand the 1RR rules quite clearly, as well as the general principle behind the 1RR and its general merit as a means of de-escalation in all circumstances, as well as the benefits of pursing a more thoughtful, civil and WP:BRD-informed editing approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 11Fox11

The edit notice is a technicality, and Iskandar323's conduct is sanctionable without the 1RR. They are edit warring in the face of talk page consensus against them and engaging in personal attacks and commentary.

On Zakaria Zubeidi they reverted three times: [23][24][25] (and some reverts of IPs).

On Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot they also reverted multiple times: [26][27][28], when consensus was against them at Talk:Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot#Hugely undue addition.

To this one must add the personal attacks: [29] and [30] against Shrike when notified of 1RR. They also think the 1RR rule doesn't apply to them. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: the page was about an Israeli bank that is unrelated to the conflict. Then Iskandar323 came along with the seemingly innocuous edit summary "new section" and turned a third of the article into Arab-Israeli conflict material (reverted as undue by User:Number 57). Citing three sources ([31], [32], [33]) that do not even mention the Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank by name, which is WP:SYNTHESIS. It is disingenuous for Iskandar323 to complain about lacking edit notices on the conflict on the page when they turned the page into a conflict article all by their lonesome. Israeli banks are generally unrelated to the conflict, but if an editor hijacks an unrelated article into a conflict article, they shouldn't then complain that no one foresaw their own actions in advance. 11Fox11 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC, Deepfriedokra, and Johnuniq: now Iskandar323 is engaging in blatant canvassing, pinging Nishidani who never edited the article or its talk. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never edited until after being pinged. Ping at 16:40, Nishidani edits at 17:29. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Usually we give newer editors the benefit of the doubt, I think an informal warning is sufficient in this case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging one editor, apparently in error, is not "blatant canvassing". I believe that following the latest post, the editor now "gets it" re 1R and Arbpia. I am not overly fond of the semi automated crit thing but I doubt the editor would repeat that either.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From 2014 until the recent editing of 2021, the user was mainly inactive and so I consider him "new" to the IP area in that sense as well as by edit count.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor Shrike: According to WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, an editnotice is required for the General Sanctions to be enforced but Iskandar323 does not have the technical ability to add one. Zero^talk 13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC) @Shrike: Of course he should obey the rules, but nobody is obliged to add ARBPIA notices. I don't see what you want to take to ARCA as the rule about editnotices has been discussed by ArbCom before and they are unlikely to change it. Zero^talk 13:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

I'm very tangentially involved here, but wanted to add an observation (not specifically related to the AE violation in question). On 12 September, Iskandar bulk-added a "criticism" section to 30ish company articles (see here, look for the edit summary "Added section"). The bulk of these were added within the span of about half an hour. They were later mass-reverted as "Undue weight" by Mike Rothman2, whom I temp-blocked for undiscussed mass reversion and obvious attempts at permissions gaming. My concern is this: mass addition of "criticism" sections in this manner smacks of WP:RGW/POV-pushing, and I am concerned about whether Iskandar can neutrally in the topic area. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I'm in a weird position as kind-of-involved-but-not-really, but since I'm commenting in the "other people" section and not the "uninvolved admin" section I think it's best if I'm not consulted on sanctions. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Inf-in MD

I'd like to draw your attention to recent comments by Iskandar323, where he describes this request against him as a "technicality", and despite the clear language used by Johnuniq below which says the criticism section is undue for the bank's article, that it is due and that there no "hard and fast rule" against it.[34][35]. Maybe a warning is not enough. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra I think a ban is taking it a bit too far. My comment above notwithstanding, I find Iskandar323 to be one of the more reasonable editors with whom I disagree on most things. A formally logged warning coupled with his acknowledgment that he understands what he did and will not do it again should suffice. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Whether or not something is UNDUE is a matter for the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard, not AE. A user is free to engage wider input on a content dispute, what is needed here is the user acknowledging and agreeing to abide by our edit warring policies. This group of editors that all happen to be on one side of an editing dispute (mustnt call them partisans of course) agitating for a content ruling on a conduct board is a bit troubling, as is their insistence that said content dispute be used to remove an opposing editor. nableezy - 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Iskandar323

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

Just noting that the page in question does not seem to have an editnotice describing the 1RR restriction, though it is described on the talk page. I know this is a requirement for discretionary sanctions. This seems to be an arbitration remedy rather than a DS. I am not sure if it follows the same requirements. No comment on the merits of the case at this point. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to suggest a technicality should excuse this instance. I feel it is important to know that not only is an arbcom 1RR restriction a rule(not a guideline), but it is one of the most strictly enforced rules we have. It has very objective criteria that seem to have been violated. Ignore all rules is a great policy, but I would not suggest you try it with an arbcom ruling. I recommend a logged warning about 1RR without further action.

Regarding the uncivil comments, I find it ironic that they are assuming bad faith about someone assuming bad faith, though I don't think it rises to the level of action. I do think they should be cautioned to keep discussion on the topic of the content and try not to comment on the editors. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an edit notice for the page so that everyone will see when they edit: Template:Editnotices/Page/Zakaria Zubeidi. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given their recent comment about the second revert being part of the BRD cycle and thus not a revert I really feel the warning should be a logged one. To be clear, A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. This includes engaging in the BRD cycle, this includes copyediting and minor changes, it includes anything that meets that definition. Please understand that an arbcom ruling overrides any essays or guidelines you may encounter and is enforced very strictly. A logged warning with clear wording will remove the excuse of such misunderstandings in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Regarding that comment, I will echo my earlier caution to keep discussion on the topic of the content and try not to comment on the editors. Perhaps my proposed logged warning can include something to that effect. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if Iskandar323 agrees to follow the (sometimes arcane) rules going forward, no sanction will be needed. I don't think that the "personal attack" rises to a sanctionable level. Iskandar323, please comment on content, not perceived belligerence. Now you know 1RR is a rule to be followed in this subject area. Am willing to be persuaded otherwise as to need for more than a reminder. Awaiting further opinions from those more AE experienced than I. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, 1Fox11's comment posted just before I posted. Iskandar323, you really need to discuss, without making personal remarks, content. This moves us closer to the need for sanctions. AGF is not an impenetrable shield for edits that are disruptive. Sometimes AGF protestations are a red herring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Dear Lord, I've gone cross-eyed. Must be excess iron. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: I'm afraid you are mistaken. Some Wikipedia rules, like Wikipedia:Edit warring ,are policies. And as my colleague notes above, 1RR is an ArbCom ruling. No, I too would have been surprised at being hauled in to AE when a page did not indicate that 1RR applied. That is one reason I hope we can get by without sanctions. WP:BRD is a tool to use to avoid edit warring. What my colleague has already said I agree with. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

exploitable nature ? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: What I need to see is an understanding from you that you will adhere to 1RR in this subject area moving forward. Also, once, reverted, discussing and reaching agreement before reverting again is the way to avoid the sort of disruption that AE tries to stop. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Please address GN's concern about POV pushing and the undue weight of adding criticisms sections. I think it the type of edit to be avoided moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure that the implication implied in "to suggest that it is in some way difficult to see this suggests either a huge degree of oversight or the wilful peddling of mistruth" above doesn't cross the line into NPA. Imprecations like that only lead to trouble. @HighInBC: you've been AEing longer than I so, am I of-base or spot-on? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, HighinBC, and GeneralNotability: The comments like calling other users "antagonists" and the exploitable nature comment give the impression of a battle ground mind set. Will cautions be enough? (This thread is stressful) FWIW, I don't like "criticism" sections. They tend to become tabloidesque. As Johnuniq writes, write about the impact, not the criticism @Shrike: I think your assertions of ~~"partisan" and~~ RGW without dif's are a problem. Please let us draw our own conclusions. If something new arises, feel free to draw it to our attention with dif's. Maybe paraphrase what is said in the dif w/o descriptors that might inflame emotions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, HighinBC, and GeneralNotability: THIS plus canvassing noted by 11Fox11 in addition to the other concerns raised here lead me to believe a TBAN in this area would be a good idea. Would appreciate your thoughts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here since 2014 with 1672 edits is "newish"? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Seraphimblade: and @Hut 8.5: A warning should suffice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: I logged warning I should thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: It's time for a frank exchange of views. Given the opinions that have been expressed and which I am about to express, what is your current understanding with regard to Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot (will you be proposing including "Involvement in Israeli settlements" text?), and what will happen if there are objections to your edits in this topic in the future? Re the article, if the UN publishes something, that might warrant a mention on an article about the UN. Only if a concrete outcome occurred for the bank (e.g. stock value or equivalent plunged for a prolonged period) would it be WP:DUE to mention the bank's inclusion on a list. In general, don't add "criticism" sections to articles (see WP:CRIT)—if something significant occurred for the bank (a concrete outcome), consider writing a section on that. Further, it is totally unacceptable to baldly describe other editors as "clearly partisan" (diff). The OP mentions diff as a personal attack and technically "You seem belligerent" is a move in that direction and is very inappropriate, not to mention pointless—does Iskandar323 imagine that this rejoinder will help in any way?
Iskandar323 was alerted about discretionary sanction two weeks ago and we could assume they haven't yet absorbed the implications. Depending on how things work out in the next 24 hours, I could conclude that an informal warning for Iskandar323 is sufficient, or perhaps it's not. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was a 1RR violation, and it's quite disruptive to keep reinstating challenged material while a talk page discussion isn't going your way. However Iskandar323 is fairly new and was understandably not familiar with the sanctions, the article was missing the required notices, and Iskandar323 has committed to abide by 1RR going forward, so I don't think a sanction is a good idea. A warning would be plenty. Hut 8.5 17:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hut 8.5 that a warning is appropriate here. Of course if this should happen again, further action will be needed, but hopefully a warning and clarification of the expectations in this area will suffice to keep that from becoming necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A warning seems like a decent path forward here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we talking about an informal "close with a note of warning" or a logged warning? I'll support either to get this closed but User talk:Iskandar323#Reverting good faith edits with twinkle makes me favor a logged warning. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was a disruptive breach of 1RR, however as Iskandar323 understandably didn't understand 1RR, I agree that a logged warning is appropriate in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xoltron

Indefed as an admin action --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:09, 19 September 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 Xoltron

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Xoltron (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:ARBIPA

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Xoltron

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 Xoltron

I am not sure what the purpose of this on-going attack, mostly on my talk page, against me is. All I did was start a discussion on a talk page in the Indo-Aryan Languages article: A long mislabeled article for a language group known correctly in Linguistics studies around the globe as Indic, as also mentioned in the same article. The next thing I know, several Indian editors start attacking me on my talk page instead of continuing the discussion on the article's discussion page and then this Arbitration request, for what? I do make a point to respond to editors that make personal attacks and threats (like Deepfriedokra , and numerous others) meant to intimate. Is that what this is about or ?Xoltron (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam

Deepfriedokra, see this. As you said, their combative nature spills out of ARBIPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, they (Xoltron) self-reverted a duplication. HistoryOfIran would remove the message and warn them (Xoltron) to not write on his talk page again. August 20 was less than a month ago. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Xoltron

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

Researching. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reveiw of Xoltron Account attached 2018-10-04T14:52:13; 264 edits. User has been sporatic. Went active in September 2021. Prior warnings for conflict in August 2019. EdJohnson's explanation about DS alert. Feels bullied and here. wow!.

Preliminary assessment User is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are instead attempting to peddle some form of revisionism. User is not compatible with a collaborative project. Just too much lack of WP:AGF and too combative

Preliminary proposed remedy Not sure Talk:Indo-Aryan languages falls within IPA, except for user making it so. I'd go with some sort of topic ban, but there's a lot of spill over. And the previous problems back in 2019. I don't think it would work. It's either fashion a topic ban or a block. No prior blocks, though. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: To HistoryofIran they said this? The mind reels. More inclined than ever to indef as regular admin action. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, August 20 of this year and self reverted. Thanks, but that's old. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Indeed. They edit in spurts, and have not edited since this discussion began. On the one hand, I'd like to give them an opportunity to respond. On the other, I don't I want to read the response. I like the way they lecture other users on "the way we do things". Or is that just a form of intimidation? Be happy to block w/o a response. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite block as regular admin action.. User has been far from WP:CIVIL throughout their Wikicareer. They have made personal attacks and cast aspersions, and offered threats, while treating Wikipedia as a battleground. They attack other users who try to communicate with them, and see attempts to help them edit constructively as harassment and intimidation. I was waiting to give them a chance to address their behavior as my initial impression was unfavorable. Their responses in this AE thread, on my talk page, and on their talk page do not inspire me with the hope that their incivility will cease. A topic ban has been proposed, but their edits actually fall outside WP:ARBIPA. And nothing in their interactions suggest they would adhere to a topic ban. A time limited block has been suggested, but their editing is sporadic with inactivity periods up to six months long. When they return, they resume where they left off. They might not even notice a time limited block, and they could simply out wait it and resume their unacceptable behavior after it ends. Because we have a history of incivilty and battlegrounding going back for years, I believe an indefinite block is the best alternative. Indefinite is not infinite. They could be unblocked the day after they are blocked if they addressed their behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When a user like Xoltron is so aggressive right out of the gate an indefinite block has to be an option to consider. I think they must be oblivious to the trouble they are causing. They appear to see long time contributors as a set of horrible POV-pushers that they need to combat. From what they said on Kautilya3's page: "I am sorry that you are apparently angry and upset, but engaging in outright fraudulent accusations is not how we do things on Wikipdia. Please Consider this a warning and refrain from engaging in further bullying activities" I don't see how this situation turns around without some kind of a block. A time-limited block would suggest we are optimistic for a change of heart in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am struck by how many times in a short editing history Xoltron has accused people they disagree with of harassment, bullying or similar behaviours [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Some of their editing has also been rather tenacious, e.g. here they assert that academics "have always designated this class of languages and ethnicities as Indic, not Indo-Aryan", only to be shown a long list of sources of academics using "Indo-Aryan". I'm not sure how much of this relates to ARBIPA, as most of their editing history concerns Iran, but this kind of behaviour is likely to lead to an indef block sooner or later. Hut 8.5 11:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will echo what Hut says, this user very quickly jumps to accusing people of harassment. Just now in their statement they repeated this behavior towards Deepfriedokra in response to a simple question regarding their purpose on the project. I feel that while connected to the topic, this behavior goes beyond the topic. I am not sure a topic ban will resolve the issue. I am leaning towards ~~something between a DS block for 1 month for combative behavior at the least, and~~ a regular admin action WP:NOTHERE indef block ~~at the most~~. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given this rubbish I am going to lean heavily towards the indefinite block for battleground behavior and not being here to write an encyclopedia. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:35, 19 September 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]

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