Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) | '<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter =339
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
==Johnrpenner==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Johnrpenner===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tgeorgescu}} 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Johnrpenner}}<p>{{ds/log|Johnrpenner}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBPS]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#{{diff2|1241571374}} 21 August 2024—violates [[WP:PSCI]] by immunizing [[Anthroposophy]] from [[falsifiability|falsification]] through performing [[WP:OR]] (seeks to reject the label of pseudoscience through attempting to make it look like a [[category mistake]]—but not according to any [[WP:RS]])
#a lot of previous edits at the same article, 21 August 2024, see e.g. {{diff2|1241567174}}, having the edit summary {{tq|cutting like a knife between physics and metaphysics}}
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on {{diff2|1221891274}} 2 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
<!--*About [[WP:OUTING]] at [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence]]: I did not Google Mr. Penner, I have Googled my own username. There is no policy against "doxxing" my own username.
*I even reported it at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#WP:MEAT at Anthroposophy]], and nobody complained that it were [[WP:OUTING]].
* A more nuanced view of how I see Anthroposophy: {{diff2|1241185089}}
* {{tq|attacks against users like myself}}—if you mean the reports mentioned above: I simply did not know that you were a Wikipedia editor. Otherwise, reporting you to arbitration enforcement is not a personal attack.-->
* Wikipedia is a collaborative environment—up to a point. We don't seek to "collaborate" with those who breach our [[WP:RULES]] with impunity. More to the point: Johnrpenner is violating [[WP:RULES]] such as [[WP:PSCI]] and [[WP:OR]]. If he thinks I'm wrong, he should [[WP:CITE]] mainstream [[WP:RS]] to that extent. Merely giving us his own opinion won't do. Again: his assertion that the label of pseudoscience is a category mistake, is solely based upon his own opinion. He did not [[WP:CITE]] anything to that extent. Even if his POV were the unvarnished truth, he still does not have [[WP:RS]] to that extent.
<!--* I'm not a villain, nor a [[WP:RGW]]-warrior. I'm simply a popularizer of mainstream [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]. Of course, some people are terrified by it. But that's what Wikipedia is for. A lot of people say they love mainstream academic learning. But that no longer holds when it's mainstream academic learning about their own religion. If their religion gets creamed at Wikipedia, it does not mean it's because of some villain, nor because of malfeasance. Malcontents should not blame me for what full professors write.
* About "critical" sources, e.g. from [[Talk:Anthroposophy#List of many]]: another editor stated that Anthroposophy isn't a religion because there was a court case in California which settled that issue. So, such statement made me curious about what real scholars (of all stripes and colors) are saying about Anthroposophy being a religion.-->
* {{re|theleekycauldron}} Until May 2024, I had no idea that Penner is a Wikipedia editor. In respect to what you say: I would accept a restriction of 1RR and a limit of 500 words per topic. Also, you have to consider that these Anthroposophists overtly stated they want me banned from Anthroposophy, so, while they knew they stand no chance in respect to their own edits, they were merely flamebaiting. Anthroposophists are generally speaking highly educated people, so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials, it is a token they are merely acting a show. Playing dumb and employing vicious libel (flamebait) is justified, according to them, since they are defending the public image of Anthroposophy. I mean: for a university-educated {{tq|Lead Technical Writer}} it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy. And if I lambasted them for failing to do so, my criticism was genuine and to the point. What do they stand to lose, here at Wikipedia? A bunch of disposable accounts. Since both Johnrpenner and the previous Anthroposophist at [[WP:AE]] are extremely fond of performing [[WP:OR]]—I don't think that's just a coincidence. When multiple accounts misunderstand Wikipedia in the same way, we may suspect they're [[WP:MEAT]].<!-- What the two have in common? They care for the public image of Anthroposophy, through rejecting claims of racism and of pseudoscience, and both have a cavalier attitude to [[WP:V]]. Another lead: SamwiseGSix has edited [[VxWorks]], and I have private evidence about Johnrpenner and VxWorks. But only by going by what Johnrpenner has posted upon his own user page, it is not an unreasonable conclusion.-->
* {{re|Ealdgyth}} It was not intended as mockery. I don't think he is unintelligent, and if he appears as unintelligent, that's for flamebaiting purposes (just to make me angry).
* Full disclosure: there was an off-wiki hounding campaign against me, see [https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/WikipediaVandalism/comments/15yeddo/need_to_report_selfproclaimed_schizophrenic_troll/], [https://medium.com/@astronomicadeceleste/was-rudolf-steiner-racist-a-review-of-the-facts-and-my-take-on-problematic-anthroposophy-410565963a91], and [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence]]—which I now came to see as flamebaiting. <!--I was reacting to such attacks, this explains my behavior.--> Its objectives are overtly stated: recruit other editors against me and get me banned from Wikipedia. So, I see my opponents at these articles as an organized campaign, starting with October 2023, or even earlier. The only damage I did to Wikipedia is extensively bickering about being hounded. It is rather unusual for Wikipedia that a cult organizes off-wiki to take action against a specific editor.
* If I get banned from Anthroposophy, the "Fortress Steiner" ([[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 63#Need some help on Anthroposophy and its related articles, particularly Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture|here]]) will regain its upper hand. Anti-fringe editors will be reluctant to intervene, since they lack a deep understanding of the topic. So I will have to get unbanned as the only person able to restore order. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
*{{diff2|1241572352}} 21 August 2024
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Johnrpenner===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Johnrpenner====
after making additions to the 'Anthroposophy' article — user tgeorgescu deleted / reverted my edits, and so i took it on to the talk page, asking him: instead of just deleting a whole bunch of stuff, why not engage in something more constructive? he did not engage in a friendly fashion, and quickly shut me down, and launched this Arbitration request against me.
if i were writing an article on the phenomenolgy of colour — i would expect to see criticism and debate — but i would also expect to see some effort in improving the article — doing what wikipedia does — helping provide some sense of the topic, which covers a neutral and informed point of view.
user tgeorgescu has expended considerable effort solely directed towards attacking and finding sources discrediting Anthroposophy (hundreds upon hundreds of edits.. almost as if it were some sort of personal vendetta). if one sees only efforts directed at this — then i might also question how neutral things are — when i dont see as much effort towards contributing anything that might help provide insight on the given topic.
tgeorgescu claims category error — and my claim is that anthroposophy is no more scientific than the subject of philosophy. in my edits — i did not dispute or remove his claims, and took care to preserve his references/links and to make it clear that anthroposophy is not scientific.
i believe i was following the wiki principle as stated in WP:RNPOV — as follows:
WP:RNPOV § Neutrality: In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.
in short — this issue could have been more constructively solved with some friendly edits aimed at improving the article, and making a subject more understandable — for example:
i) what are the epistemogical differences which distinguish anthroposophy from critical idealism?
ii) from whom did steiner get the idea — the article mentioned 'German Idealism', but neglected to mention Goethe.
iii) the article talks about 'perception of the spiritual world' — but it fails to mention the key role Anthroposophists place on Intuition in this regard.
these would all be useful things to know if i was a reader and unfamiliar with the subject.
instead, tgeorgescu has undertaken to report me to arbitration — i find it disingenous to spend such an inordinate amount of time logging in such an amount of effort cataloguing all criticisms against Anthroposophy — without making any efforts towards providing the reader with a better comprehension of what is being criticized — the criticisms and critics tgeorgescu has referenced only makes a case for condemning Anthroposophists — and deleting or reverting edits which disagree with him — and ultimately weaponizing the wiki process — which i find is generally quite fair, and i expect someone might be able to follow up and arbitrate his disproportionate critical activity, and attacks against users like myself which are trying to make honest contributions (as i have helped improve numerous other wiki articles, and believe in the wiki process).
i have no complaint against a good critical review of contributions to wikipedia - good editors, good referencing, and the good will to work together instead of shutting people down is what makes wikipedia great and useful. please, lets work together, and find a way to make better articles. peace out. [[User:Johnrpenner|Johnrpenner]] ([[User talk:Johnrpenner|talk]]) 03:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by fiveby====
{{u|tgeorgescu}} could use some help at [[Talk:Anthroposophy]] in trying to nip problems in the bud before they escalate. See this [[Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_96#Anthroposophy#Religious_nature|this FTN thread]] from November of last year (maybe just read {{u|Hob Gadling}}'s comment at the end of the collapsed "Extended content") All that effort expended when it turns out an editor was just [[Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Anthroposophy|using phony citations for content]]. When he raises issues at FTN i at least often feel behind the curve with an unfamiliar topic, and tgeorgescu usually seems to be going it alone on the talk page. I don't know if AE can do anything to help and maybe the answer here is just to remember to watchlist the articles and pay more attention. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 06:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by KoA====
I want to echo's [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]'s sentiment above, and I would caution admins to be mindful to check out what they link at FTN. I’ve been noticing that problem at the noticeboards and tgeorgescu’s frustration too often handling a lot of fringe stuff and now apparently becoming a target off-wiki for it.
[[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]], I am concerned about your comments here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1241626486#Johnrpenner at this time] in the AE and making them in the uninvolved admin section. I reviewed the talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthroposophy&oldid=1241960372], and the only recent dispute was from this interaction at [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Violation_of_WP:PSCI]]. However, I couldn't verify any of your claims made without diffs there such as {{tq|bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors}}, so that was a serious red flag when I instead saw tgeorgescu making very short replies and largely behaving properly at the time. The only little knock against them was that they should have stopped interacting before the {{tq|I have already reported you at WP:AE. . .}} comment, but even those comments are relatively chill compared to your characterization. If there are recent diffs prior to when you commented, those are absolutely needed, because when I see a mismatch like that in depiction, that looks a lot more like battleground pursuit on your part that we'd typically see of involved editors behaving poorly. If anything, it looks like tgeorgescu's talk page use had actually vastly improved and it wasn't until you started needling tgeorgescu with your initial comment that they got off the rails here at AE. At least as I've tried to review this report with an even hand, you created more heat than light.
However tgeorgescu, I do have some advice after seeing your comments on talk pages over the years. Remember to center yourself on the ideas of [[WP:NOTFORUM]]/[[WP:FOC]] more often on article talk pages. I have seen you give in-depth answers at times when not needed or just posting on the talk page not clearly tied to any edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anthroposophy#Univocality] Sometimes I've seen you come back for an "and another thing" comment when the conversation was just likely to die. I saw that before your warning theleekycauldron mentions, and it looks like you've been vastly improving in what I've reviewed so far. That said, be careful about personalizing comments about editors or how comments might appear to be a battleground mentality. That too creates more heat than light like I just cautioned theleekycauldron. When I look at the AE after their comment, you brought up that you felt like you were being trolled by Johnrpenner at the article with comments like {{tq|so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials}}. Even if you feel like that, don't take the [[WP:BAIT]]. You honestly were fine from what I can see initially until your interactions with theleekycauldron here. It wasn't until that moment I was seeing AE comments with a bit too much bite towards editors, so it didn't appear anything [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]] was needed on your part to that point. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]], I'm right at the word limit, so I'll leave it at this just to say the issue I saw was that when you look at recent edits before this AE (most stuff mentioned here is pretty stale or minor), it really did look like tgeorgescu was improving significantly in the last few months (especially the very last talk section at the page before AE) compared to the period of their warning or when I even told them to chill out on the treatises awhile back. Whatever threads the needle between "you've made some good improvements in mainspace/talk" and "you've still got scaling back to do" will be helpful here for a grounded approach. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 20:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Johnrpenner===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
* Looks like tgeorgescu is exhibiting the exact same behavior that landed them a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324#SamwiseGSix|logged warning for battleground behavior and incivility]] nine months ago. that's a shame, because they seem to solidly be in the right that Johnrpenner is only here to push a pseudoscientific POV. If Tgeorgescu doesn't agree to stop bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors, and generally behaving as if yelling at people about how wrong and stupid they are is the best way to make them go away, the pseudoscience topic area will lose a valuable editor. perhaps a topic ban from [[Anthroposophy]] is in order, since the last row took place there as well. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 08:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Support '''topic banning Johnrpenner''' from [[Anthroposophy]], broadly construed. Also support '''restricting tgeorgescu''' within [[WP:ARBPS|ARBPS]], broadly construed, such that they may not write more than 500 words across discussions related to this topic area (<em>not</em> 500 words per thread) in a calendar month; and placing them under 1RR. They are reminded to seek out admins before engaging in disruptive behavior in their attempts to combat disruptive behavior. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 07:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|KoA}} I'm taking my cues from [[Special:Permalink/1241960372#Evidence|this thread]]. Some of it was from before Johnrpenner was a wikipedian (although [[Special:Permalink/1241960372#Vandalism|this]] isn't), but I don't think it'd be ridiculous to say that it's relevant to the onwiki portion of this spat. I'm also considering the sum of other threads they've started since the SamwiseGSix AE thread. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 04:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
*Tgeorgescu - first, "A more nuanced view of how I see Anthroposophy:" has no bearing on how you should be editing. Your personal views are no more useful than the personal views of Johnrpenner or any other editors. In fact, you state later in this very filing that "Merely giving us his own opinion won't do" so putting your views here isn't helpful to the admins looking into your filing. Further, with "Malcontents should not blame me for what full professors write" you are continuing to describe other editors (I think? It's hard to tell if you're referring to other editors or merely folks who subscribe to Anthroposophy, but either way it's a sign of battleground behavior) as "malcontents". You were warned for this last November. Here's another unhelpful comment "I mean: for a university-educated Lead Technical Writer it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy." ... you're clearly mocking the editor who you filed this against. Really, this battleground approach needs to stop.
*Okay, so to the edit that is given as the basis for this filing: [[Special:Diff/1241571374|this edit]], I see a description of the subject sourced to a pile of what appear to be independent reliable sources (at a quick glance) that is being replaced with stuff sourced to Steiner's own works. Also, I see that "Though proponents claim to present their ideas in a manner that is verifiable by rational discourse and say that they seek precision and clarity comparable to that obtained by [[scientists]] investigating the physical world, many of these ideas have been termed [[pseudoscientific]] by experts in [[epistemology]] and debunkers of pseudoscience." this sentence (which is sourced to the pile of independent sources) is replaced with "Anthroposophy does not belong to the study of the physical sciences, any more than Plato's Metaphysics should be considered Physics — doing so would be [[pseudoscientific]]" while still sourcing it to the same pile of reliable sources. This is source mis-representation unless each of those sources actually supports this new text (I'll go on a limb here and say it likely doesn't). On the griping hand, though, Johnrpenner isn't exactly a prolific editor - his edit count is around 1700, but they are widely spread out and mostly appear to relate to Goethe. While they are not editing well, I'm not sure they've had a chance to learn that wikipedia isn't a philosphical debating place. They need to learn to edit well with others, but either a topic ban from the narrow topic of Anthroposophy or a warning about their editing there would probably be fine. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
** Topic ban for Johnrpenner sounds good. I don't necessarily disagree about a word limit for Tgeorgescu, but I'm not sure it's going to work or be easy to enforce. Call me agnostic on it. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 15:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
* A topic ban for Johnrpenner from Anthroposophy is reasonable, and some sort of anti-bludgeon/anti-thousands of words restriction on Tgeorgescu wouldn't be amiss either. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|KoA}}, just as an example of a {{tq|long-winded "own the crazies" rants}} see [[User:Tgeorgescu#My quarrel with anthroposophists]], or [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Category]]. I'd be interested in scaling back that type of engagement with the topic. I don't know if a word limit per month or discussion would be helpful, but even some advice or a warning might help. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*:So the topic ban has consensus. How do we want to move forward with Tgeorgescu? Another warning, or something with a bit more oomph? I like the gist of {{u|Theleekycauldron}}'s idea, but I don't know how we'd ever track it.
*:On a broader note, this issue comes up a lot where a milder sanction might be able to end disruptive behavior, but we end up warning a few times instead, and eventually we hit a tipping point and we end up with a more severe sanction. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
*Johnrpenner has been an editor since 2005 but is not yet experienced, having under 1800 edits. Their first edits (example from [[Special:Diff/11803710|April 2005]]) concerned [[Rudolf Steiner]], the founder of [[Anthroposophy]]. The current edits are not appropriate and I support a topic ban from articles related to Rudolf Steiner, or just Anthroposophy if others support that. I have spent time advising tgeorgescu that they should cut back on excessive commentary but in checking a couple of recent discussions, I could not see a problem. We need editors like tgeorgescu who are able and willing to keep articles based on reliable sources so my only suggestion in that area is that I would be happy to investigate if anyone wants to draw my attention to a future discussion where a participant might be overdoing it. I agree that ScottishFinnishRadish's links just above ("own the crazies") show excessive enthusiasm: tgeorgescu should stick to verifiable facts related to current editing proposals. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*It certainly seems that ''some'' action is needed here, so I'll try to take a look. For the moment, just commenting to avoid the bot carting this prematurely to the archives. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:It looks like the topic ban has pretty clear consensus, so as far as tgeorgescu goes out seems like we just need to decide on the level of reminder/warning, or discussion restriction we want to go with. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm rather torn on that. I don't generally like to give more than one warning, or it turns into "Stop that, I really really ''really'' mean it this time", but I sure don't love the idea of rewarding a harassment campaign either, and it seems there's at least pretty credible evidence that something like that is going on. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::The issue, as I see it, is that a single admin has much more blunt tools than AE as a whole. At AE we can tailor a word limit or other anti-bludgeoning measure, but a single admin can only block, topic ban, iban, or set a revert restriction. That seems overkill for this behavior. Perhaps we can form a consensus here that if the behavior continues after a warning any admin can institute an anti-bludgeoning sanction as an individual admin action? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::I am not up to speed at all on this report. But is there a reason not to just institute it now? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The topic ban? I don't think there's a rush on that part, as they haven't edited in two weeks. No reason not to log it, though. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Oh I thought you were proposing an anti-bludgeon sanction in lieu of the topic ban. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Maybe an "anti-bludgeoning" sanction could be applied at page level, rather than to a specific editor? Having had a look at [[Talk:Anthroposophy]], tgeorgescu is far from the only frequent poster there, so maybe some sort of "If after X amount of discussion, consensus has not been reached, engage further dispute resolution or drop it" sanction could be applied there in general? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I don't think anyone else has dropped 3000 words to themselves, like [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Category]]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::That's...impressive, indeed. I think we could find a sanction that could curb that type of thing; there's really nothing added to the discussion by a huge wall of text like that (and if it's a "note to self" type thing, that can always be kept in one's userspace instead). But I still don't think Tgeorgescu is the only problem there, either. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::I linked to their 3000 word "note to self" on their user page earlier in this discussion as well. I don't think they're really the core of the problem, but they need to moderate their response, and as they've already been warned we need either a warning with some teeth, or a tailored sanction. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}I think we're largely in agreement at least in principle, and the devil's more in the details. How would you envision a "warning with teeth"? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 11:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:I ''think'' with a rough consensus here that an individual administrator can institute an anti-bludgeoning measure on them if they continue then that would add, in this particular case, that tool to an administrator's toolbox. Then, rather than having to come back here, whatever admin saw it could just say, "you're limited to 1000 words a month on the topic of Anthroposophy," or "you're limited to three replies per week on the topic of Anthrosophy." That way it's not a warning that requires another trip to AE. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds good to me. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Unless any uninvolved admin raises an objection in the next day or so, I will close this as proposed above. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05==
{{hat|Appeal granted. The restriction of {{u|Toa Nidhiki05}} editing biographies of living persons in the area of post-1992 American politics is lifted. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 09:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Toa Nidhiki05}} – '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
; Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from BLPs related to post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, imposed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive327#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05]] and logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#American politics 2]]
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Vanamonde93}}, {{admin|Guerillero}}
; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero&oldid=1242734042] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93&oldid=1242734097]
===Statement by Toa Nidhiki05===
Since my topic ban was scaled back to only include BLPs, I've engaged in a lot of productive discussion and editing within the AMPol 2 topic area. Probably the biggest achievement has been consensus at [[Republican Party (United States)]] and [[Democratic Party (United States)]] on political positions - ending a dispute that has been ongoing for over a decade - but I've also engaged in routine maintenance and vandalism removal across the topic a. Lifting the restriction on BLPs would allow me to do the same in the entire scope of AMPol 2, including handling the sorts of routine vandalism that occurs on political BLPs. I think my pattern of behavior and achievements in the seven months or so since the ban has shown my general commitment to productive behavior and conduct within the topic area. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
:To respond quickly to {{u|starship.paint}}: from my recollection, that first bit was in a fairly contentious period where frequent edits were being made, and discussion on the talk page was ongoing. The day of those edits the discussion was this ([[Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)/Archive_33|Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties]]), and edits I made there were in response to talk page discussion on the matter - specifically, in response to comments by{{u|Carlp941}} and {{u|BootsED}}. The tl:dr of the broader dispute at hand was that a consensus had been reached to add content to the main page, but the consensus didn't actually follow specific reliable sources. After further research and discussion, this consensus was modified pursuant to reliable sources. During the interim period here, the page was fairly tumultuous on both mainspace and talkspace. If there was a technical 1RR violation there, I apologize, although the full context of talk page discussions is important here.
:As to ongoing reverts - many of these are responding to vandalism or source hijacking maintenance. Unfortunately, political party pages are frequently subject to drive-by edits from users or IPs, specifically in the "ideology" or "faction" section of said pages. The most common mode of operation is to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1230965113 delete reliably sourced content] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1232135627 add content] (without adjusting current reliable sources - [[WP:HIJACKING|creating the misconception existing sources support it]]). These drive-by editors generally do not explain their edit, nor do they stay behind to discuss. As it stands, we have strong consensus on the page for specific wordings in these sections, hashed out either through discussion or RfCs. Other reverts in this thread are generally in response to specific issues with sourcing or the addition of incorrect information/removal of correct information. I could provide context for each one if you absolutely desired - most of them were hashed out on the talk page. But broadly I would just categorize this as maintenance of a page that receives a lot of edits. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 17:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::To respond succinctly, {{u|starship.paint}}:
::*The first one you listed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1236319943]) is two things: unexplained removal of reliably sourced content with a talk page consensus (removing center-right - very sloppy at that, as they didn't remove the citations), and also source hijacking (adding that only the "the [[Right-wing populism|populist]] faction" of the party receives support from specific groups).
::*The second one ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237396921]) kind of relates to question on whether party platforms in and of themselves are the most reliable source for what parties support. As far as I know this dispute has not actually been resolved, but the other editor in question here, {{u|JohnAdams1800}}, noted the specific dispute in the second edit ended with an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToa_Nidhiki05&diff=1240356857&oldid=1240146646 impasse on amiable terms]. I'd consider this broadly a low-level dispute, personally. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::So for those specifically {{u|starship.paint}}:
:::*For June 24, the sources don't actually back up the claims. Putting aside how poorly worded "it has been argued" is ([[Template:By whom|who is arguing this]]?), the sources cited don't actually mention neoconservatism or populism at all. Just try searching either - you won't find it. There might be merit to talking about factional divides, but those added sources don't back up the claim, which means the content can't be added.
:::*For July 31, that was part of the low-level neoliberalism dispute {{u|JohnAdams1800}} mentioned (see: [[Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Is_the_Republican_Party_neoliberal_economically?_I_have_sources_that_it_isn't_anymore|this talk page discussion]]). Several editors objected to identifying the party as having a core ideology of protectionism. The discussion kind of stalled out and is probably worth looking more closely into. On the face of it that content you mention could be noteworthy and I might have been too reckless in reverting the whole thing, but it's also not an especially important bit of information (USMCA was a fairly major trade deal, and the Biden admin isn't really noteworthy to what the GOP views trade as). '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 13:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by Vanamonde93===
===Statement by Guerillero ===
===Statement by starship.paint===
I thought I should support if Toa has not been involved in much controversy. Toa's talk page archives does have one controversy, a violation of 1RR on 19 June (another controversy is present but I think it was minor and resolved). 1RR: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1229851590 01:34] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1229984442 21:35] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1229984543 21:35 again] Since then, Toa has carried out a high number of reverts at the same article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1230741612 24 June] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1230965113 25 June] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1232135627 2 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1232422089 3 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1234727945 15 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1235891507 21 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1236094572 22 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1236319943 24 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237396921 29 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237843512 31 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1239773497 11 August] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1240454578 15 August] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1241131371 19 August] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1241310408 20 August] / I am not saying these reverts are bad, but perhaps we can get Toa's comments on the above (1RR and the volume of reverts). '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 15:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*Right, I skimmed through the "Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties" discussion and your reverts above. On the surface, based on the arguments brought forth and the sources brought forth, it seems that Toa's editing is within the bounds of reasonableness. But, perhaps Toa can offer more explanation for these three diffs in particular, as they seem to be separate from the issues in the other diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1236319943 24 July] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237396921 29 July] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237843512 31 July]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
**Toa, for the 24 June diff, I was actually interested on the part that you did not respond about. You removed {{tq|However, it has been argued that the preference of [[Urban–rural political divide|urban voters]], [[Educational attainment in the United States|college graduates]] and high-income earners continues to favor non-populist Republicans from the [[neoconservative]] establishment}} [https://abcnews.go.com/538/college-educated-voters-arent-saving-nikki-haley/story?id=106236805 Reference 1] and [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-hampshire-primary-sees-strong-turnout-unaffiliated-voters/story?id=106613187 Reference 2]. For the 31 July diff, you, in part, removed {{tq|As of 2024, the last [[Free trade agreements of the United States|free trade agreement]] enacted was the [[USMCA]] in 2020, which replaced [[NAFTA]] while maintaining most of its provisions. No other free trade agreements have been enacted during the [[Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration|Trump]] or [[Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration|Biden administrations]]}} [https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/biden-struggles-to-push-trade-deals-with-allies-as-election-approaches-fc512595? Reference] '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
***I've now read the sources and Toa's explanation and I am satisfied with the explanation. At this moment I am supporting the repeal of the topic ban unless some other significant evidence is brought up that would force me to re-evaluate my position. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by JohnAdams1800 ===
I'm commenting about this appeal, but don't know the full details about this dispute.
I '''agree''' with [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05]] that our edit dispute was a low-level dispute, specifically regarding support for [[neoliberalism]] by the Republican Party over time. We have both made thousands of edits, and occasional edit conflicts are bound to arise.
The pages about political parties and politicians are among the most contentious pages, with edit conflicts much more frequent. Users often try to impose their own views when editing. I personally don't edit most BLPs of politicians. [[User:JohnAdams1800|JohnAdams1800]] ([[User talk:JohnAdams1800|talk]]) 02:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by BootsED===
I want to speak out in support of Toa Nidhiki05. I am surprised that there is a ban on Toa's contribution to post-1992 United States politics in place, as I found the work he did on the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] page to be very well done and reasoned. I found his comments during a debate on the "factions" of the party helpful, constructive, and showing out-of-the-box thinking that greatly helped us better understand the problem at hand. I even left a positive [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toa_Nidhiki05&diff=prev&oldid=1228852349 note of thanks] on his talk page.
In regards to the revert violation, my understanding is that it occurred near the end of the 24-hour period and was an honest mistake. Toa really took to improving the factions and political position section of the article and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a lot of back and forth from editors during this time, some of whom were confused or mistaken about what was discussed as the discussion on the topic at hand had gotten disorganized on the talk page and spread out over multiple sections.
While a lot of editors simply used their own personal opinion or low-quality references, Toa stuck to finding and providing higher-quality journal articles that helped ground the debate. Looking back at Toa's original ban, I think I understand how editing on Wikipedia can make people very frustrated, especially when some individuals are quite clearly either trolling or mistaken. I think that understanding intent is an important aspect to consider when punishing editors, and while obviously one should always strive to maintain proper decorum, I think that Toa's heart and intent on Wikipedia is in the right place and deserving of this appeal. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by (involved editor 1) ===
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05 ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by GoodDay====
Give T.N. a chance to prove themselves. Lift the t-ban. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*I will have time to review this tomorrow (Monday) and we need some input from other admins also, especially those who worked on the initial sanction and prior appeal. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 06:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
**I have now reviewed the history, but before opining I'd still welcome input from admins who participated in the initial sanction discussion and/or the earlier appeal. This could include [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]], [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]], [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], [[User:Swarm|Swarm]], [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]], and [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
**I am okay with lifting the topic-ban, similar to the two comments below. However, if this is granted, I would suggest that Toa Nidhiki05 move cautiously in returning to these articles, as opposed to (for example) jumping into the most contentious BLPs about people involved in the current elections. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 08:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*I had seen this but held off of commenting because I had wanted fresh eyes on it: but I suppose it's not getting enough attention. I skimmed Toa Nidhiki05's recent edits, and I did not find anything egregious, so I'm willing to accept an appeal. I reviewed the discussion of the Republican's political position, and while I believe the OP could be better about sticking to sources rather than personal opinion, so could everyone else in that discussion, and some were doing a lot worse. I assume, too, given the polarized nature of this topic, that any genuine infractions would have been brought up here, and none has been. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 02:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm seeing a fair bit of improvement from the time the topic ban was placed, so I think lifting the ban is worth a try. Toa Nidhiki05 is, I'm sure, well aware of what the result will be if the problems start up again, but that hasn't happened to date, so I think this is worth a shot. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:As this has been open for a fair bit of time, unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this appeal as successful. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 11:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Silvertide goldwaves==
{{hat|{{u|Silvertide goldwaves}} is [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] indefinitely from the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Silvertide goldwaves===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Number 57}} 01:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Silvertide goldwaves}}<p>{{ds/log|Silvertide goldwaves}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4]]
Silvertide goldwaves made a large number of Israel-Palestine conflict edits prior to meeting the 30/500 requirement. While this was potentially an inadvertent breach, there were several other issues with the editing, much of which was highly partisan, and also contained misleading edit summaries like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netiv_HaShayara&diff=prev&oldid=1242407826 this].
Although they have now passed the 30/500 threshold, their edits continue to be problematic. When some of their edits were reverted (by another editor who does not meet the 30/500 requirement), they reinstated them with disparaging edit summaries like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adamit&diff=prev&oldid=1243177954 this].
I noticed some of their pre 30/500 edits today and undid them on the basis that they were ARBPIA violations. They then reinstated the edits with the same disparaging edit summary as mentioned above. I followed this up with a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASilvertide_goldwaves&diff=1243188925&oldid=1239069699 notice on their talkpage] and re-reverted a couple of their edits that I felt were of concern (and on the basis that the initial revert was exempt from ARBPIA4 on the basis that it was enforcing the extended confirmed restriction).
Despite now being aware of the 1RR restriction, they reverted for a second time with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hosen&diff=1243189375&oldid=1243189081 another disparaging edit summary]. They have since followed me to football-related articles that I have recently edited and deleted entire sections (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worthing_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=1243189963 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Counties_Football_League&diff=prev&oldid=1243190160 here]).
While this initially looked like an ARBPIA sanction might be required, their most recent behaviour makes it look like it might be a [[WP:NOTHERE]] case.
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASilvertide_goldwaves&diff=1243191909&oldid=1243189140 here]
:In response to the comments below, my "allergy" to reliable sources is due to them not supporting the claims Silvertide goldwaves is using them to make. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimshit&diff=prev&oldid=1243189682 Here] they claim that the source states that Shimshit is "Jewish-only". In fact the source describes them as Jewish but not Jewish-only, and more importantly, the Central Statistical Bureau's census figures for Shimshit (which can be downloaded from [https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/settlements/Pages/default.aspx?mode=Yeshuv here] (just click on the Excel icon; Shimshit is row 1,232 in the resulting file)) confirm that it is not Jewish-only – it has a population of 2,441, of which 2,428 are Jews and 13 are non-Jews. The same is true for Givat Ela (which Silvertide [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Givat_Ela&diff=prev&oldid=1243188245 has also claimed] is Jewish-only; the census figures (row 268) show it to have a population of 1,896, of which 1,873 are Jewish, 4 are Arab and 18 are other). The latter contradicts their use of the source to claim the villages prevent Arabs from living in them. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning Silvertide goldwaves===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Silvertide goldwaves====
"I noticed some of their pre 30/500 edits" which ones? Be specific. What is "problematic"? Be specific. Do not waste anyone's time by dancing around the heart of the matter - your allergy to inconvenient yet reliable, even academic sources - by operating in vagaries.
"Following" you or me is A-OK on Wikipedia, and unsourced information on Wikipedia should be removed. That I see pages you edit, that have unsourced information (potentially fiction), necessitates their removal.
====Statement by Zero0000====
Silvertide goldwaves' edits have indeed been problematic, and I'm sorry I didn't turn on the fire hose earlier. The 500/30 violations need to be seen in the light of the absence of CT notification, but the poor sourcing and aggressive behavior are harder to excuse. I also disapprove of the mass removal rather than tagging of sourceable-but-unsourced information even though the rules allow it. Number 57's comments on "Jewish-only" communities don't work because there are many small communities in Israel with policies against Arab residents which nevertheless have a small number of such residents. This has been legal since 2014 [https://www.haaretz.com/2014-09-18/ty-article/.premium/court-allows-villages-to-veto-residents/0000017f-e5a1-df5f-a17f-ffff98fd0000] but I don't know the situation in the communities named here. Obviously that comes down to sourcing and it seems that SG's sources were not sufficient. I don't think SG is likely to be a good contributor in the near future, but (perhaps optimistically) a time-limited block might provide an opportunity to cool the enthusiasm and learn our policies and practices better. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 09:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
Just an observation, but Silvertide goldwaves' editing appears to act as an ECR violating probable-sock magnet e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GilbertGreich here]. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 01:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Silvertide goldwaves===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I see some significant concerns here, including the {{tq|fixed typos}} edit summaries for contentious substantive edits and the retaliatory deletion of uncontroversial material from unrelated football articles. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 04:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
*The poor edit summaries, both attacking an editor and inaccurately stating {{tq|fixed typos}}, along with the general hostility leads me to believe they should be removed from the topic area. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'd tend to agree on the ARBPIA stuff. I'm not as concerned by the removal of unreferenced material from the football articles (unreferenced material is always subject to removal at any time), but the edits and certainly the edit summaries on the ARBPIA articles are needlessly nasty and inflammatory. I do not think this editor should be editing ARBPIA articles, and absent objection by an uninvolved admin within a day or so will close with a topic ban from that area. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Mountain of Eden==
{{hat|result=Appeal is moot as the block has expired, but there wasn't much appetite to overturn it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 22:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|The Mountain of Eden}}
; Sanction being appealed : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024&diff=prev&oldid=1243098108 One week block from editing the article Mohammad Deif]
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=prev&oldid=1243381668 Diff of notification]
===Statement by The Mountain of Eden===
I was accused of violating [[WP:1RR]]. I did not. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1243092819 I committed only one revert]. On my talk page, I explained that an edit that {{u|Makeandtoss}} accused me of being a revert is just a copyedit since I did not undo any other editor's edits. <br>
So far, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} has refused to answer my repeated attempts to ask why I was blocked, both on my talk page, and their talk page. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 04:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Mountain_of_Eden&diff=prev&oldid=1243146011 An univolved admin refused to unblock me on procedural grounds, and advised me to appeal here.] [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 04:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:I can't really write "I won't do that again" if I didn't do it the first time. The first edit that alleged a revert was not a revert. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 13:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}:<br>
*Date of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1242634160 restore death into infobox w/ the note that Hamas is disputing the death.]: '''21:46, 27 August 2024'''
*Date of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1243092819 Undid revision 1243089857 by Makeandtoss (talk) The references are already at the end of the sentence]: '''13:11, 30 August 2024'''
⇒ '''More than 24 hours.'''
<br>
*Date of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1239934391 edit for which you are alleging a partial revert]: 14:30, 12 August 2024
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=1243088223&oldid=1239934391 That's 18 days and 36 edits later]. I think that should be considered as established text.
[[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 14:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1239934391 the edit in question] was not a removal of content. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 15:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}: Unattributed??? The attribution is at the end of the sentence: <nowiki><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/01/hamas-commander-mohammed-deif-killed/|</nowiki>'''title=Top Hamas commander Mohammed Deif killed in Israeli strikes, IDF says'''<nowiki>|author1=Louisa Loveluck|author2=Shira Rubinwork|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=August 1, 2024|access-date=1 August 2024|archive-date=3 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240803052718/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/01/hamas-commander-mohammed-deif-killed/|url-status=live}}</ref></nowiki> (emphasis added). [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|Barkeep49}}, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}: I went back and looked at the allged first revert, and I believe it is absolutley unfair to call it a partial revert.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1239934391 The 14:30, 12 August 2024 edit]: changed "is or was" to "is"
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=next&oldid=1242783712 On 03:58, 29 August 2024]: a different editor changed "was" to "is or was"
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=next&oldid=1242856223 My alleged first revert on 12:36, 30 August 2024]: I chaged from "is or was" to "was (or, according to Hamas, is)".
You have to compare to the most recent version, not a version from 36 edits and 18 days prior. I am disappointed that this is not an open and shut case that I did not violate 1RR. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 04:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Please do not procedurally close the appeal on the grounds that the block has expired. If appropriate, a 1 second block could be issued to add a statement to the block log saying that the previous block was successfully appealed after the block expired. Or, as I see the case currently standing, a 1 second block could be issued to say that an appeal of the previous block closed without a consensus, as I am not seeing the community affirming the sanctions imposed against me. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 22:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
Negating the effect of an edit is a revert. There have been many long term edit wars over attribution, like the locus of this revert. The whole point of 1rr is to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring, and is a bright line. In this case the editor has already had an issue with 1rr and not recognizing a revert, and responding with hostility to the 1rr notification.
As for my responsiveness, I received around 40 alerts and notifications in the past 24 hours, and I have around 5400 pages on my watchlist. I don't see any ping from their talk page, just an unblock request that didn't generate a notification. The message on my talk page looks to be about 24 hours old.
Lastly, it would be nice to see one of these appeals say, "I won't do that again." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ScottishFinnishRadish|contribs]]) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)</small>
:The first edit was a partial revert of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1239934391 this edit]. That's about as clear a 1rr violation as you can have. As far as my remedying the 1RR violation, that is covered at [[WP:CTOP]], {{tq|Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted... An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.}} With clear violations I sometimes make a revert while addressing the behavior.
:In this situation we don't even have to get into the weeds of what negating a previous edit means, or that we have CTOP sanctions that refer to something that isn't defined in policy. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 09:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:It was also a revert of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1241704007 this]. Looking back just to the beginning of August this is a long running slow edit war. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:And lastly, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1242634160 restore death into infobox w/ the note that Hamas is disputing the death.] is a clear demonstration that they were aware they were reverting an earlier removal. You don't restore something that wasn't removed. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|The Mountain of Eden}}, in my earlier 1RR warning I said, {{tq|After some amount of time which is highly variable and seldom agreed on content becomes the status quo and removing it is a bold edit rather than a revert. If you're editing in a contentious topic it's safest to assume that any removal is a revert.}} Continuing a long term edit war is definitely going to fall on the revert side of the line. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Barkeep49}}, I don't see continuing a dispute they were aware of with a summary like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1243088223 Only Hamas would use the present tense of the verb] while leaving the IDF/Israel claim unattributed as seeking consensus. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by Sean.hoyland===
No one is going to like this idea because it's premised on the notion that certain events, like a block, should trigger a checkuser in PIA. An offer. If they pass a checkuser they can be unblocked. I'm curious whether the user would accept this kind of deal. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 16:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, since the question was raised, the Lehi Street bombing socks are probably not The Mountain (Icewhiz). But, as far as I can tell from a technical data (that does not qualify as evidence at SPI), The Mountain could be a sock of [[User:Plot Spoiler]]. This result is (surprisingly for me) consistent with the fact that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=The_Mountain_of_Eden&page=&wpdate=2024-05-01&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist registered their account at 2024-04-30T21:39:22], less than an hour after Plot Spoiler's last sock, [[User:Loksmythe]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Loksmythe was blocked at 2024-04-30T20:45:08]...unless it is all a coincidence, which is absolutely possible. I am not going to file an SPI (mainly because a) the evidence I have is not evidence at SPI and b) blocked accounts can simply create a new account if they haven't already done so and rapidly gain EC thanks to the many tools Wikipedia provides for new users to get them started). [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 05:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by Selfstudier===
Reported editor is not paying attention to their block anyway, see [[Lehi Street bombing]] (article created by sock on 24 August and substantially edited by edited by another on 2 September). [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{Re|Barkeep49}} Apologies, I got as far as "you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week" and assumed it was a full block. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 22:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Hum, a source title does not constitute inline attribution in the way I understand that, reported editor likes to wikilawyer stuff, I think.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Mountain of Eden===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Aquillion====
This was clearly not a revert, not unless we're going to classify every single edit as a revert (which would make editing in 1RR areas untenable). The effect of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1242856223&oldid=1242783712&title=Mohammed_Deif this edit] was to add a statement. Adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1243088223&oldid=1242856223&title=Mohammed_Deif attribution elaborates on that statement]; it does not "undo" it. That sort of addition is not a revert unless comparable attribution had previously been present and had been removed, which was not the case here.
I'm also a bit puzzled by the fact that the blocking admin then immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1243097964 restored the previous revision] afterwards; maybe I've just missed it, or perhaps practice has changed, but AFAIK that has never been part of the remedy for 1RR/3RR violations. The 3RR is about conduct and not article content; therefore, the remedy consists of a block or some other preventative measure but does ''not'' normally involve undoing the offending revert as an administrative action unless BLP violations or some similarly compelling situation requires it. Actual administrative action to change article content is rare and reserved for situations like [[WP:BLP]] where the issue is the content itself and not editor conduct; the administrator guidance for edit warring talks solely about blocks and the like, not about throwing a final revert onto the pile to "fix" things.
Both of these things - the 3RR generally not covering genuinely new additions that might "water down" the text except in the most egregious cases, and revisions to article content not being part of the remedy - are IMHO important because the 3RR sits on a delicate balance; we need a red line to prevent revert-wars, but we also want to avoid situations where the red line could be weaponized to force the article into a particular state, which could lead to [[WP:STONEWALL]]ing and paradoxically encourage revert-wars by rewarding the first mover. This is even more true for the 1RR; the 3RR is somewhat safe because pushing things to the line is itself misconduct, but the 1RR requires so little that an even slightly intransigent editor raising totally reasonable objections and making entirely reasonable reverts could bring editing on a low-traffic article to a standstill if it was interpreted too broadly. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by The Mountain of Eden===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*Sometimes I think that the ambiguity over what constitutes a revert or not for purposes of 1RR is just hopeless. I can readily understand why The Mountain of Eden perceives that the first edit listed did not constitute a revert, but I also understand why the party who originally complained thought it was. I'll allow some time for statements, especially from the blocking admin, before commenting further. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 06:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I generally agree with this. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*::First off, in response to [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]]'s comments, those who participate regularly on AE appreciate his efforts in this area and have no concerns about his level of responsiveness. With regard to the substance of the appeal, however, after further review I am unable to agree that the first disputed edit constituted a revert. The situation appears similar to this hypothetical: Editor A edits an article to say {{tq|X is true}}, Editor B deletes that statement, and Editor A then inserts {{tq|Jones says X is true}}. Editor A has reinserted the concept of X, but as a much more qualified assertion that might, depending on the circumstances, be acceptable as compromise language even to B, thereby resolving rather than perpetuating the editing disagreement. I do not believe this would constitute a revert for 1RR purposes, and in any event it is not so clearly an improper revert as to warrant a block. Therefore, subject to other admins' further input, I am inclined to accept the appeal. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't think that's what happened here? And if it is I'm reading the article history wrong. SFR can you clarify what the diffs that constituted the 1RR were for you? Thanks [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|Barkeep49}} From the discussion on [[User talk:The Mountain of Eden]], I believe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1243088223&oldid=1242856223&title=Mohammed_Deif this] is the diff whose status as a revert is disputed. There is no dispute that there was a revert (or another revert) later that day. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Thanks NYB and SFR. I think The Mountain of Eden has violated 1RR. This is mitigated by the fact that they attempted to find consensus through differing wording combinations and by participating usefully in a talk page discussion about it (a discussion which was mainly a bunch of IPs acting unhelpfully and in violation of ECR in the topic area). On the other side of the ledger is that Mountain still doesn't seem to realize that there was any violation which doesn't inspire confidence for the future. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I still am not convinced that restoring ''part'' of a prior edit is always a revert, nor that the use of the word "restore" is an admission that it is. The example I gave here the last time this issue came up is this: Editor A edits a 1RR article by adding {{tq|X, Y, and Z}}, Editor B removes that with the edit summary {{tq|Z isn't true}}, and then Editor A posts {{tq|X and Y}} with the edit summary {{tq|restoring X and Y which no one disagrees with and omitting Z}}. That would be a sensible attempt to seek consensus, not edit-warring. The actual edit history here is more complicated than my examples, as ScottishFinnishRadish correctly observes, but I ready understand why The Mountain of Edit does not perceive they violated the 1RR. That being said, if no other admins here agree with me, then a consensus to modify the sanction does not exist. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::At least for now it's just me and you. I am curious what a hypothetical third admin says as I see the consensus seeking element at play here that seems important to you, while also seeing the broader context that led to SFR's sanction. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|*:::::}}Do I love that edit summary? No. However, I stand by my statement: {{tqq|they attempted to find consensus through differing wording combinations}} which in a non-1RR topic area would certainly be enough for me but even here strikes me as the good faith (perhaps naively so) interpretation of their actions. However, we are in a 1RR topic area so it all gets trickier. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Selfstudier}} I'm confused. The Mountain of Eden is only blocked from a single page. Are you suggesting that Lehi Street bombing socks are also The Mountain (Icewhiz)? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish|Barkeep49}} I too would be interested in what other admins think about the issue we disagree on, but while we've been waiting for more input, the page-block expired by time several days ago. Should we continue to leave this thread open, or close it as unsuccessful (over my dissent) for lack of consensus? Meanwhile, if any other admins would like to weigh in, now is the time. Thanks, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*Responding to NYB's request for more input. I agree with NYB in principle that an edit that partially negates a previous edit isn't necessarily a revert by definition, but in this case, I think the disputed edit is indeed a revert, because I cannot parse the language and come to the conclusion that the intent was anything other than to largely negate a previous edit. The effect is marginally mitigated by an attempt to find different wording, but the qualifier was also very clearly intended to minimize the weight of the claim. It could easily have been proposed on the talk page: why wasn't it? As such I would have declined this appeal, were it not moot. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks Vanamonde. Given this I think we can close this appeal. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Void if removed==
{{hat|Closed with no action, although {{u|Void if removed}} should take on board the commentary of the administrators and other editors about their behavior. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Void if removed===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Raladic}} 23:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Void if removed}}<p>{{ds/log|Void if removed}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality]]
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1132804830#Behaviour 14:25, 10 January 2023] Early warning by another user following their recent edit warring block (linked below) in the CTOP area and a COI warning by another user just prior due to the appearance of the user being here for promotion of a singular topic
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1150114662 11:21, 16 April 2023] POV pushing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1151259015 revert], [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender-critical_feminism&diff=prev&oldid=1179960546 15:45, 13 October 2023] POV, removal of historic context of TERF movement ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender-critical_feminism&diff=next&oldid=1179960546 revert], [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]])
#[[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_October#TERF_(acronym)|13:57, 13 October 2023]] Further attempts to try to whitewash Gender critical feminism of its origins
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TERF_(acronym)/Archive_4#c-Void_if_removed-20231015221900-Amanda_A._Brant-20231015161600 22:19, 15 October 2023] More POV attempts trying to remove GCF from its TERF origins
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=prev&oldid=1181203046 14:53, 21 October 2023] More POV attempts trying to whitewash Gender Criticam feminism, removal of RS
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1191247000 11:10, 22 December 2023] Another POV attempt at deleting the hate group designation as they will try again below in June 2024 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1191247000 revert], [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1192822266 14:31, 31 December 2023] NPOV trying to whitewash [[Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversion_therapy&diff=next&oldid=1192822266 revert], [[User:Pepperbeast|Pepperbeast]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1200367777 10:05, 29 January 2024] POV removal of pseudoscience note ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1200308439 revert], [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1227449952 19:58, 5 June 2024] POV removal of RS, repeating SPLC removal they also attempted in December 2023 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1227540245 revert], [[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=prev&oldid=1227580423 16:11, 6 June 2024] POV, Repeat removal of the same RS content from another article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=next&oldid=1227580423 revert], [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=prev&oldid=1230296231 21:57, 21 June 2024] POV removal of RS of the historic evolvement of TERF and GCF terms ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=next&oldid=1230296231 revert], [[User:Raladic|Raladic]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy#c-Void_if_removed-20240610105900-Turban's_claims_about_sex_ratio 10:59, 10 June 2024] POV promotion of furthering ROGD fringe theories
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy#c-Void_if_removed-20240708154600-Another_source 15:46, 8 July 2024] More continuation of the same FRINGE POV pushing, RGW disruption as called out by [[User:HandThatFeeds|The Hand That Feeds You]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1243234898 08:57, 31 August 2024] POV removal of that country's largest medical organizations criticizing the restriction of PBs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puberty_blocker&diff=next&oldid=1243462942 revert], [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#c-Void_if_removed-20240830081400-Raladic-20240822174300 08:14, 30 August 2024] It seems they now decided to start [[WP:HOUNDING]] me personally and get involved in articles they never [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/1/World%20Professional%20Association%20for%20Transgender%20Health had any involvement in]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies&diff=prev&oldid=1243239259 09:48, 31 August 2024] More [[WP:HOUNDING]] to the list, commenting on a project [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/5/WikiProject%20LGBT%20studies they have never been involvd in] and accusing me of canvassing on a discussion they also have never shown any involvement with
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1128385508 21:45, 19 December 2022] Edit warring block in CTOP area
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1135211680 08:57, 23 January 2023]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Void_if_removed#c-Void_if_removed-20240608221400-Zenomonoz-20240608105300 22:14, 8 June 2024]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
This user has shown a continuous repeated pattern of [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] editing and arguing with users. Their editing appears to be a pattern of a [[WP:SPA]] (editing almost [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/0 exclusively on about 10 articles]([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/1 talk])) with the sole intent of furthering Gender criticism feminism as a non-fringe movement and erasure of its origins, as well as the [[WP:PROMOTION]] of their personal beliefs and Gender critical organizations (for which they also received a COI warning by another user over a year ago, which was just deleted without addressing it).
The user appears to be [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia, but instead only to promote their personal beliefs/[[WP:POV]]s (many of which have been in opposition of [[WP:HID]]) on this and continuous arguing with any editors that fall into the trap of trying to do so. Of their 1,500 edits, only [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec-namespacetotals/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed 28% of their edits have actually been to the mainspace], of which [https://en.wikiscan.org/user/Void%20if%20removed at least 33% had to be reverted by other users](at least the ones tagged with mw-revert, likely many more that were manual reverts) due to (as the above Diffs give a bit of a highlight of and were reverted content) continuous [[WP:POV]] pushing.
As the above diff history shows, this isn't a single once off, but at this point, a two year long, steady pattern of [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] editing, much of which [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec-namespacetotals/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed the majority of their editing has been in talk page arguing]. It is especially egregious that some of their editing is (trying to) remove the same things again, months after they were previously reverted. Their continuous pattern of [[WP:CIVILPOV]] pushing and arguing in talk pages with long [[WP:Wall of text]] to wear down others is systemic. They usually always have a long answer ready after someone reverts their POV-pushing in the talk page on why their edit was [[WP:RGW|right]], often [[WP:TAGTEAM]]ing with others that support their ideological views.
At this point, I do not believe that these arguments, or the edits to the main space (much of which was reverted POV pushing) are a productive addition to the project, so I request a [[WP:TOPICBAN]] from [[WP:GENSEX]] topics, broadly construed.
:@[[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]], Wikipedia has a higher standard against the [[WP:PROMOTION]] of hateful transphobic views than the [[Transgender_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom#Transphobia_and_"TERF_Island"_debate|UK]] (see [[WP:HID]]/[[WP:NQP]]). [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 21:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] you missed on June 5th that immediately after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1227450630 their self-revert], the immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1227450630 re-reverted and removed the information again out of the lead]. Just as they then did on June 6 from the other article, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1227451409 having been reverted already on June 5], basically trying to ram through [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=prev&oldid=1227580423 their POV on the other article] after failing on the first one. Please also note that this POV push had started in December of 2023([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1191247000], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine#New_source]) as YFNS has pointed out as further evidence below in their statement (and which had been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1193021703#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine settled already by NPOVN], so the June 5/6th incidence was a covert repeat attempt against settled consensus. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
*[[User_talk:Void_if_removed#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion|AE notice given]]
===Discussion concerning Void if removed===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Void if removed====
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1132804830#Behaviour This warning] was a turning point for me and I definitely took it to heart, and I have to say I have learned an enormous amount since then from this editor. Despite regular disagreements, I consider them fair and even handed and I have improved my own contributions as a result. Certainly I was far too combative early on, but I've definitely toned it down in the last 18 months, especially after getting involved in subjects where [[WP:MEDRS]] applies.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1150114662 Here] I simply changed the text to match the wording of the main article. I felt this was more consistent, and that the arguments for "controversy" over "discredited" should not be rehashed on another page. This is currently the consensus wording, so I'm not sure why there's an issue here?
* The 22 December edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1191247000 was a standard disagreement over content] and is wrongly described in the report as an "attempt at deleting the hate group designation" which isn't even mentioned.
* On January 29th [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1200367777 I reinstated the lede] and asked the editor responsible to stop edit warring and take it to talk.
* In the June 5th edit I noted "Hate group" had been added to the lede of the SEGM page but not the body, which I removed because I didn't think the source supported it but I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1227449952 immediately self-reverted] as I had erred and read the wrong source! I then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1227450630 moved it] to the body per [[WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY]] and [[WP:SPLC]] which states SPLC's hate group designations are not necessarily DUE for the lede.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=prev&oldid=1227580423 This June 6th edit] was because the source was simply not terribly good (a substack reposted by a non-notable publication), but it was replaced with a better one in a later edit so I had no further objections.
* The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=prev&oldid=1230296231 21st of June edit] was to remove material from the lede which had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=prev&oldid=1230270444 just previously been disputed in the body] as not due for wikivoice because it was opinion. I think that should have been discussed on talk, but since it was reverted I left it. If there is no appetite among a group of editors for a discussion there's little point in raising one so it makes sense to simply move on in that situation.
* [[Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy#c-Void_if_removed-20240610105900-Turban's_claims_about_sex_ratio|The June 10th edit]] - systematic reviews are not FRINGE, so I dispute this description of this discussion. Turban's paper on sex ratios is contradicted by systematic reviews, so it is entirely valid to raise on talk whether it should be given that level of prominence, <s>or should be placed in context (ie, the conflict between self-report survey information and clinical observation)</s>.
* The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1243234898 31 August edit] is mostly a reinstatement of the previous wording, but also a trimming down to remove bloat. This section is supposed to demonstrate the evolving use of puberty blockers in the UK. I don't think an episode of woman's hour mentioning the NHS had updated its website is the best source for that. Likewise the claim attributed to the BMA (the trade union and professional body for doctors) is not supported by the [https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-lgbt-health-idINL8N2GD35H/ source], and saying in 2022 it supports "self-id" is irrelevant to the timeline of the NHS backing away from puberty blockers. I think this should be more concise for the reader and stick to the most important points, per [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]]. A logical next step would have been to raise this on talk, and I may have got round to doing that myself today to see what other editors thought, were it not for this AE request.
* I don't think that [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#c-Void_if_removed-20240830081400-Raladic-20240822174300|replying on the NPOV noticeboard]] is hounding - I was simply offering helpful information that there may have been some confusion as the editors appeared to be talking about two different sources.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies&diff=prev&oldid=1243239259 WRT the LGBT->LGBTQ rename] I think it is fair that if a page move that is expected to instigate a category rename that affects tens of thousands of pages it should be seen by a good range of people, and only notifying one project could possibly skew that. This is not hounding, merely a coincidence. I have to say though, I'm not sure of the proper protocol here and some advice would be helpful - is it possible to raise concerns of [[WP:VOTESTACKING]] without also violating [[WP:AGF]]? As in, I am assuming this is done in good faith and not wishing to cast [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], I just think the end result is too narrow an audience for such an impactful change, and it would have been better to err on the side of more eyes rather than fewer.
WRT the edits to [[Gender-critical feminism]], there are differences of opinion, and those are evident on talk. I don't think a few edits out of context cover the amount of good faith effort I've made to read the sources and try to present what they actually say with NPOV. If most of my contributions are on talk, that is because GENSEX is an area where consensus is incredibly difficult to achieve and requires huge amounts of discussion and source evaluation, something which I have spent time doing simply because I find it interesting. I also endeavour to make changes conservatively via talk first because I know how sensitive the subject is. Sometimes I make bold changes, and if reverted try and follow BRD. I try and avoid anything that can be construed as edit warring.
As for edits in other areas, at the start of the year [[User_talk:Void_if_removed#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Dead_Lions_(January_18)|I tried to branch out into creating pages on the Slow Horses book series but]], frankly, I got sucked in by the release of the Cass Review in April. I would ask anyone to read my contributions on [[Cass Review]] and [[Puberty Blocker]] and see whether I am sticking to RS and attempting to neutrally present what RS say and actively seeking compromise, trying to advance NPOV in good faith. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:Further response Re: "LGB Alliance founders" issue.
:As an inexperienced editor I wrongly thought that [[Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_14#c-Void_if_removed-20221125145500-Founders|making a tiny correction]] would be a simple task, and I became mired in a [[WP:RGW]] crusade, with some [[Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_13#c-Void_if_removed-20221202164500-John_Cummings-20221202133300|snarky]] and [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] [[Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_14#c-Colin-20221128150500-Void_if_removed-20221128143000|behaviour]]. With hindsight, this was a terrible way to learn the ropes, though I did discover an awful lot of policy and procedure along the way. After a combative start, and lots of pointless [[WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY]] I did get better at [[Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_20#c-Void_if_removed-20230622170500-Void_if_removed-20230622164400|working toward compromise]] in this [[WP:CTOP]]. I [[Talk:LGB_Alliance#History,_Founders,_Reliability_of_Pink_News|brought the "founders" issue up again]] in July last year when a new secondary [[WP:RS]] appeared, but I was again in a minority and after admittedly too much pointless discussion the stick was dropped. What I (eventually) learned from all this was to not reflexively respond to every reply, because unless other editors agree with you a discussion is going nowhere.
:Almost a year later I came across [[WP:WSAW]] and (along with the publication of another [[WP:RS]]) perhaps unwisely thought I could demonstrate my growth as an editor, and [[Talk:LGB_Alliance#c-Void_if_removed-20240623081400-History,_Founders,_Reliability_of_Pink_News|offer a constructive compromise]] to allow additional material to be added to the organisation's history to improve this page which otherwise doesn't work, and perhaps get some closure on a bad early chapter, but after what I thought was a promising start I was unsuccessful. While a disappointing experience, I believe it shows my commitment to improvement. Though I admit my mind hasn't changed, this isn't a topic I plan on ever raising again. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49]] RE: June 6th edit, please see fuller June 8th explanation about establishing DUE for lede with involved editor [[User talk:Void if removed#Please use accurate edit summaries (and about the SPLC)|here]]. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 17:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49]] June 10th edit was referencing [[Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_8#c-Void_if_removed-20240310234000-Hist9600-20240309153400|this discussion]]. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49]] RE 22 December - the report is wrong, this was not about "hate group" designation, it was about weight, balance and order of newly added content (and I mistakenly cited RSOPINION incorrectly). The "hate group" designation [https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/06/10/anti-trans-organisations-hate-groups-southern-poverty-law-center/ did not happen until June 4th 2024]. When that designation did appear my argument was that it was due for the body, attributed per [[WP:SPLC]], but for the lede I thought it should have secondary coverage in a [[WP:RS]] to establish [[WP:DUE]]. That is what I was arguing for, why I didn't think a reposted substack was sufficient secondary coverage, and wanted to hold off for notable secondary coverage. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 22:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49]] Re: {{tq | 31 August I'm not sure how Void found this discussion}} The LGBT -> LGBTQ page move triggered mass category speedy renames affecting many hundreds of pages, including those on my watchlist, I went looking for why, drew the move closer's attention to my concern it possibly hadn't been seen by enough eyes for such a widespread change (which they responded to), and went to notify the one project that had been notified of the move that I had raised that concern as a courtesy, found a discussion in progress, and noted it there. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 08:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Silver_seren====
Saw this, thought I should just pop in here as an old source to note that the POV pushing in regards to Void if removed's editing started from the very beginning of their account in 2021 and involved me. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sir_Ewan_Forbes,_11th_Baronet&diff=prev&oldid=1059182047 first edits] were to start tendentiously arguing that [[Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet]] didn't count as being transgender, despite what the references said. They also began edit warring about that on the book article I had recently made about Forbes, ''[[The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes]]''. They then disappeared for almost a year and then popped up at [[Mermaids (charity)]] in September 2022 to start pushing more of their same topic POV edits. And that has been the entirety of their editing ever since. In their three years, they [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed have made] two articles, a [[Rebecca Wait|short author stub]] and [[Cass Review]], which continues the same topic area issues. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 00:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Colin====
When [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] first showed up on my radar I was concerned about their editing and raised these concerns on their talk page, as linked above. In the subsequent 18 months Void has become a much better Wikipedian, to the point where I think they are one of the best editors in this contentious topic domain. I say this even though we disagree on much. My experience is that Void is capable of listening to advice and genuinely seeks to improve as an editor.
Some of the diffs demonstrate revising text that then ends up saying less of what I assume Radalic would like the article to say. And? This is normal. Such articles attract poorly sourced negative shit or dubious claims that fail source verification. Editors disagreeing on the weight of a factoid or strength of a source is normal. Void is not one of the editors who add such poor material.
Void is capable of accurately describing and understanding the many sides in this culture war area and offering high quality sources to backup what they say. As someone who bangs on about MEDRS, I appreciate their focus on the best reliable sources in these medical topics. Void created the [[Cass review]] article, now a most important medical trans topic, and has helped defend it from misinformation.
When I find myself disagreeing with Void, I am relieved that I don't have to deal with (a) unsourced personal opinion (b) stuff sourced to some blog or low-quality magazine or (c) misinformation they credulously repeat.
Nearly all editors on these articles have a POV that becomes obvious fairly quickly. In a contentious topic domain, the point is you have to demonstrate an ability to work with editors who have a POV you don't like or agree with, and to push for the best sources and most accurate and fair text. I don't think the diffs presented are evidence of a problem with Void in this regard, despite the two paragraphs of [[WP:UPPERCASE]] that followed them.
[[WP:ACTIVIST]] says {{tq|Editors operating in good faith, not seeking to promote specific views, will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors.}} Void has his opinions, sure, but I find those three C's in my experience editing with Void. I think they are here to build an encyclopaedia. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Update: [[Talk:Cass Review#BMA (percentage)]] would appear to be the flashpoint that provoked this arb request. IMO it is an enlightening read wrt POV pushing and encyclopaedia building. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] for what it's worth, the edit summary of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=prev&oldid=1227580423 6th June edit] makes it clear the issue is DUE for the lead, not WP:V. As you note, there was a link to the SPLC website that verified the text, and in fact Void added that ref to the body text mentioning this designation which the edit retained. The revert wrongly argues "SPLC is a WP:RS" as it isn't an independent source establishing DUE. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by LunaHasArrived====
I want to start off by saying I was surprised to see void appear here and that they are an editor I have been able to compromise and cooperate with in the past. However a couple of their comments in their reply astonished me. Firstly, in the section about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy#c-Void_if_removed-20240610105900-Turban's_claims_about_sex_ratio tenth of June edit] they seem to believe that they raised on talk wether to put Turban in context. From what's written Void wanted to remove the claim at minimum and the entire mention at maximum, I made the suggestion about context and received no feedback so to see Void claim they made the suggestion feels slightly insulting.
Secondly whilst a single edit doesn't show overall behaviour [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance#c-Void_if_removed-20240623081400-History,_Founders,_Reliability_of_Pink_News this edit] and the entire topic thread (both done post warning) are particularly bad in terms of being combative and failing to drop the stick.
[[User:LunaHasArrived|LunaHasArrived]] ([[User talk:LunaHasArrived|talk]]) 07:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] Sorry to add on, but I don't think my second diff above has been considered (admittedly I failed to put a date on it) it was from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance#c-Void_if_removed-20240623081400-History,_Founders,_Reliability_of_Pink_News 23 June] this year so definitely seems applicable.
16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], combative may have been the wrong language to use. Void admits that their early behaviour on this topic was bludgeony and I struggle to see much improvement. With the recent discussion(June 2024) Void made up 15/35 of the comments and seems very keen to have the last word in any reply thread. Void has commited to not bringing this topic up again but the recent behaviour struck me as problematic and I feel like it should be considered.
[[User:LunaHasArrived|LunaHasArrived]] ([[User talk:LunaHasArrived|talk]]) 16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Sweet6970====
This is an inappropriate request by {{u|Raladic}}. It starts {{tq|This user has shown a continuous repeated pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and '''arguing with users'''.}} [my emphasis] Without civil, rational, argument, Wikipedia cannot function. All this complaint amounts to is that Raladic disagrees with Void if removed on various content matters.
Raladic refers twice to something which is supposedly ‘whitewashing’ gender-critical feminism, as if being a gender-critical feminist is some sort of criminal offence. In fact, ‘gender critical’ views are protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010, and several people have successfully made legal claims for discrimination on the grounds of this philosophical belief.
I also note that this complaint starts with edits in January 2023, and refers to a block in December 2022. The heading for this page includes: {{tq|Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale.}} [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 20:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist====
VIR's FRINGE promotion has not been sitting right with me for a while and I think a GENSEX TBAN may be necessary. Their whitewashing of conversion therapy is particularly galling. Below are a few of the more egregious things I've seen from them:
# [[Gender-critical feminism]]/[[Gender-critical feminism#Conversion therapy]]
#* Mass deletion of section on GCF views on conversion therapy[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1197412084], and then multiple walls of text on talk arguing for it's removal.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_6#Conversion_Therapy_/_Gender_Identity_Change_Efforts]
#* Here they argued to remove material about the origins of the GC-movement in the 70s because it was from an encyclopedia of trans history.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_5#Removals_from_history]
#* Additionally, I would be rich if I had a dollar for every time VIR notes the majority of RS are critical but says we should go out of our way not be (clear [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender-critical_feminism&diff=prev&oldid=1162632323] I'd be richer if I got another for every time they've argued we should scrap the article in favor of directly quoting books by GC feminists.
# [[Conversion therapy]]/[[Gender exploratory therapy]]
#* For the past few months, they have repeatedly argued on talk the section should be rewritten to say GET isn't conversion therapy, often citing primary sources from GET practitioners and advocates.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/1/Conversion%20therapy][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conversion_therapy/Archive_26][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conversion_therapy]
#* This continued on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Conversion_Therapy_and_%22Gender_Exploratory_Therapy%22 fringe theories noticeboard] when I sought input there
# SPLC
#* As mentioned above, they have repeatedly tried to remove statements about organizations from the SPLC by calling them opinion pieces. They did this at [[SEGM]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1191247000], particularly at talk[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine#New_source]
# [[ROGD]]
#* Here they bludgeoned multiple editors while being told they were misrepresenting the sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_8#break:_'scientifically_unsupported'].
#* They've also tried to add FRINGE sources to the further reading section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_7#Further_Reading]
# VIR has made 235 edits to the talk page for [[LGB Alliance]] and 59 to the article itself.
#* I believe they have a COI with the organization which I will not disclose here due to [[WP:OUTING]], but which I will email an admin evidence of.
Having seen VIR frequently pop up in discussions, I believe their behavior can at best be described as [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]], [[WP:RGW]], [[WP:CPUSH]] and [[WP:PROFRINGE]]. On VIR's talk page at the moment is a discussion where they claim that the majority of transgender children are "LGB kids with mental health issues" that are being transitioned improperly and will regret it... [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 23:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
: {{ping|Barkeep49}} I've emailed the evidence - in addition to what I believe is an overly close relationship with the LGBA, there's evidence of canvassing and relations with other prominent GCFs he's written about / cited.
: I'm also tempted to write [[WP:YFNS's law]]: {{tq|You are not allowed to say bigoted things about trans kids unless you generalize it to most of them}} - ie "you shouldn't have transitioned because you're just gay and mentally ill and will regret it" isn't ok but somehow "most trans kids..." is somehow fine. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by LilianaUwU====
I feel like I should link [[User:LilianaUwU/Civil POV pushing is POV pushing|my essay]]. Anyways, I agree with YFNS' call for a GENSEX TBAN. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 01:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by berchanhimez====
The evidence provided by the user starting this complaint consists primarily of edits that are old and/or a few recent disputes. One of those disputes is on [[Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy]], where VIR has been attempting to have the article be balanced in line with [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. As the sources VIR discusses on the talkpage make clear, this is controversial and while there is not a widespread agreement that it's accurate, there is also not a widespread agreement that it's inaccurate. There is no solid evidence for or against it, yet some editors wish to exclude any and all information about the current debate over how it may be investigated further, because they think that it's unproven = [[WP:FRINGE]]. That's simply not true. For something to be fringe, it must either be conclusively disproven, or there must be widespread agreement that there is no way it can be reality. Editors know this, hence why they are trying to shut down any source discussion as RGW and not include any sources that investigate it as possibly true.
The other dispute is as Colin points out ([[Talk:Cass Review]]), and I have nothing to add to that. There are also claims of POV pushing through removal of [[SPLC]] designation of being a hate group. [[WP:SPLC|While they are considered reliable, that does not mean that information needs to be included]], and explicitly states that their classifications should not automatically be included in the lead, yet it was readded fairly quickly after VIR moved it to the body, without any talk page discussion in at least one case ([[Genspect]]). Ultimately, this pattern follows in most of the other evidence - VIR makes a [[WP:BRD|bold edit]] B that someone disagrees with, they are reverted, and nobody starts a talk page discussion about it - but there is no evidence that VIR has gone on to make the edit again without discussing though they may continue to improve the material in question via further edits.
Ultimately, there is one group of editors who [[WP:RGW|wish for Wikipedia to only aspouse one viewpoint]] on this topic, even though they [[WP:CIVILPOV|don't outwardly state that is their goal]]. As part of that, they are trying to remove users (and sources such as the Telegraph) that they dislike from Wikipedia. I trust that AE administrators will see through that. If anything, the filing user is hounding VIR, and the behavior of users who are ignoring or attempting to shut down valid DUE discussions on talk pages should be warned against doing so. I don't believe AE can implement it, but probably the best solution here is a BR'''D''' restriction - if any user reverts an edit in this topic area, they must explain their reasoning on the talk page to allow for others to chime in and discuss rather than hiding it in an edit summary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 11:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by starship.paint====
The complaint is that VIR shows a {{tq|continuous repeated pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and arguing with users ... the majority of their editing has been in talk page arguing ... They usually always have a long answer ready after someone reverts their POV-pushing in the talk page on why their edit was right}}. But doesn't this sound like how [[WP:BRD]] is supposed to function? '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Snokalok====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
Void definitely acts and edits in a way that often feels bad faith or blatantly POV, but with that said, I really can’t deny that he’s one of the less painful editors with a clear POV to collaborate with. That’s not to say his edits aren’t tendentious, but like, he is indisputably polite about them in a way that others aren’t.
He never cites British court cases to say that you as an editor are not allowed to compare the article on terfism to the article on white supremacy, he never goes on tirades about his wounded national pride in which he says that everyone with an American IP shouldn’t be questioning the weight to give British govt sources, he never blanks entire sections in favor of rewriting them in barely comprehensible English with no other changes, and he is sometimes willing to meet halfway.
Take that for what it’s worth.
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Void if removed===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*Void: it would be great if you could get your response down to 1000 words (seems to be at 1100 right now) but your request is granted. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Raladic|Raladic]] please [[WP:TALK#REPLIED|do not edit comments]] after people have responded to them. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm going to try and go through the 2024 edits reported here. I will not have time now to do all of them:
**Jan 2024 - the revert seems to be restoring a long established LEAD, for which there was no talk page consensus to change and where Void was the 2nd person to revert someone attempting to BOLDLY change it. I am untroubled here.
**5 June - Void immeadiately self reverted (wasn't even like they were asked by someone to revert, they just realized their own mistake). Absent that it would have been a problem, but we do have that, so not a problem.
**6 June - The substack explanation doesn't fly as there was a link to the SPLC itself supporting the information included
**21 June - A single revert, along with the explanation provided doesn't trouble me on its own.
**10 June - I'm still making my way through this discussion, initial thoughts are credit for starting the discussion, but possible concerns about number of editors who had to explain Void was wrong (absent any indication that was a [[WP:LOCALCON]]).
*:My initial impression is that this is an editor with a point of view but one who is, in 2024, squarely editing with-in Wikipedia norms and standards for a contentious topic, though if further evidence supports repeats of 6 June and talk page POV pushing (the worst case outcome for the 10 June discussion) this impression will change. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
**10 June and 8 July: I've now read these two+ times. On the one hand having to reexplain the samethings to the same person is exhausting. On the other hand, I Void is bringing new sources, and reasonable enough (if not ideal) sources to the table. On the third hand, rebutting that is even harder and so a good faith effort from one person becomes a complete drain on the energies of others. But also this is an area of active academic research so there being new sources worth discussing also is an appropriate talk page endeavor. I may or may not come back to comment on this further.
**31 August I do not find the reasons for removing the BMA (that it was old and the section was too long) compelling. If there was a chance it needed updating it seems very possible to find out what the current BMA stance is on puberty blockers and so the right move would have been to update rather than remove. And why a major medical group was the right one to be removed in the name of preventing UNDUE coverage is not at all clear to me.
**30 August This is at a major noticeboard. Void clearly has shown an interest in the topic area. This to me explains how they found it and why they participated in something they'd never edited before - in fact that is the whole point of a noticeboard, to draw eyes on something from people who weren't already involved with it. I find nothing troubling about their responding to Raladic (though Void should probably attempt to avoid responding directly in the future where possible given the way Raladic is interpeting their actions).
**31 August I'm not sure how Void found this discussion, but their participation in it doesn't strike me as troubling either. I ran their [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Void+if+removed&users=Raladic&users=&startdate=20230101&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki interactions] and I'm not seeing anything that immediately is troubling but I note it in case there is something there.
**22 December Went back here per Radilacs response to my first batch. [[WP:SPLC]] notes that they are reliable but their labeling shouldn't automatically be included in the LEAD. I'm curious in what circumstances Void would find it appropriate to include a gender related hate designation in the lead given their reluctance on these two.
**I have also evaluated the diffs provided by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist. On the whole I don't find their evidence shows what they claim. I would encourage them to email {{nospam|paid-en-wp|wikipedia.org}} their evidence of the COI and to let me know when they have done so, so that I may fully evaluate that claim.
*Having now reviewed all the December 2023 and later diffs from Radilac (plus the diffs from YFNS) , while I don't find everything Void did to be ideal and I find Void to have a clear POV, I see them to be generally following the [[WP:CTOP#Guidance for editors|contentious topics guidance for editors]]. Void does seem to often be holding a minority viewpoint, but the way they act on that is with-in the bounds of our policies and guidelines (both content and conduct), and I personally do not find repeatedly holding a minority viewpoint with-in a topic area to be sanctionable. It's a fine line an editor like this has to walk but for now Void appears to be walking it. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{re|LunaHasArrived}} I've spent a lot of time already on this report (given the credible accusation of CIVIL POVPUSHING it felt like this deeper dive was necessary in order to confirm or not the allegation). The comment you link to doesn't strike me as combative (it strikes me as an attempt to find a new compromise). The discussion continues for a long time after that and from a skim of Void's comments I'm not seeing combative there. Can you link to 2 or 3 comments, along with the phrases you find combative? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Luna: thanks for your clarification. Things I think about when determining if I think someone's replies have bludgeoned the conversation, and thus crossed into disruptive editing (which is what is actually a policy/guideline violation as BLUDGEON is an essay) are the number of replies, the length of those replies relative to others contributions in the discussion, how many replies are in given chains and the closely related how often the editor lets someone else have the last word, and how frequently the negative patterns above repeat. I think Void is close to, but not over, that disruptive editing line but given their past history it's osmething they should be aware of. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Realized I should have pinged {{u|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}} about emailing the COI evidence and letting me know when that's been done so I could take a look at it. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I've received the evidence. I need to examine the COI stuff more closely and have passed along the CANVASS information to ArbCom as acting on that is more their remit (or not). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm broadly in agreement with Barkeep, but I'm not going to go into the level of detail they did as to avoid duplication. Having a POV, even one that is generally not the POV found in our articles is not in and of itself disruptive. When I'm looking at evidence of civil POV pushing I'm most interested in seeing examples of stonewalling or refusal to accept consensus, which is beyond simply taking part in discussions. Reasonable discussion from other points of view can actually serve to make our articles better, as it forces us to answer the arguments of a "devil's advocate," and makes it more likely to provide stronger sourcing or more balanced text in situations that may be overlooked when editors share a point of view.{{pb}} While not all of their editing was perfect, it appears to me that they are good faith contributor following community norms. They also have shown positive development as an editor while engaging in this topic. As such, I don't think there is much to do here, except perhaps for a reminder to bow out when it is clear that consensus isn't shifting, and not to avoid repeating arguments, especially when they're not gaining traction. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Absent another admin weighing in with a contrary take I plan to close this in the next day or two with no action taken (though I do hope Void takes the feedback on board). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Zatinya==
{{hat|The articles created in violation of the ECR rule have been deleted, and Zatinya warned that further such violations will result in a block, by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Zatinya===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Pppery}} 16:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Zatinya}}<p>{{ds/log|Zatinya}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA4]] extended-confirmed restriction
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Israel_Advisory_Board_(VIAB)&diff=prev&oldid=1242734961 31 August 2024]: Moved [[Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB)]] to mainspace (this was before the CT alert)
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Coalition_for_Human_Rights_(VCHR)&diff=prev&oldid=1243972439 4 September 2024]: Moved [[Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR)]] to mainspace (after the CT alert and speedy deletion nomination saying they aren't allowed to create articles in this area)
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zatinya&diff=prev&oldid=1243561069 Given an alert] on September 2, 2024
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
This seems to be a misguided Wiki Ed project. But the fundamental principle of Wiki Ed is that their editors should be treated by the English Wikipedia community the same way as others, so here we are. And in any event the most recent creation is a messy, poorly-sourced article with no evidence of meeting [[WP:NORG]].
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zatinya&diff=prev&oldid=1244362470
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Zatinya===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Zatinya====
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Zatinya===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I've deleted the articles and given them a clear warning that further ECR violations will result in a block. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==IntrepidContributor==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning IntrepidContributor===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Levivich}} 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|IntrepidContributor}}<p>{{ds/log|IntrepidContributor}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBPIA]]
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
#[[Special:Diff/1244525758|Sep 7 16:55]] - first revert
#[[Special:Diff/1244532794|Sep 7 17:41]] - second revert
#[[User talk:IntrepidContributor#1RR]] - declined to self-rv
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : 24hr 3RR block on 10/15/22 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=137961681]
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): [[Special:Diff/1240971127|alerted Aug 18]]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I think this account is almost certainly a sock. Compare their [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/IntrepidContributor timecard/edit history] with {{u|Wierzba}} ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/Wierzba Wierzba xtools]) and {{u|IsraPara2}} ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/IsraPara2 IsraPara2 xtools]) (see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wierzba]]). IntrepidContributor, AFAICT, had never edited in ARBPIA in its first round of activity (7/22 - 2/23). The account was mostly inactive between 2/23 until August 17, 2024, when they started getting involved in ARBPIA for the first time. Aug 16, 2024, is when the AE against O.maximov closed with a warning ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive338#O.maximov]]). IntrepidContributor has only made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=IntrepidContributor&offset=&limit=30 30 edits since Aug 17], almost all focused on fighting the "Gaza genocide" move. O.maximov was later blocked as a sock at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#27 August 2024]]. I could go file at SPI, and this account was on my list of SPIs-to-file, but it would save a bunch of paperwork if reviewing admin could just {{t|Checkuser needed}} here to see if these accounts are a technical match, which I expect they will be. If you want more behavioral evidence before requesting a CU, or if you want me to file a separate SPI, let me know. Thanks, [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{tqq|I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis...}} [[Special:CentralAuth/IntrepidContributor]] says 0 edits to ruwiki or ukwiki. Perhaps they edit there with another account? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::So if I understand correctly, AE is not well-suited for multi-party disputes, but it looks at all parties? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 06:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:SFR: {{tqq|it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs}} Diffs/links for this incredible claim? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::Damn, SFR. That first RM was just about the disambiguator. It said "It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording." That's why the second RM was OK in that instance. Not comparable to this case. Your analysis is very similar to BM's in that you're overlooking massive differences. Can't believe this. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::SFR, please re-ping those arbs and explain your earlier accusation was false in light of what I've written above. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh no, SFR, your second example doesn't support your statement in multiple ways: it wasn't multiple editors, and anyway, in your second example, the first RM ended in "not moved" and explicitly suggested further discussion: "This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion". You just made the same mistake twice, comparing RMs that explicitly said no prejudice to another RM. I went over this in detail on BM's talk page. You need to fix what you wrote, not double down on it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:FWIW I'm 100% going to appeal this to AN, TBANs or not. Reopening the RM was massively disruptive. I don't believe the community will decide that it was OK to launch that RM or that the right thing to do was to let it run. AE got this one wrong. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::FWIW, separate from asking at AN whether shutting down the RM was the right thing to do, I'm also probably going to ask ARCA to take another look at the whole "1RR doesn't apply" thing again. If that's the scope of 1RR, it at least needs to be documented somewhere, because right now every 1RR talk page notice says 1RR applies to "this article" which everyone will understand means the talk page too, and [[WP:1RR]] says it's the same as 3RR, which explicitly applies on all pages. (Also it doesn't make much sense to exempt talk pages anyway.) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:@BK: never closed, just deleted. I deleted it, then Self, then SN, then Self un-deleted it after this AE, and it's since run. Surely no one will touch it now (except an admin). I have no problem with "should have been been closed instead of just deleted," if that's the procedure I'll follow it, but I have a big problem with what happened here, that it's just been allows to run. We went from non-disruptive (me shutting it down) to disruptive (it running), IMO.
:BTW could you please tell me: I suggested two masters above, and your answer about CU mentioned one of them. Is it also "unrelated" as to the other (o.max/"icewhiz")? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks @[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], I will do so. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] @[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]], idk if this is the one you're referring to, but [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 2#Requested move 3 May 2024|the May 3 RM]] that ended up at "Gaza genocide" had a move review that ended [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July|Aug 22]]. The [[Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 7 September 2024|new RM]] (that brought us here) was opened Sep 7, 16 days later. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:Gee I don't know why more people don't bring AE cases. What could possibly be stopping them? 😂 [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [[Special:Diff/1244541208]]
===Discussion concerning IntrepidContributor===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by IntrepidContributor====
As I mentioned to Levivich on my talk page, 1RR does not apply to talk pages and fixing TPO violations. The diffs provided show me reverting the improper removal of an editor's post on a talk page. Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account. I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis and I have never heard of those editors I am accused of being. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 18:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:@Selfstudier, if you didn't like WikiFouf's RM, you could have voted against it instead of deleting it. Removing the proposal is a TPO violation and a third editor doing it doesn't make it right. There was an RfC and no moratorium was agreed on page name move requests [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_4#RfC_on_page_move_moratorium], so you should not be obstructing an uninvolved editor from a good faith attempt. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] there have been a number of editors who have objected to the page title since the last RM, and the MR that was closed a month after it. The RM discussion itself was very tight and should have been closed as no consensus, leaving the page name as '''Gaza genocide allegation''' or accusation. The MR brought up the fact that at 30 on 30, with three choices of names, the closer should have weighted it according to the similarity in two names '''Gaza genocide allegation''' or '''Gaza genocide accusation'''. But I don't think this is the right venue to arguing the case for the a new move request, and that should be left to the community. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 17:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Selfstudier====
Regardless of the 1R problem, this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior. There was a well attended recently concluded RM that in addition went through MR and nothing has changed since. Rather than specifying anything new, the presented nomination is chock full of personal opinions such as {{tq| I wholeheartedly believe that "Gaza genocide" is a premature title and does more harm than good, risking the erosion of public confidence in Wikipedia for a wide swath of the population}} and regurgitates everything that was already discussed in the recent RM. Yes there are editors that actively dislike the current title, that is not a sufficient reason to go through all this again.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&curid=75681281&diff=1244545504&oldid=1244542780 A third editor has now reverted the RM proposal] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 19:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ample opportunity to engage was given to reported editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&oldid=1244531331#RM here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IntrepidContributor#c-Selfstudier-20240907175500-IntrepidContributor-20240907175200 here], instead they chose to edit war and only then the matter was raised here, all within a couple hours, no-one having responded to the RM in the interim. This seems to me, in all the circumstances, to be a proper approach, BM attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation notwithstanding. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the revert by a third editor and the RM is now running. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 02:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Not that it has anything to do with this case but seconding what Levivich says and that's not the first time you have taken out of context "otherstuff" to bolster your argument together with naming me in the process. Quite wrongly in my view. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by TarnishedPath====
Given that there was an RM which was closed on [[Special:PermanentLink/1232356978#Requested_move_3_May_2024|3 July 2024]], endorsed at a move review [[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Gaza_genocide|22 August 2024]] and that there have been three RMs on the article this year, the [[Special:Diff/1244512946|filling of another RM so soon after the last one had been endorsed by a move review]] by WikiFouf was disruptive. IntrepidContributor restoring it not just [[Special:Diff/1244525758|once]], but [[Special:Diff/1244532794|twice]], is even more disruptive regardless of whether 1RR applies to talk pages or not. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Berchanhimez|Berchanhimez]] per [[WP:TAGTEAM]]: {{tq|Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus}}. <br>
Where's your evidence for coordinated meatpupperty? If you don't have any you need to retract your personal attacks/aspersions. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's comment at [[Special:Diff/1244972583]], in which they engage in personal attacks and aspersion casting against every editor who has voted for a procedural close in the RM at [[Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 7 September 2024]] by stating that they are all engaging in "POV pushing or stonewalling". ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 09:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd further like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's [[WP:CANVASSING]] of editors to [[Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 7 September 2024]] at [[Special:Diff/1244837374]]. When I drew their attention to the fact that they'd engaged in canvassing at [[Special:Diff/1244979886]] and that they should ping all involved editors to remedy their breach of behaviour guidelines they responded at [[Special:Diff/1244988992]] by stating that I should remedy their breach for them. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Editors constantly making personal attacks and accusations of bad behaviour without providing the slightest bit of evidence is getting rather tiring. It needs to stop. SFR floated the idea of giving short term topic bans to any editor who had done so and at this point I say go for it. Scorch the earth. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] if you're going to imply hypocrisy in voting in support of a RM which was opened not long after another was closed and then voting procedural close in another RM in similar circumstances you need to demonstrate that editors were aware of that. I certainly wasn't aware of the prior RM for the Israel-Hamas war article and can't be expected to have known given that my contributions to the PIA area is sporadic. What you present shows nothing unless there is something more. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], I don't think it's an absolutely wild suggestion that a lot of editors wouldn't have read each and every comment in such a large discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] and why would they have been more likely to read the first comment than the comments further down near where they placed their !vote? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 06:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], what you state to be general isn't universal. It's being debated because you are implying the motives of other editors and I happen to be one of those editors. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 06:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by BilledMammal====
First, [[Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_4#RfC_on_page_move_moratorium|there was a consensus against a moratorium on that page]].
Second, it was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive333#Makeandtoss_and_M.Bitton|recently established]] that involved editors shouldn't be shutting down/closing formal discussions that they disagreed with, and should instead go to an admin when the discussion is problematic. I note that one of the parties that shut down this discussion, Selfstudier, participated in that discussion, and so should have been aware of that.
Third, Selfstudier [[Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_2#Battleground|previously objected to involved closes]] in relation to RM's on that page. As part of that, they were warned against reverting closures, and told to go to an admin in the future.
In general, I think the editors closing this discussion, but especially Selfstudier who has been involved in these issues before and appears to be espousing a double standard, have behaved far below what we expect of editors in a contentious topic. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:Given the recent comment by David A, particularly their second sentence, I want to call out the obvious POV pushing that is occurring here.
:In this AE, we have a number of editors objecting to opening an RM proposing moving the article to a less definitive title just two months after the previous was closed in favour of the title they supported.
:However, that RM was opened just a month after a previous RM was {{diff2|1215727822|closed ''against'' moving the article to a ''more'' definitive title}}.
:These same editors had no objection to that RM, and some such as David A were {{diff2|1229328000|instrumental in opening it.}}
:Effectively, these editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not - and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this.
:Such behaviour is a violation of half a dozen policies and I believe AE needs to act against it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:<small>{{ping|David A}} Off topic, but I don’t have a position on the reliability of +972, and I don’t express one in the discussion you linked. I also don’t seek to remove all references to Al Jazeera, although I do question its reliability. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)</small>
:For the editors asking for an example of editors who objected to this move request, but had no objection to others opened within a similar period:
:[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 34#Requested move 23 December 2023]] was closed on January 4, and the close was finalized on January 10, with a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war".
:[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 40#Requested move 23 January 2024]], which proposed moving the article to "Israel-Gaza war" was opened 19 or 13 days later, depending on where you are counting from. Of the editors objecting to the move request under discussion here:
:#{{user|Selfstudier}} supported a move on 23 January 2024
:#{{user|David A}} supported a move on 31 January 2024
:#{{user|Levivich}} supported a move on 6 February 2024, with their first comment on 24 January 2024
:#{{user|TarnishedPath}} supported a move on 16 February 2024
:Other editors in this discussion participated in that RM, but as I haven't interpreted their comments as objecting to this move request I haven't included them in this list. There are also a large number of editors who objected to this RM on procedural grounds within the RM, but supported that RM without any objection; I also haven't considered them for this list. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} The first line of the first !vote in the 23 January 2024 RM (mine, for the record) said {{tq|there was a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war" less than two weeks ago.}}
::Unless these editors aren't reading any of the discussion before !voting, they would have been aware.
::In addition, Selfstudier was indisputably aware of the prior discussion - [[User_talk:Robertsky/Archive_6#Your_close_at_Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war|they participated in an objection to the close of the 23 December 2023 RM]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} They wouldn't have needed to read {{tq|each and every comment}}; only the first line of the first comment. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} I'm surprised this is even being debated. In a general context, it is well established that for various reasons comments at the top of a discussion are far more likely to be read than comments at the bottom - and in a Wikipedia context editors need to go to the top of a discussion to click "edit source", not the bottom. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by WikiFouf====
@[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] That's really a bad-faith interpretation. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but don't pretend like I didn't detail why I think that A) the title is premature and, B) it can erode confidence in WP's neutrality. I don't cite new sources, yes, but that's the whole point : I reviewed all of the sources ''we do have right now'' and I disagree with the verdict that {{green|'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources}}. Hence why I launched the RM, and encouraged people go through the sources table. I'm not trying to be "disruptive". [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 12:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
It seems likely that ongoing efforts to change the title of the Gaza Genocide (which includes less polite efforts like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_genocide&diff=1244476546&oldid=1244334950 this]) are explained in part by the attention/canvassing occurring off-wiki on social media sites etc. I don't know (or care) whether the concerns are legitimate policy-based concerns, but what also seems likely is that this attention is not dependent on the number or details of the RMs, it is dependent on the result of the RM not being the current title. Unless an RM is guaranteed to result in a change to the title that supporters of Israel find satisfactory, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 13:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, out in the real world, interest in this Gaza Genocide article formed about 1000th of a percent of what people looked at last month in English Wikipedia (amounting to over 10 billion views), so the article title issue does not appear to be an urgent or significant issue from a global statistical perspective. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 13:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Just like targeting the title of the Gaza Genocide article is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, the targeting of Selfstudier is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, in my view. I find this concerning, not because of anyone's opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but because by my estimation, since the start of 2022, around 1800 of Selfstudier's edits (and probably more) are directly related to implementing/enforcing ArbCom remedies including ARBECR, notifying new users, handling edit requests and creating edit notices. So, this particular user, the topic area's top (non-sock) contributor by edit count (normally a positive thing, but apparently a negative thing in PIA), spent over 12% of their revisions on essentially policing the largely unprotected topic area. For me, it's to be expected that editors will ignore this aspect of an editor they perceive as an obstacle or opponent of some kind, but if admins ignore it the AE process starts to resemble an autoimmune disorder. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom."
* I don't think this idea has any utility.
* Like it or not, Levivich is one of the topic area's countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity. They are part of PIA's immune system.
* The statement can therefore be re-expressed as "There is a strong case to disable one of the countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity in the topic area."
If an editor sees what they regard as disruptive behavior or policy non-compliance in the topic area they should be able to report it here at AE. ArbCom is not going to be able to solve many of the systemic problems in the topic area because the on-site effects are produced by external factors, off-site things they have little to no control over, like whether a person decides to evade a ban, or engage in/respond to canvassing efforts, or allow their personal views to take priority over policy compliance etc. And there is no obvious misalignment between Levivich's stated objectives in their reports and the objectives described by policy and existing ArbCom remedies. They have a much higher resolution view of the state of the topic area than ArbCom is likely to ever have. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 06:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|Berchanhimez}}
* "immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere)" - this is not what I see. I see an editor documenting what they regard as inconsistencies between actions and rules.
* "It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so." - This is easily explained by friction and a number of other factors. I could bring numerous editors to AE and SPI, and yet I don't, because, for me, the cost/benefit ratio makes it too expensive. There aren't many editors willing to put in the work required to gather evidence and present a case.
[[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by xDanielx====
A new RM might arguably be appropriate now that the [[Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation#Requested_move_21_July_2024|closely related RM]] for the parent, [[Palestinian genocide accusation]] → [[Palestinian genocide]], was unsuccessful. In any case, if editors feel it's too hasty, they should request a speedy closure by an uninvolved party, or possibly snowball close it if there's a clear consensus that it's too hasty (which seems unlikely given the consensus against a moratorium). It's really inappropriate for two highly involved editors to simply ''delete'' a good-faith RM they don't agree with. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by David A====
I do not think that Levivich or Selfstudier should receive any punishment. People who disapprove of the current page title keep forcing us to vote over and over and over regarding the same topic, with very brief breaks in-between, until they get their desired result.
It is to demand too much from Levivich and Selfstudier to expect them to know exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or is not allowed in every possible development in this regard.
Also, they are knowledgeable, constructive, and well-behaved editors. Putting them on restraining order for such a limited reason would cause longterm damage to the overall wellbeing of the pages concerning this topic. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
In response to accusations by BilledMammal, there does not exist any coordination between myself and other Wikipedia members. We are merely people from different parts of this world who seem to share a humanitarian concern for the unnecessary loss of innocent lives, particularly children, and going by the United Nations recent voting records regarding the currently ongoing military actions by the government of Israel, the vast majority of the population of humanity strongly disapprove of them, so statistically speaking there should logically be a much greater shortage of people in Wikipedia who agree than those who disagree.
Also, I was referring to that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July this was not the first time that there have been attempts to overturn the recent page title move within a brief timespan], although going by my, possibly flawed, memory, most of them were by new editors to Wikipedia who did not have extended edit-confirmed rights to respond to the [[Gaza genocide]] talk page.
In addition, even from my, likely very limited, observations of BilledMammal's own activities here in Wikipedia, he has very actively participated in several attempts to remove all references by both [[Al Jazeera]] and [[+972 Magazine]], which are the two main news organisations that report war crimes by the Israeli government. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_434#Al_Jazeera_reliability] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Al_Jazeera_-_factual_errors] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Reliability_of_Al_Jazeera] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#RfC:_+972_Magazine]
Also, for the record, I have been subjected to death threats and multiple serious personal attacks from people who support the current military actions of the Israeli government. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1160#A_death_threat_towards_myself] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=1230628929&oldid=1230627695] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=1230761440&oldid=1230758807] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=next&oldid=1230796071] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_genocide&diff=1243729749&oldid=1243728651] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_genocide&diff=1244476546&oldid=1244334950] [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|BilledMammal}} Okay. My apologies for making a mistake regarding +972 Magazine, but as far as I am aware, disqualifying sources from being considered reliable by Wikipedia allows editors to systematically remove all of them from Wikipedia pages, which in the case of Al Jazeera would severely cripple the reporting from the Gaza war. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|BilledMammal}} For the record, all that I recall of the renaming procedure is that the ongoing move discussion was extremely disorganised, lengthy, tiresome, and all over the place, so I assembled the three main titles suggested by other members that were not too long and awkward, and seemed to have good arguments and Wikipedia page title precedents backing them, and then put them to a vote by pinging all of the previous participants in the discussion, in order to help bring some order and structure to the chaos.
There was no deliberation involved beyond that I thought that all of the three alternatives were shorter and less awkward that the then current title for the page, nor did I expect the current title to get the most votes at the time. I do not recall voting in a preceding survey before the very lengthy sprawling discussion that eventually resulted in the current title, but if I did, I probably just voted for what I thought was the least bad available option at the time. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|BilledMammal}} Never mind. It seems like you are talking about a renaming discussion for another page. My adhd unfortunately strikes again. Anyway, I do not recall reading your own quoted comment there. I likely just voted for what seemed to be a less inappropriate title. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 06:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with {{ping|Sean.hoyland}} about that Levivich is a highly knowledgeable member who helps to bring order, structure, and fact-based resolutions to discussions, so getting rid of him would cause active harm to the parts of Wikipedia where he is active, and contrary to {{ping|Berchanhimez}}'s claims, I think that the attempts to shut up editors who are highly concerned about human rights violations via this arbitration discussion seem considerably more prevalent and concerning. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Berchanhimez}} As far as I am aware, I have only made fact-based additions to Wikipedia, especially lots of reliable statistics, and do not think that I have made any disruptive behaviour via insults or bad editing. I used my wording as one that seemed neutral, given that there are some editors who are concerned about human rights violations in general, regardless of who is doing them, and others who seem to act in a more partisan manner regarding this topic.
:Absolute objectivity is not an inherent part of human nature. Some people just attempt to systematically hide their subjective traits whereas other are compulsively honest about them, the latter of which is a part of my type of autistic mental condition. However, that does not mean that I have ever made dishonest edits that I know of. I think that I have gone to extremes to attempt to word all my information article page Wikipedia edits in a matter-of-fact neutral manner, make certain that they use reliable sources, and to evaluate all of the available facts regarding this situation before reaching a conclusion. Just because I do have a moral system that says "Over 18,000 dead children and around 1 million starving people = not good", this does not remotely make me a disruptive editor, and I think that people without any such ethical concerns would be considerably more concerning, as a lack of conscience is also a form of bias, and of a far more socially destructive variety. Any viewpoint whatsoever is a bias. It is inherently unavoidable. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 08:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Bluethricecreamman====
Will point out the obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process. Won’t argue against the fact that violating [[WP:TPO]] by deleting a discussion isn’t POV-pushing itself by the pro-Pal folks either… I saw the admins saying that ARBPIA states all rules are more especially enforced in this area, but maybe the request for ARBPIA5 could resolve such matters by putting in place much more explicit rules within ARBPIA instead of relying on the entire corpus of wikipedia policy? [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by berchanhimez====
I'd like to say I'm surprised to see this. But I'm not. Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV. While the last move review was closed as "endorse", the closer was quite clear that that was mostly a "no consensus to overturn (but not necessarily meaning there is a consensus that it was correct and proper)". The closure of the last RM "overturned" what was about a 3-to-2 majority (if not more) for a title ''other than the now-current one'', but because of the actions of some editors (not necessarily here), the closer found a "majority" for the current title. Then editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed. And now they're mad that the community is being asked to opine again given the woefully improper close of the last move review that amounts to a supervote.
That all said, since AE has already been unable to take action on a recent report in the area because of the number of users involved and the cross-user issues (tag-teaming, POV pushing, potential off wiki coordination, etc), this report should simply be punted to ARCA as evidence in the already ongoing request for a new arbitration case. Specifically, this case should be used as evidence that Levivich (and others) are attempting to weaponize AE to remove people they disagree with from the topic area so their POV pushing cannot be questioned. Beyond that, the only short term action that should be taken is a prohibition on the most flagrantly abusive users (Levivich coming to mind as making multiple threads here recently) from making AE reports until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. If a user is truly problematic, Levivich should be able to trust that someone else can make a report. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*And just to be extremely clear, I disagree completely with Barkeep's message below that he does not consider threatening another user (BilledMammal) on their talk page to be evidence that should be considered here. Levivich is weaponizing AE, and is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at, because they made the report. Should not be allowed whatsoever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 04:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I will not retract anything, but I will clarify that "their" here was not solely intended as a third-person singular pronoun, but also to cover other editors with whom Levivich frequently tag-teams (whether intentional or not) on reporting editors. As SFR replied on BilledMammal's talk page, it's more than ripe to have the behavior of others involved brought up when evaluating a AE request, because the actions of others influence and inform the evaluation of the reported user. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 05:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*Levivich has now taken to claiming that AE shouldn't review the whole circumstances of the situation when a report is made (in other words, that they want a first mover advantage), and claimed that they intend to "appeal" this even further because they think they should be able to [[WP:OWN|own the topic area]] and [[WP:TENDENTIOUS|have their views on a discussion taken as fact before adequate discussion]], making [[WP:INVOLVED|involved closures/removals]] without repercussions. If this isn't more than enough evidence that Levivich is one of the biggest problems in this topic area ''on either side of the debate'' I'm not sure what would be. Textbook [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]]. I'll say again - if there are disruptive editors there are more than enough other people who can bring those editors to AE. But Levivich's participation in this topic area at this point '''and especially in AE regarding this topic area''' is no longer beneficial or constructive - and it's been that way for quite some time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:To be extremely clear: I am fine if AE admins choose to punt this to arbcom in conjunction with the recent ARCA request for a new case in the Israel-Palestine conflict area. But do it already - stop giving the guise that anything can (or should) be done here if that's going to be the end result. I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom. They are wasting administrator and other user time at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 03:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:To Sean, I say that the mere fact he is reporting potentially valid disruption does not justify his immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere). There are plenty of other editors who can continue to bring editors to this noticeboard and discuss them without Levivich's participation/reporting of them. It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so. The mere fact his complaints seem "facially valid" does not justify the disruption they cause, nor the dogpiling they bring. I haven't seen a single case they've brought recently that has been so urgent as to not be able to wait for the ARCA request to start a case. But what it ''does'' do is create a chilling effect for editors wishing to participate in this area. If you don't agree with Levivich (et al - those who agree with him and show up quickly to comment on these requests and discussions they start/opine in on talk pages) you risk being taken to AE in an attempt to silence you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 06:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|David A}} Wikipedia isn't the place to [[WP:RGW|"be concerned about human rights violations"]]. We report facts, not what we want people to hear. Attempting to pass off disruption as okay because you think they're trying to be "right" is the exact sort of disruption that makes us violate our core content policies in this topic area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 07:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
{{u|berchanhimez}} has utterly misunderstood the situation in their claim that {{red|Levivich … is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, '''their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at,''' because they made the report.}} Levivich’s position has been consistent. Less than a month ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1240705863 Levivich said:] {{tq| Don't use my [AE] report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people. Please respect the time I put into this. '''Unless it's about me,''' or HaOfa, it doesn't really belong in this thread, it belongs in a new one.}} Levivich did not mind his own conduct being examined in the same AE thread, he just wanted other editors to be examined in new AE threads. I look forward for berchanhimez's false claim to be retracted. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 04:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{re|Valereee}} - the context was that the 12 January move, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1195213208 ] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1197331648#Requested_move_12_January_2024] explicitly said: {{tq| This RM is intended specifically to fix the incorrect year disambiguation as soon as possible: a clearly incorrect title shouldn't be left in effect long-term on a heavily viewed page. It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording.}} This move was closed 20 January 2024. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Valereee}} - you are correct. There is a May RM that ended in June and which move review ended in <s>July.</s> '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
**move review ended in August. My bad, thanks {{u|Levivich}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by PhotogenicScientist====
Apologies for the tangent, but I think this is worth clarifying while we're here: The applicability of 1RR to talk pages is not clear from current policy/Arbcom pages.
* Per policy ([[WP:EW]]), the [[WP:3RR|three revert rule]] (and [[WP:1RR]] by extension) applies to all "pages", {{tq|including those in talk and project spaces.}}
* Per ArbCom ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_126#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4]), 1RR is meant broadly to address article content, and specific talk page 1RR "violations" were deemed to not be violations.
So, 2 questions:
# If ArbCom's standard applies to [[WP:ARBPIA]], would that standard apply to all CTOP talk pages? And to all talk pages generally?
# If the above are true, should [[WP:3RR]] be amended to remove the explicit mention of Talk pages?
Thanks. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] if that decision is binding, then can [[WP:3RR]] be summarily updated, on that basis? [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] that separation I (vaguely) understand. Though, the ArbCom 1RR sanction appears to be documented [[Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Standard_set|here]], where "revert restrictions" links directly to the section with [[WP:1RR]]. And in that section, 1RR is explicitly defined as being analogous to 3RR with a few specific changes (none of which mention excepting Talk pages).
::So, can the [[WP:EW#Other revert rules]] section be modified to reflect the ArbCom decision? It's on a policy page, but that section starts off saying its material is from ArbCom. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 18:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning IntrepidContributor===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I'll probably circle back to the substance of this report but from a CU perspective IntrepitContributor is technically {{unrelated}} to Wierzba. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*Turns out I circled back faster than I had anticipated. {{u|IntrepidContributor}} can you please address the substance of why you are restoring the RM, not just why it is/isn't 1RR, and why it is not disruptive. Namely, why a new move discussion is appropriate now given that the previous move review closed 17 days ago. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm unimpressed with Intrepid's response, which has large elements of "I don't agree with the consensus so I'm going to try again and see if I can get my consensus." While I am sympathetic to the idea that the MR closed a month after the move discussion itself and that this is a developing situation, {{tqq|the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Consensus_can_change]. I also continue to have concerns, as I expressed in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_126#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4|May]] with editors reverting formal discussions - such as moves or RfCs - in order to shut them down. Now that May discussion also clarifies that 1RR does not apply here but that doesn't mean that I don't find some behavior here troubling. I'll wait to see if any other admins post thoughts before stating what specific outcome I favor. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]] has the RM been closed? Or was the RM simply reverted so no one knew it was attempted? I was in favor of closing the RM which I note in the comment above. When Selfstudier decided to revert SN, I nearly procedurally closed it myself. If another uninvolved administrator is thinking about closing it, I would support them doing so. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]] I did not check the account against Icewhiz. You're welcome to ask for that to be done at SPI. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_126#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4 this] answers your questions (decided by ArbCom itself rather than AE so it is more binding). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|PhotogenicScientist}}, 1rr is an arbitration sanction, 3rr is a community policy. Two different things. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::PS: ArbCom can't make policy. It can only make decisions within its remit. Which includes this conflict and 1RR. So the decision to update the policy page is up to the community to include (or not). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Up to the community about updating that or not. So if you're interested I'd read [[WP:PGCHANGE]] about what that looks like. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*First, I'm in agreement with Barkeep that the 1RR question is adequately addressed by Arbcom, and there is no violation here. This is very similar to a repeat of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive333#Makeandtoss_and_M.Bitton|May report]] specifically dealing with involved editors vetoing consensus establishing processes. In that report we issued a final warning for exactly what {{u|Levivich}} and {{u|Selfstudier}} did here, and it was clear that such involved closures were inappropriate. Although the RM didn't bring anything new to the table, this is not an uncommon situation in the topic area. Selfstudier [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1198291634 supported a RM three days after the closure of a prior RM], and even if they disagreed with the RM procedurally, they should understand that editors often disagree about when another RM is appropriate. [[Gaza genocide]] has been through several recent RMs in close proximity so another, though not great, isn't so flagrantly out of process, e.g. started by a non-EC editor, that heavily involved editors should have stepped in. This should have been brought to AN or an uninvolved administrator, ''or at the absolute least'' brought up at the editor's talk page.{{pb}}With the unrelated result of CU we're looking at an extended-confirmed editor in good standing who opened a RM two months after the prior request that, while as Barkeep pointed out doesn't really bring anything new, isn't wildly malformed or procedurally flawed beyond repeating a two-month old discussion. Involved editors do not have veto power on discussions that they believe are occurring too close to another recent discussion, or any other formal process. This was already widely agreed upon at AE. That two editors who are taking part in a discussion about involvement and involved actions in this specific topic area would think that this reversion was acceptable is surprising to say the least. Additionally, simply believing that someone is a sockpuppet doesn't free us of [[WP:AGF]], and contributions can not be reverted simply on suspicion of sockpuppetry.{{pb}}In my view the shutting down of a discussion started by an extended confirmed editor in good standing by two involved editors is more of an issue than starting an RM too soon after the last one. [[WP:SNOW]] or [[WP:AN]] exist for this situation. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:SFR: I'm not being glib here: are you saying that the "trout" noted in the closing summary was in actuality a final warning? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Makeandtoss received a final warning for closing the rfc. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::OK. I understand now. I suggest a warning for IC and Selfstudier, and maybe even a narrow topic ban on closing/reverting formal discussions for Selfstudier. I don't see the same history for Levivich and I see attempts to use our processes so I don't see a need for a warning about the conduct in this complaint (which I do not consider [[User_talk:BilledMammal#c-Levivich-20240908144200-We're_going_to_have_a_problem|this message]] a part of). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't see a functional difference between a warning not to close discussions you're involved in and a topic ban. The result of doing it again is likely to be the same. so I think a warning is fine in that instance. A more sternly worded reminder that editors should not be closing or removing consensus establishing discussions when they are heavily involved might be in order, as well. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::That all makes sense to me. I do want to note the general warning will only carry so far - for instance I would not expect everyone in the topic area (even "regulars" at this forum) to see the message. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::To be honest, I don't think we should even have to give such a general warning/reminder, because that is covered in [[WP:CTOP]] and the alert pretty much every editor in ARBPIA has received or given. {{tq|Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice}}. This type of behavior shouldn't need a warning, because [[WP:INVOLVED]] and [[WP:TPG]] already cover it in detail, and editors ''must'' comply with all applicable policies and guidelines and follow best practices. Why are we making sure everyone gets a notification that they ''must'' do this if we're just going to warn for violating PAGs? So, I guess what I mean about a more sternly worded reminder is saying that this already prohibited behavior will be sanctioned if it occurs in the future. We don't need to hand out any more individual warnings for this, because everyone with a CTOP alert has already been put on notice. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{u|Barkeep49}}, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not {{tq|edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.}}? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|Aoidh|Cabayi|Guerillero|HJ Mitchell|Moneytrees|Primefac|Sdrqaz|ToBeFree|Z1720}} here we have another case where at first blush there is one issue to address that AE could probably handle, but it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs. Editors from across the spectrum can't help but to show up and accuse each other of bad faith editing, to make bad faith accusations that everyone supporting an option in an RM are {{tq|People who apparently support Israel's current military actions}}, to demand other editors not take part in AE proceedings, or claim that editor misbehavior in the RM and MR led to a POV issue with an article title. No one seems to think their aspersions or personal attacks are the same as the aspersions and personal attacks other people cast, and this shitshow happens pretty much every time we end up here for any but the most obvious behavioral issues with new or inexperienced editors. There aren't enough AE admins to be expected to take the brunt of the fallout from any significant action, if there is even consensus for anything. Can we maybe put the scoot on getting a case started? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|TarnishedPath}}, I've pinged the few others from those discussions and given an only warning for canvassing. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Levivich}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1197331648 Closed 19 January], New RM opened on the 24th, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1198291634#Requested_move_23_January_2024 Selfstudier], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1201354794 David A] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1204241927 Levivich]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::So there's also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1206944480 Closed 13 February], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1211100016 new RM 29 February], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1211982877 David A], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1212041640 BilledMammal].
*::Both of those RMs had no prejudice towards another RM, as did the RM at the center of this report, which had a consensus against a moratorium. We're, again, looking at standard behavior in the topic area. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Also, if we're looking at the reasoning behind the move, that RM on 29 February was spurred by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1211072465 this], which is about as "there was no consensus for the name I wanted, but I disagree with the previous close" as it gets. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:SFR, I'd need to see the context for {{xt|multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing}}. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
* I looked through this filing and the comments from other editors ... and I have to agree with SFR - the accusations are certainly piling up here. From a quick read ... the following statements stood out to me as being less than optimal (in fact, often completely useless) in helping to resolve issues:
** "Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account"
** "attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation"
** "People who apparently support Israel's current military actions"
** "and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this"
** "That's really a bad-faith interpretation"
** "this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior"
** "obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process"
** "Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV"
** "editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed"
* Note I didn't link these to specific editors because they are examples of the continual low-level sniping, accusations, and off-topic digressions that continually interfere with non-involved admins ability to get to the bottom of issues. I get it that the real world war is inflaming passions all around. But it doesn't help the issue here on wiki if we tolerate this sort of sniping/off-topic digressions/etc. Ideally, all editors would agree to dial things back, and at least try to pretend to pay lip-service to the ideals of editing here. Unfortunately, I think its gone on too long and I certainly can't say that I have any intention of opening myself up to actually taking action in this CT - because why should I expose myself as a target of this level of constant sniping? Why do folks think this is what editors should be acting like? I don't like the idea of treating everyone in this CT like a toddler who needs to be sent to time-out, but honestly - what other choices do non-involved admins have? The best way to discuss things is to not discuss what you think the motivations of other editors are, but rather to engage with sources and facts. None of the above examples do that - and frankly, until that type of editing goes away .. nothing will improve in the CT.
* As to the actual original complaint about breaking 1RR, Barkeep and SFR discussed this above. All the other stuff about possible sockpuppetry in the original complaint - that should have gone to SPI, which is the correct venue for handling possible sockpuppetry. (I note that Barkeep ruled it as the two accounts being unrelated on technical reasons) All the extraneous commentary from many other editors above ... is pretty much useless. So, we're left with - nothing. We can close this without addressing the other issues, as the one complaint that was suitable for this venue appears to have been decided as not a problem - if I'm reading the statements by Barkeep and SFR correct? While I might like to see something done about the digressions by everyone and the kitchen sink, I don't have the bandwith right now to topic ban everyone on my own admin authority nor do I care to deal with the nasty fallout I can see as likely in my future if I did such a thing. Close this and wait for the inevitable next time when we go through this same cycle again. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:There were some warnings above that Barkeep and I were roughly in consensus about, although as I asked above, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not {{tq|edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.}}? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. We can do that with a rough consensus here without having a lone admin eat the inevitable dozen hours of shit at all the appeals. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:: I could get behind topic bans imposed by a consensus of admins here, although I really wish that we didn't have to treat other editors like toddlers. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::ArbCom has a procedure for temporary injunctions to handle the kind of situation described above. I am opposed to AE usurping that authority for itself. I remain open to the warning expressed above. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::No, I don't have the appetite for tbans all around. That feels punitive. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]], {{xt|Scorch the earth}} usually causes a lot of collateral damage. For instance, battleground language could get caught up in it as well. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 10:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
* No opinion on whether this is the wrong venue for 1RR in this case, but starting a new RM that quickly simply because you disagree with the previous one is clearly disruptive, and I do think 1RR should apply here. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:We could choose as AE to impose 1RR on that talk page going forward, but I don't think we can decide the previous reverts were a 1RR violation. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Yeah, I get it. I missed the discussion, but I'd have said reverts on talk pages at CTs are disruptive enough, too. Not going to reopen that recent discussion. :D [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Starship, there was an RM that ended in June [[Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_2#Requested_move_3_May_2024|here]] that was endorsed in a move review at the end of July -- am I reading incorrectly? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::NM, I realize you were responding to a post above, sorry! The context there was the closure itself, which actually invited another RM. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Berchanhimez|Berchanhimez]], re: {{xt|It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so}}. There's a work factor, a knowledge factor, and a risk factor that might prevent others from wanting to mess with AE. The fact someone is more willing to do it is not necessarily evidence of disruption by them. It may simply be they're the only one with both the capacity and the will. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*I find myself unimpressed with the behavior of several participants here. As Ealdgyth notes, the ad homimen snipes serve only to raise the temperature. Socking has been ruled out and 1RR appears to be a non-issue, which doesn't leave much that is actionable. I am opposed to TBANs at this time; it feels disproportionate to the conduct here. I would support logged warnings. The CTOP restrictions do lay out behavioral expectations, but only in the most general terms. I would make a warning explicit as to the behavior that we find to be a problem. For me, in this case, it is the venue-inappropriate sniping, but particularly the bludgeoning of a process in violation of procedural convention when the outcome is not to your liking, or alternatively the use of procedural fine points to shut down a discussion when a previous outcome was to your liking. As far as I can tell many users have engaged in this behavior, on both "sides", and it isn't acceptable in any case. {{pb}} That said, I want to flag a concern with my colleagues' comments above. Sometimes there isn't anything differentiating parties in a dispute, and the appropriate response is either mass sanctions or an ARBCOM referral: but sometimes a single user's behavior is very clearly actionable, because they are pushing the envelope further than any others. I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other - we are in no way obligated to deal with all the disruption at once. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I definitely agree with the approach Vanamonde suggests in the second paragraph. Though admittedly I'm not sure who all that means would get a warning (where the 1st paragraph seems to be going). Per the {{tqq| I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other }} note I'd still favor logged warnings for Selfstudier and IC as an appropriate close out of this. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*Just noting that I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1245044764 closed the RM]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish|Vanamonde93|Valereee|Ealdgyth}} is there any appetite for any sanction out of this report? The most concrete proposal - topic bans all around - has no support. But I do so see some consesnus that there were conduct violations here so just closing it as no action doesn't seem to reflect the consensus any better. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Warning for starting another RM without any new reasoning shortly after the last closed. Warnings for removing the RM as an involved party, and for not discussing with the editor that stated the RM first. Warning for edit warring over the removal of the new RM. Warnings all around for battleground behavior. Lastly, a raise for us. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 22:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I am supportive of each of those warnings. I have not made an exhaustive list of which editors raised the temperature via ad hominem commentary, but that seems to me to be deserving of a warning. I'm honestly inclined to word that last as a reminder - not logged- and apply it to all parties to this report. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*: Frankly, how many times have folks here been warned for some of this? But, if that's the best we can agree on, I can support that. I really wish that warnings didn't feel totally toothless and ineffectual. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*::My quick check of the log earlier this week said there hasn't been warnings about this for the people involved her I found troubling. As such I support SFR's path as well. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:No objections to warnings others think are appropriate. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*We'll double your current salary, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}. Other than that, I think that's a reasonable solution. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jaredlcravens==
{{hat|Appeal declined; the sanctioning administrator was not notified despite repeated requests to do so. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Jaredlcravens}} – [[User:Jaredlcravens|Jaredlcravens]] ([[User talk:Jaredlcravens|talk]]) 18:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
; Sanction being appealed : arbitration enforcement topic ban of gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaredlcravens#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240905201500-Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
===Statement by Jaredlcravens===
Reason for sanction was "You have been sanctioned for clearly being unable to constructively edit on the topic of a person's gender."
Wikipedia page of Imane Khelif I edited (Imane's gender is currently being internationally disputed) says "Khelif was born female," and the sources cited for this are only news article quotes from Imane saying "I was born a female" and "I am a female."
I replaced Khelif "was born female" with "claims to have been born a female" because the sources cited do not evidence Khelif being a female, they only evidence her CLAIM of being female.
My comment to this revision was "Sources listed quote Imane as saying "I am a female," no evidence in these sources of Imane's biological sex. It is merely a claim. So the most factual way of stating this, and the statement that most accurately reflects the sources, is that Imane states or claims to be a woman."
This was a very objective, non emotional, topical comment. Not only do I believe my edit was the most factual and true according to the source, but I believe the comment in question was absolutely constructive. If you look at the arbitration log, you'll see that ScottishFinnishRadish has been continually sanctioning anyone who he/she disagrees with on the subject of sex/gender.
I would like the sanction removed, as I have done nothing to violate the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality decision and my comment was very constructive.
*::Who is the sanctioning administrator, and in what way should I notify? I didn't see this anywhere in the instructions. Thanks. [[User:Jaredlcravens|Jaredlcravens]] ([[User talk:Jaredlcravens|talk]]) 01:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks for your attention, I appreciate it. It's very much an unsupported claim, as Khelif has offered, and there exists publicly, no evidence of Khelif's biological sex. People are capable of lying. "Khelif claims to be a woman" is the most factually and semantically correct way this can be stated. I understand that it would be unproductive and just plain poor writing to have the article on Theodore Roosevelt say he "claims to be male" but in a case like this where there's a legitimate dispute, wording should be approached in a much more careful and selective way. A medical doctor from a professional sports organization claims Khelif is a man, and several professional boxers and coaches in the league are very suspicions of that too. There's enough here to acknowledge that there's serious doubt, and because no evidence exists publicly, it's both false and irresponsible to use Khelif's verbal claim as fact in this article. For instance, you wouldn't allow us to say O.J. Simpson was innocent of the murder on his Wiki. Instead, "found not guilty" or "acquitted" is appropriate and factually true. [[User:Jaredlcravens|Jaredlcravens]] ([[User talk:Jaredlcravens|talk]]) 02:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::No I'm not very experienced here, I assumed the user who sanctioned me would automatically receive notifications of this. I've followed the instructions as best as I could. [[User:Jaredlcravens|Jaredlcravens]] ([[User talk:Jaredlcravens|talk]]) 12:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jaredlcravens ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by Jaredlcravens===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*The cited source ([https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/totally-unacceptable-gender-identity-dispute-surrounding-boxers-lin-yu-rcna164995]) states {{tq|Both boxers have always competed in women’s divisions and there’s no indication that they identify as transgender or intersex}}, clearly indicating that this is ''not'' some dubious or unsupported claim, but rather stated as clear fact in the source's own voice. Inserting that the person "claims" that into the article, as though such a claim were otherwise unsupported, is therefore both a misrepresentation of the source and a violation of the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy, and this editor is rather lucky to just be topic banned rather than indefinitely blocked given those. I would decline this appeal. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Also, it looks like {{u|Jaredlcravens}} has not, as is required, given notification about this appeal to the sanctioning administrator. If that is not shortly done, this can be procedurally closed. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|Jaredlcravens}}, is it somehow difficult for you to see that {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} signed the sanction notice on your talk page? And you need to leave them ''some'' notification; anything is better than nothing. I am starting to doubt whether you are [[WP:CIR|competent]] to participate here at all. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==IOHANNVSVERVS==
{{hat|IOHANNVSVERVS is formally warned against edit warring and violating [[WP:1RR]] in the Palestine-Israel topic area. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning IOHANNVSVERVS===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|XDanielx}} 17:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|IOHANNVSVERVS}}<p>{{ds/log|IOHANNVSVERVS}}</p>
; Sanction or remedy to be enforced
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4]]
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:
The sequence of reverts:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1231928382 2024-06-30] IOHANNVSVERVS adds a new section
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240111201 2024-08-13] xDanielx removes it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240137176 2024-08-13] IOHANNVSVERVS restores it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240495587 2024-08-15] xDanielx removes it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240496216 2024-08-15] IOHANNVSVERVS restores it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240526069 2024-08-15] {{u|Alaexis}} removes it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240537368 2024-08-15] {{u|Nableezy}} rewrites the section, with better adherence to [[WP:V]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240541869 2024-08-15] IOHANNVSVERVS restores his version alongside Nableezy's
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1241366317 2024-08-20] Alaexis removes both
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1241367516 2024-08-20] IOHANNVSVERVS restores both
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1242375839 2024-08-26] xDanielx removes IOHANNVSVERVS' version
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1242408479 2024-08-26] IOHANNVSVERVS restores it (while also reverting my other minor edits, not sure why)
Note the 1RR violation on 2024-08-15. Nableezy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240550920 requested a self-revert]; IOHANNVSVERVS didn't reply.
The pattern of dismissive replies, sometimes with links to [[WP:IDHT]] or [[WP:CIR]], is also frustrating. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240137630 2024-08-13] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240191460 2024-08-13] were perfunctory replies which didn't meaningfully engage with the concerns raised about sourcing. Several such concerns were never really answered. Edit warring without more substantive engagement makes it difficult to reach an understanding or compromise.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any:
N/A
; If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
*Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IOHANNVSVERVS&diff=prev&oldid=1185323426 2023-11-15]
*Filed an AE request on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1233576200 2024-07-09]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
{{yo|Ealdgyth|ScottishFinnishRadish}} An RFC might make sense, but here at AE I'm not asking for a resolution to the content dispute, which I will probably [[WP:LETGO]]. Rather I'm requesting enforcement, at least of 1RR since it's a brightline rule, to ensure that future content disputes can proceed on a fair playing field. I'll try to file more expediently next time (I had a busy few weeks IRL), but I didn't think there was that much time sensitivity around incidents with conduct policies. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping to keep this report simple, and avoid dragging admins into the content dispute. Since I've now been accused of POV-pushing, I'm inclined to respond, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to this request so I'll collapse it. If editors genuinely think I've committed sanctionable POV-pushing, I think a separate request would be the better venue. Here it seems like a distraction, since even if the accusation had merit, it wouldn't excuse the conduct that's the subject of this report. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Summary of my take on the content dispute}}
Levivich and IOHANNVSVERVS seem to hold a similar view, closely related to the content in question, which Levivich expressed as {{tq|the causes of the Nakba [aren't] in dispute}}, or {{tq|there is not scholarly disagreement about the quantity, motivations, or (immediate) causes}}. This is quite an extraordinary claim given the vast body of literature, both old and new, which examines and debates the motivations behind expulsions and the causes of flight. There are certain points of agreement, such as the fact that some significant number of expulsions occurred, but even there the quantity is a matter of controversy.
Of course, it comes down to what reliable sources say. Levivich and IOHANNVSVERVS have been providing sources which are related to the content, but don't really back it in the clear and explicit manner that [[WP:V]] requires ({{tq|must clearly support the material as presented}}, {{tq|the information is present explicitly in the source}}).
The initial sources were very broad statements about things like {{tq|the central facts of the Nakba}} or {{tq|what happened in 1948}}. At first glance, such broad statements seemed to fail the aforementioned standards of verifiability. Since IOHANNVSVERVS seemed adamant that {{tq|the content is well sourced}}, I spent several hours examining the context of the sources, but still couldn't find anything very similar to content like {{tq|violence and direct expulsions ... were the primary cause of the displacement}}.
I [[Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#c-XDanielx-20240813205800-IOHANNVSVERVS-20240813185800|explained]] my attempt at verification and [[Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#c-XDanielx-20240814001000-IOHANNVSVERVS-20240813233200|asked]] for pointers to any explicit statements I might have missed. I didn't get a substantive answer, although IOHANNVSVERVS did add an additional source, Khalidi 88. That one was admittedly more explicit, but far too old for a "Present scholarship" section.
Levivich later joined the discussion and collected additional related sources. At first glance they all appeared to suffer from similar issues, with none explicitly backing the content in question. If one examines the context of each source, most of them are saying that there's no doubt that expulsions or ethnic cleansing occurred, which we all agree on. Beyond that they're not claiming a consensus about causes or quantities. I [[Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#c-XDanielx-20240817063200-Levivich-20240817045700|raised these issues]] but didn't get a very useful reply. It's rather surprising to see him accuse me of bad faith based on that exchange.
I believe Levivich and IOHANNVSVERVS have far too lax an attitude toward [[WP:V]], leading to content with plenty of sources but none that provide genuine verifiability. But I recognize that this claim would be much more complicated to evaluate than that of edit warring, which is why I made the latter the subject this request. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{yo|SashiRolls}} I already acknowledged the more explicit Khalidi 88 source in my (collapsed) summary above. I was summarizing events chronologically; that source was added later. As I mentioned, it's too old for a "Present scholarship" section - it's a 1988 paper which summarizes Segev's 1984 (so 40 year old) book. Please cut out the sarcasm. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 15:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{yo|SashiRolls}} regarding the source you highlighted, such vague language ({{tq|what happened in 1948}}) is not useful without more context. I did read the [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.13166 article] to understand the context, and [[Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#c-XDanielx-20240813205800-IOHANNVSVERVS-20240813185800|explained]] why it didn't back up the content in the clear manner that [[WP:V]] requires. I didn't receive a substantive response. I have never and would never deny that massacres and expulsions occurred. The question at hand was whether works which also examine ''additional'' causes, such as Morris' seminal [http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf 2004 book], are part of the modern scholarship, or outdated historiography as a few editors have claimed. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 19:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IOHANNVSVERVS&diff=prev&oldid=1245044591 2024-09-10]
===Discussion concerning IOHANNVSVERVS===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS====
I will respond shortly. Please don't close this thread. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 21:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Do I have permission to exceed 500 words? [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 21:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]. Here is my statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IOHANNVSVERVS/sandbox#My_statement_regarding_this_AE_report]. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 22:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], I'll note that most (~1000 words?) of my statement is taken up by summarizing and explaing diffs, including quotations of the content which was in dispute and being added or removed in each edit. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 22:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the reason I didn't think I violated 1RR at the time, and why I'm still not sure if I've done so, is because in the first revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=next&oldid=1240495587] I restored both a change to the lead and a sentence beginning "present day scholarship". In the second revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240541869] I did not restore the lead change (per 1RR), and though I again restored the "present day scholarship" sentence, I did so while ''also adding an additional citation.'' So it wasn't just a revert but I also changed the content.
This additional source was added to address Alaexis' objection that "Indeed there is no doubt that the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, but how does it follow from this that "violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces [was] the '''primary cause''' of the displacement of the Palestinians"?"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&action=history&offset=&limit=500] (emphasis in original) The citation I added said "Segev's was the first account published in book form to use the Israeli archives to show that mass expulsions of the Palestinians by the Zionist forces, before May 15, 1948, and in succeeding months by the Israeli army, were the main cause of their flight." Note that the edit of Alaexis that I (partially) reverted had only an edit summary of "no consensus, see the issues at the talk".
So I wasn't just repeating the same edit/reversion, but I substantially changed the content by also adding that citation, addressing what was Alaexis' primary objection on the talk page at the time. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], regarding "If you have concerns about other editors' conducts you are able to file separate AE requests for them." - I really don't understand how AE works in this regard. I could have sworn [[WP:BOOMERANG]] was a thing and that "we're going to look at the entire situation when assessing AE reports. Bringing up the behavior of an editor that was party to a specific dispute is expected."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal&diff=prev&oldid=1244729953] Anyways, I'm a Wikipedia editor not a Wikipedia prosecutor; I have little interest in filing a separate report. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 17:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] "I was referring to the fact that your sandbox (at least from my skim) was alleging misconduct by multiple other editors." The others I accused are parties to this specific dispute. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Andrevan====
I agree with the comments by xDanielx. 2 weeks is certainly not too stale to consider, so I would humbly request admins do not discard that evidence. I recently had an interaction with this user [[User_talk:Andrevan/Archives/64#Removal_of_sourced_content|here]] where they in my opinion, expressed a wrong and confused perspective about reliable sourcing and my responsibility to inform them of changes. While the conversation was quite civil, I think they might need a refresher on Wikipedia policy on ownership of articles and the responsibility of sourcing, verifiability not truth and so on. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 19:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Levivich====
{{tqq|had a busy few weeks IRL}} - had time to make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/XDanielx&target=XDanielx&offset=&limit=50 50 edits] though, including commenting at the AE I filed above. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:This is the same "various causes" POV-pushing that have been featured in my previous AE reports. Look at this discussion in which xDanielx and I participated: [[Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Merge, split, or re-scope?]], where xDanielx [[Special:Diff/1240736563|says]] "I wouldn't agree that the causes are not in dispute" and I and other present like 10 sources that say the causes are not in dispute, sources with statements as clear as:
:* "the hard facts regarding the developments during 1947–48 that led to the Nakba are well known and documented"
:* "now a recognised fact by all but diehard Zionist apologists"
:* "It is no longer a matter of serious dispute..."
:* "There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba."
:* "We don’t need to prove what is now considered a historical fact"
:* "serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948"
:* "What happened is, of course, now well known"
:* "The facts about 1948 are no longer contested"
:(Note how many sources xDanielx brought to the discussion.)
:How does an editor come out of ''that'' discussion, with ''those'' sources, and then make [[Special:Diff/1242375839|this edit]], with the edit summary {{tqq|Per talk discussions, the sources don't really support this...}}?
:Yeah, on Aug 15 it was a 1RR violation, but this "various causes" POV-pushing is a more serious problem. There is no good-faith way to interpret those sources and say "I wouldn't agree that the causes are not in dispute." And there is no good-faith interpretation of that talk page discussion as consensus that the sources don't really support this. And there is no good-faith interpretation of the sources in which they don't support that content. Words are written in black and white, they mean what they say; "no serious dispute" means no serious dispute. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 23:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::@Van: thanks, I will do so, due to RL it'll probably be a day or two. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by SashiRolls====
After detailed reading of the complaint, it becomes clear that pillars #2 (NPOV) and #4 (civility = no editwarring) were violated by repeated removal of well-sourced DUE content. This complaint seeks to penalize the defendant for unplugging the chainsaw being used to fell the pillars without using proper Briteline<sup>{{small|TM}}</sup> safety gloves.-- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 23:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Reading glasses for xDanielx}}
xDanielx: {{tq|I spent several hours examining the context of the sources, but still couldn't find anything very similar to content like}} {{purple|violence and direct expulsions ... were the primary cause of the displacement}}.
Somehow xDanielx missed this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACauses_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=1241372526&oldid=1241368328] -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 08:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
The original text added on {{diff2|1231928382|30 June}} that xDanielx repeatedly removed contained the following: {{tq|This has established what Ilan Pappé has summarised as the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’, a process involving {{highlight|massacres and expulsions at gunpoint}}. In light of the ever-growing historiography, serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948.}} (dated July 2022) I am certain that admins can judge whether a boomerang is appropriate for denying even now in this report that "massacres and expulsions at gunpoint" are "violence and direct expulsions". -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 18:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{Ping|xDanielx}} I'm sure it has escaped the attention of absolutely nobody that Benny Morris is name-checked no fewer than 45 times in the entry. This does not explain why you began edit-warring to remove a different POV than Mr. Morris' starting on 13 Aug. Your claim that "what happened in 1948" is vague in the context of [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.13166 this source] is quite simply false. "What happened in 1948" had already been clearly exposed earlier in the same section on Nakba denial: {{tq|The Nakba—Arabic for catastrophe—is the term used to capture the events of 1948 which led to over 80 per cent of the Palestinian population being {{highlight|violently forced to flee}}, and becoming stateless refugees in and outside historic Palestine}}. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by Alaexis===
{{ping|Vanamonde93}}, just wanted to respond to your comment below. You're right that my edit summary wasn't well phrased. What I intended to say was that the provided sources do not support the change but now that I re-read it I can see that what I wrote was different. I'll make sure I'll do better in future especially in the IP area. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
===Result concerning IOHANNVSVERVS===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*By my (admittedly somewhat tired and cranky) count - the latest diff listed is 15 days old. I can't say I think that uninvolved admin time is best utilized in investigating something that is that stale. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 18:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*: The thing is... *I* am busy. Like SUPER busy. It's fall - I'm trying to put some weight on some older horses before winter, it's crunch time with work, I have clients wanting pedigrees, so why should *I* drop everything to deal with something this messy that the filer didn't think was important enough to deal with when it happened, but rather waited until they had time. Uninvolved admin time is not an unlimited resource... [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 19:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*This is long-term edit warring from multiple parties, there's sniping in the talk page discussion about it, and there's no RFC. The last revert was two weeks ago, and multiple parties were edit warring so unless we want to drop some 0RR sanctions there's not too much to do here right now. {{u|XDanielx}}, start an RFC. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Logged warning is fine with me. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*This is a bright line rule violation. So I think we should log something about that, but agree that something which last happened two weeks ago (at least in a 1RR sense) is stale. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] how many words do you need? If it's more than say an extra 100 put it in a sandbox and we can respond substantively. If it's 100 or less go for it. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Personally I find 1800+ words for an initial statement too much (even granting some grace for theoretical [[Brandolini's law]]) but will leave a final decision for some other uninvolved administrator. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Skimming over your sandbox draft I noticed any number of ways that it felt that it could be made slimmer and part of the value of a word count, for me, is to force people to hone in on their strongest points (we can't all be [[q:Blaise Pascal#Pascal plus longue|Blaise Pascal]]). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::IO, I appreciate you focusing your reply and hope to substantively analyze it soon. If you have concerns about other editors' conducts you are able to file separate AE requests for them. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] a boomerang is a possibility for the person filing the report (though as Vanamonde notes below, some things deserve their own thread). I was referring to the fact that your sandbox (at least from my skim) was alleging misconduct by multiple other editors. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] yes I understand they are party to the dispute. However, the only two ediotrs who are party to this AE thread (at least at the moment) are you and xDaniel. So a boomerang is possible for xDaniel for their conduct (which is even older than yours) but you would need to file a seperate thread for anyone else you think should be sanctioned. Speaking only for myself, if the only thing is this edit war I agree with Vanamonde that you reverted more than anyone else and so if all that's happening to you is a logged warning it is unlikely that more than that would happen. And it's possible that less would be done. If there is other conduct with those editors that you want to highlight that is different. But again should go in its own AE report. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:After reading IOHANNVSVERVS' reply, I don't see anything that suggests this was not a brightline 1RR violation. A revert is still a revert {{tqq|whether involving the same or different material}} and so the small changes IO talks about doesn't change that they were repeatedly reverting this content and did so against a number of other editors. Absent any admin feeling otherwise, I plan to process the logged warning. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*I would support a logged warning. This is a bright-line violation, per BK49, and I'm also seeing two more reverts than anyone else has made, unless the timeline is incomplete. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Levivich, based on what you have provided so far I can't tell if this is a legitimate content disagreement based on different sources or if xDanielx is engaging in sanctionable POV-pushing - but I take claims of source misrepresentation seriously, and I would suggest you file a separate report. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 23:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*I am still working through the sandbox report. A good bit of it doesn't appear actionable to me, and it does not change my view of the need for a logged warning about 1RR: there is rarely any urgency to fix what you perceive as an unjustified revert. That said, I wanted to note my unhappiness with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1238418684] this revert by {{U|Alaexis}}. That edit summary is demonstrably false: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&oldid=1232056462 this] is the state of the talk page at the time, and sources supporting the disputes content are prominently featured. I take no position on whether they are sufficient, or whether the disputed content should have been included; but sources had been provided, and claiming they had not is plain dishonest. It's also a very poor look to make that sort of revert, and then fail to engage on the talk page for another 10 days [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Alaexis&page=Talk%3ACauses_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&server=enwiki&max=]. xDanielx is, on the other hand, engaging substantively on the talk page. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{re|Alaexis}} It's encouraging that you undertake to do better, but my concern is broader than imprecision in your edit-summary. It looks very much like a reflexive revert with no prior and little subsequent engagement with the substance, which is evidence to me of treating the subject like a battleground. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ecpiandy==
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Ecpiandy}} – [[User:Ecpiandy|Ecpiandy]] ([[User talk:Ecpiandy|talk]]) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
; Sanction being appealed : Arab–Israeli related article topic ban
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
; Notification of that administrator : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&direction=next&oldid=1245054504
===Statement by Ecpiandy===
I was unaware of recent Wiki rules in relation to 1RR on Palestine articles and was not actively checking my talk page; I am a long-standing good faith Wikipedia editor of more than 10 years now there won't be any more issues on articles related to this (or any) topic going forward, you can see through my historic time here I attempt to contribute to articles in a positive way. If it is possible to get a second opportunity to participate in articles relating to this topic I would be grateful; lots of the time it just for simple things like updating statistics rather than attempting to be involved in any debate.
===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (Ecpiandy appeal)===
I warned them for edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ecpiandy&diff=prev&oldid=1236485422 here] and two days later they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides&diff=prev&oldid=1236853715 continued to edit war] and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmiri&diff=prev&oldid=1236854029 canvassed another editor] to help them continue the edit war. Then in early August they violated their topic ban several times, which I blocked them for. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ecpiandy ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by Ecpiandy===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*Longtime editor runs afoul of expectations in a contentious topic is something I have a lot of time for. I cannot, however, justify overturning this topic ban at this time. Per the criteria, the action followed the criteria (standard 1) and was reasonably necessary to prevent damage (standard 2) given the extensive set of warnings, the number of issues, and the subsequent topic ban violation. For me standard 3, {{tqq|no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption}} is the most favorable one to Ecpiandy and for that I would want to see 3-6 months of problem free editing elsewhere. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'd tend to agree with Barkeep49. "Not actively checking my talk page" is really not a great idea; if you're in the middle of making a series of edits and a talk page message notification pops up, it is probably unwise to carry on with the rest of your planned edits before you go see ''why'' someone is leaving you a message. And if you don't, well, everyone would just say "I didn't see it", so we have to presume that if a talk page message gets left, it will get read. So, I would decline the appeal, with the same note that if good quality editing is done over the next several months in other areas, I would very much consider lifting the sanction at that point. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
* I'd need to see a firm commitment to checking your talk page and really any pings, too. Just get into the habit of checking to see if there are notifications at the top of the page. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
==Colin==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Colin===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Snokalok}} 22:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Colin}}<p>{{ds/log|Colin}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality| Contentious topics - GENSEX]]
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
Colin has severe issues regarding GENSEX topics in a UK context.
Oftentimes when a source written by the British government regarding transgender topics is added, some editors will - while agreeing that the source merits inclusion in the article - nonetheless discuss its due weight and neutrality, often citing the UK govt’s record of targeted human rights abuses against trans people (as documented by the UN and the Council of Europe), as well as citing criticisms by reliable orgs against the particular source in question (the widespread MEDORG criticism of the Cass Review for instance).
Colin’s response on this topic is often to come in and deliberately misrepresent anything less than total deference as a personal {{tq|xenophobic}} attack on anyone of British nationality, and assert that editors or reliable sources from outside the UK have less right to doubt the British government than British ones do, accusing those who do of being political activists.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214652375 March 20 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1232156187 July 2 2024] ‘You, personally, are American, so you don’t get to criticize British government sources’ along with aspersions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214573067&title=User_talk%3AYour_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diffonly=1 March 19 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227530607 June 4 2024] Absolute tirades against YFNS, containing pretty much everything but the kitchen sink.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1214536786&title=Talk%3APuberty_blocker&diffonly=1 March 19 2024] Telling other editors to save their editorial opinions for a blog, aspersions of bigotry against the British, accusations of bad faith, accusations of editing in service of {{tq|trans politics}}.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245146596 September 11 2024] Calling the use of the term “trans kids” {{tq|fringe activist-language}} and attributing its use to American trans activism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1230376397 June 22 2024] Calling everyone who shares YFNS' points {{tq|amateurs who are so filled with activist rage that they don't even read the documents carefully}}.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1218074663 April 9 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1235276994 July 18 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1232536893 July 4 2024] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235701797 July 20 2024]
Aspersions of bigotry against the British + accusations of bad faith against Hist and myself (I was saying that if someone wikilinks “Gender exploratory therapy” and it redirects to the GET section of the conversion therapy page, that’s not a bigoted edit. He considered that me making it personal for some reason? I've never been through conversion therapy)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214682371 March 20 2024]
Mass accusations of bad faith and bigotry against the British, aspersions of being from ({{tq|some little twitter bubble}}):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214664561 March 20 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1218084560 April 9 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1220688623 April 25 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LokiTheLiar&diff=prev&oldid=1220070001 April 21 2024] Accusations of bad faith.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1218725070 April 13 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1236274587 July 23, 2024] Miscellaneous aspersions. {{tq|Please base your arguments on what actually appears in the report and not what twitter feeds}}, {{tq|This is political game playing.}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214685536 March 20 2024][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1233659733 July 10 2024] Personal attacks. {{tq|a matter for clever people, not wikipedians or twitterati}}, {{tq|embarrassing themselves on the internet}}
I don't know what the best solution is. But I do know that this behavior makes it exponentially more difficult to collaborate constructively. I tried saying as much on his page on May 9th, but he quickly turned it into a discussion on our personally held views regarding transphobia in the UK which I abandoned once it was clear this wouldn't change anything.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
NA
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Void_if_removed| Participated in this case]]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
Requesting word + diff extension
Edit @[[User:Colin]] YFNS uses she/they pronouns, not he/him
Edit 2 For whatever it’s worth, I would like to acknowledge that my own behavior does need improvement, and it’s something that I intend to work towards.
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|Colin}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&diff=prev&oldid=1245254954]
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Colin===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Colin====
There's text in quotes and green attributed to me but that I didn't write. And it seems most times Snokalok has confused me attacking the authors of weak sources and claimed those words were directed at editors, which would be clear with careful reading in context. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 08:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The [[Cass Review]] was commissioned and published by [[NHS England]]. It in turn commissioned two systematic reviews by [[National Institute for Health and Care Excellence|NICE]] and published [https://cass.independent-review.uk/nice-evidence-reviews/ here]. Subsequently seven systematic reviews were commissioned from the [https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/ York University Centre for Reviews and Disemination]. Those were published [https://adc.bmj.com/pages/gender-identity-service-series here] in the [[Archives of Disease in Childhood]].
These systematic reviews, which form the evidence-base for the Cass Review, have been repeatedly attacked on the basis that they are from the UK, and thus prejudged transphobic, and should be no more considered reliable than if they were published by the government of Putin's Russia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1214254720 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1229938597 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1232833346 here]. I have not accused any editor of xenophobia but have repeatedly complained that xenophobic comments have been made to dismiss these top tier sources. As others have noted, this happens elsewhere on Gensex topics. It seems unlikely, does it not, that this British transphobia has infected not just Dr Cass, chosen to chair an independent review as "a senior clinician with no prior involvement or fixed views in this area", but the NICE team, the eight world-class researchers at York and the editor and peer reviewers of the Archives of Disease in Childhood.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1230376397 This comment] repeats internet disinformation that the Cass Review excluded transgender health experts.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227530607 This post on YFNS talk page] is in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1227469546 this post] which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it.
It seems, given some of the comments posted, I haven't been clear enough that I'm enthusiastically attacking the authors of an awful source, rather than editors. I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that. YFNS claims I am here to provide a "knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review", and WAID notes that there's a US-politics battle to discredit the Cass Review. I'm not concerned with that battle. I'm concerned that medical matters on Wikipedia stick to the highest MEDRS sources, and don't repeat disinformation and conspiracy theories, from whatever side makes them. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Wrt Loki's "ridiculous and inflammatory accusation", I didn't make any of that up. It is all there in the sources YFNS cites above and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227614032 in their talk page response]. The "ghostwritten" part comes from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&diff=prev&oldid=1223078435 this post on my talk page by Snokalok] where they describe their "side" as "This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence" and later refer to it as "a theoretically top MEDRS source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org". But they are referring to the same conspiracy theory as YFNS. There is no reliable evidence that "SEGM and Genspect were[] involved at almost every step of the process". Every step?
Wrt YFNS accusation of misogynistic language, I recall YFNS told me they didn't do twitter, so may be unaware that Horton's twitter handle is "@FierceMum". Their language. I joined Wikipedia 19 years ago to edit medical articles as "someone's dad". I'm frequently reminded of the limitations of "parent" as a medical qualification. Horton is an activist, with no medical or clinical research background, whose body of research consists of interviewing their social media circle. And yet editors cite their opinion as though stronger than our systematic reviews and all the learned bodies in the UK, as though, at the very top of the [[WP:MEDASSESS|MEDRS source quality pyramid]], above the nine systematic reviews Cass commissioned, lies "Activist Opinion". -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 09:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] I have the greatest respect for you three admins so please take what I say in that light. Have a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1245426724#Colin the state of the AE request when I commented more fully]. I have 500 words to respond to 20 diffs from Snokalok which, as Barkeep acknowledges, are full of misquotes and characterising my words in the worst possible light. And at the bottom of the page, I have three admins making comments like "some of the diffs I've looked at concern me" and "there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions" and "language raises the temperature" and "need to take a look at their own behavior" and "treating it as a battleground is a problem, and us-vs-them language". Every one of these comments are undiffed, and ''if made by any other editor at this venue'', would be met with stern warning, as Barkeep did to Licks-rocks, of "behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs..". Do I argue with these opinions? No, they are fair. I respond that I would be "more than keen" to have a discussion with any one of you about my tone and language, but at another venue.
I was unaware that it was expected that I explicitly acknowledge my sins vs respectfully listen to what you guys have to say when you examine the diffs, which I certainly have. Of course my post to YFNS about her conspiracy theories was inappropriate in tone and language. You guys have already said as much, in a handwavy way, and I have not disputed that one bit. But Vanamonde93, I had at this point, no intention of seeking administrative action against this user, nor do I think ANI is the first step in dispute resolution or the place to resolve content disputes. If you may allow me to poke you a bit in return: I'm surprised an editor with a decade of experience thinks it is. If by "administrator attention" you believe admins are wiser than other editors, what can I say. Void is testament to the fact that a stern warning can rescue an editor from a topic ban, but there is light and day between the post I made to void and the one I made to YFNS. Did you think I can't see that and need to say it out loud like a child? If you did, I feel insulted and wonder why you think the criticisms you three have made aren't acknowledged and accepted. That simply isn't my character, which I think Barkeep, WAID and Sandy can attest to. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, I can only repeat what I said earlier {{tq|"I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that."}} Wrt my first post, you should consider I woke up to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1245298746 this] and posted a brief comment, addressing some of my concerns about the opening post, before I could start my day job. When I could return properly to this in the evening, you had added your concerns and advice. My feeling really at that point is that I had three good admins who would review my edits, weren't fooled by the misrepresentation by Snokalok, and could decide fairly whether this was an editor they want editing in this area, and make a reasoned decision as a result. I was seriously tempted not to write anything more and just let what will be will be.
I am concerned that you think an editor of 20 years should be made to perform a little dance of contrition for everyone's amusement, in order to get a more lenient sentence. Or think this weird forum with our own little boxes to write in, and word counts that seem to have gone out the window, is a sensible place for an editor to engage meaningfully with their peers/superiors about good editing practice and improvement. If you guys think I'm a valuable editor who they'd like to work in this area, if you agree with me there are issues with quality MEDRS sources being dismissed on prejudicial grounds, that disinformation is being pushed and outrageous conspiracy theories credulously promoted, and would like an editor of my calibre to deal with that, then I already made an offer to any of you to join me somewhere else for a bit of learning and improvement. That would be a respectful response I could work with. You have other options too. If you feel this area is not a good one for my mix of strengths and weaknesses, say so as one might to a friend or colleague, and I'll heed that advice. While this particular rabbit hole has rather distracted my contributions, as a fascinating area of medical controversy, I'd be off editing elsewhere. If instead you think a logged warning is called for, and I'm not arguing it isn't a fair, if rather algorithmic, response to a review of my conduct, it will certainly be enthusiastically preventative. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Aquillion]]<s>what a bizarre post.</s> [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]: "Wikipedia is not ... the place to carry on ideological battles" and yet you accuse me of it ("an approach some some of the comments by others above also reflect") by taking at face value the attacks on me by [[WP:SPA|single purpose activist accounts]], who are finding [[WP:MEDRS]] inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause. Those editors may view Wikipedia as a BATTLEGROUND, and that surfaces in the way they view and describe me as an editor, and the fact I'm the third editor in this area to be taken to AE in last the couple months, the previous one still on this page. And [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]: "a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". This is most ironic as you (and several of the admins below) accuse me of this and other things, without any diffs or quotes, which would be helpful. Your entire post is absent any diffs or quotes of me. And then thirdly, not only am I to be sentenced by credulously accepting complaints of editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy, that sentence is to be made all the more harsh because I have colleagues who can see some merit in my contributions. Both editors you quote praise me as a defender of our core policies, and [[WP:MEDRS]] in particular. Neither of them have said anyone should aspire to my writing approach, and Sandy is harshly critical of that. As for whether this or that admin action encourages others towards continuing or worsening behaviour, have you not considered the the admins could close this with very much such a warning to other editors in prose. Why on earth does everything need to be done with the tools? I am an adult human being, Aquillion, not a child to be made an example of in front of the class. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I would like to repeat Sandy's request that I be given quotes and diffs to respond to by admins minded to give or log a warning. Barkeep, the "baseless accusations of bad faith" you mention is hard for me to deal with without specifics. I suspect there is a misunderstanding about who I'm accusing of bad faith (e.g. sources that promote disinformation and conspiracy theories). Similarly with the aspersions that SFN mentions without specific quotes. That would help me a lot. I completely get it about the tone and the temperature raising and the saying things that shouldn't have been said. Sandy's comments have been the most helpful so far and I'm committed to fixing this writing approach/style, no matter where I end up editing from now on. Finding oneself here is not easy, folks, particularly when the opening request contains claims I said things I didn't say (which remains unstruck), describes all the diffs in "the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light" and which generally "misrepresent" what occurred... and today I find an editor saying that because I have friends, who admire at least some aspect of my contributions, my head should be stuck on a spike as a warning to everyone else. Sigh. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by berchanhimez====
This isn't the first AE request that's been made against editors trying to follow MEDRS, and it's unlikely to be the last. There is a campaign by users for whom the ideas in the Cass Review don't support their political views, and so they are trying to get it removed from other articles (even though it's the strongest type of MEDRS - an independent systematic review) and to disparage it in its own article. Has Colin been less than ideal in his demeanor? Yes, but this is yet another example of users trying to get "first mover advantage" and remove him from this topic area so they can continue their [[WP:CIVILPOV|"civil" POV pushing]]. The points Colin make about other editors [[WP:RGW|ignoring the actual words of the document]] and cherrypicking sources/words to support their view are completely accurate, even if not worded ideally. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 23:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:At this point, I think the evidence provided by starship.paint and others has come to the point that this should be punted to ArbCom as well. It's obvious that the primary problem here isn't Colin's speech, but those he is speaking to, who are trying to push a POV on Wikipedia. I'd point out the behavior of those Colin was "rude" to here in the Telegraph RfC and the following discussions.. but I'm sure any admin curious can go review those if they aren't already up to speed on that situation. This is a clear situation (just like Israel-Palestine) where the topic area as a whole has editors trying to push POVs civilly, and AE is not equipped to handle cases like this where someone was, admittedly, a little rude, but the behavior they were responding to is extremely damaging to Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 02:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:Vanamonde, as to {{tq|There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this.}} - why would this be a logged warning? If you believe that there's {{tq|[so] much misrepresentation in this report}} that {{tq|[a] good faith [editor] could not produce this}}, why should a warning suffice? Warnings are for good faith editors that may stray from the desired path (like Colin), not for editors that are acting in bad faith. Someone acting in bad faith should be removed from the topic area, as they've shown they cannot act in good faith in the topic area (or beyond the topic area, but this is AE, not a place that can issue site bans). To be clear, I am very happy that at least Vanamonde is seeing that the root problem is other bad faith editors, not Colin. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 03:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
==== Statement by SandyGeorgia ====
I consider myself a friend of Colin, and consider him our finest medical editor; I saw the AE notice on his talk page. {{pb}} Considering Barkeep49's comment about the length of the original post, I looked only at the most recent diff ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245146596 this one, from 11 September 2024, today], noting the others are many months old), and find nothing amiss. It takes a ''lot'' of time and effort to type up something that comprehensive to explain the confusion that results in the misuse of language used to describe the cohort, and that misuse appears to have substantial consequences. Some editors have a hard time with Colin's typical command of the facts and the literature, and that diff seems to indicate that and is mischaracterized. The problem with referring to the entire cohort as 'trans kids' is well explained by Colin. Perhaps I should look further, but I agree with Barkeep49 that the original poster should narrow their list down to the more meaningful (assuming there are others that are problematic). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:I am on a plane all day; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49&diff=prev&oldid=1245345305 request at BK49 talk] for OP to better refine post using non-mobile diffs. {{pb}} {{ping|Barkeep49|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, I also request that admins on this page strictly enforce the need for diffs; the post by Licks-rocks is replete with undiffed assertions amounting to a diffless personal attack. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
: Recognizing Barkeep49's desire for the target not to sprawl, I want to at least say before I head for the airport that [[#Statement by starship.paint (3)]] regarding the denigration of highly reliable British sources (and I don't mean ''The Telegraph'') throughout trans-related discussions in favor of less reliably sourced content is also something I have seen at other articles than those raised here; if admins decide they want to explore that aspect further here, then I'll provide diffs, but if this poor sourcing continues to disrupt talk discussions, it would likely be the subject of a separate AE. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I have caught up on the diffs only somewhat; the amount of misrepresentation and misquoting of Colin is concerning and even more concerning is that there are still undiffed personal attacks on the page (editors seem to think that because someone said Colin said X, or they think Colin said X, or they took Colin to task for allegedly saying X, that is the same as a diff to Colin said X), but what is troubling me more at this point is the realization that behaviors I have seen on other articles are so prevalent throughout the articles mentioned in this AE, which I don't edit-- and that underlying problem is fueling these recent bouts. There seems to be quite an unaddressed problem still in the GENSEX area, and the amount of effort that editors who understand good sourcing are having to expend on basics may be leading to some exhaustion and frustration. I'm concerned that we could end up with no qualified editors to take on the amount of POV pushing that is occurring, as I'm aware we are already missing since July one very good editor in this content area; something broader may be needed to address an underlying sourcing problem, and on that topic, Colin is one of the best, and his absence from ''any'' content area would not be a good thing. WAID may be on to something in saying that some RFCs might be in order, and the editors who are disrupting talk pages and frustrating sound editing practices need to be called out to take some pressure off of those editors who understand the literature and good sourcing. It may be easier for the community or admins to sanction those who adhere to good sourcing but lose patience, but avoid taking on civil POV pushing by those who advocate for poor sourcing that supports a POV, but something must be done to address the underlying problem so we don't exhaust our best editors.{{pb}} It also strikes me that if the "trans kids" misrepresentation or misunderstanding from 11 September is what re-ignited all of this (most other diffs are months old), that suggests this AE wasn't exactly helpful, as WAID says. The April-published [[Cass Review]] led to some heated discussions, concerns, and hyperbole which have hopefully subsided somewhat; the 11 September "trans kids" situation was not a valid example to kick that back up.{{pb}} After striking out when trying to glean anything of substance by reading the diffs in the order presented, I instead reverted again to examining the next more recent diff from the OP—[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1236274587 this one from 23 July]. I know Colin well enough to know that he can probably see that the point he made in the 20:32 23 July post could have been equally well made without two sentences: "This is political game playing" and "This is some new invented nonsense by activists who can't accept a middle ground as that is giving an inch to US politicians." Having seen some of the POV pushing via poor sourcing, I can understand how frustrating it must be to try to edit in that area (I don't even try), but my advice for Colin going forward is: Colin, you are rarely wrong in your analysis on Wikipedia, but in real life and on Wikipedia, one isn't always applauded for being right—even less so when you have the intellect, knowledge, and writing ability to show incisively how often and sometimes how badly others are wrong. To make progress in this area, it may be helpful to review your posts to be sure you leave some face-saving room for other editors. That may be the faster route for moving this fraught content area to where it needs to go; saying less is more, particularly when some of the bad sourcing speaks for itself and doesn't require your incisive illumination. That is, I might sum up the commentary by the three admins below (BK, SFR and VM93) as "even when you are taxed by explaining things over and over, try to tame your cleverness, rub it in less, and edit the frustration about having to repetitively address poor sourcing out of your comments before you hit send ... just the facts will get the job done". {{pb}} BK49, I know you are aware of this, but others may not be: at [[WP:ARBMED]], the statement you referenced about Colin "degrading discussion" ''barely'' passed. Compared to other findings of fact in that case passing at 8 to 0, or 6 to 0, that statement about Colin passed at 4 to 1, so there wasn't a very strong consensus among the arbs about that statement. I hope you will all factor that as to whether a logged warning for Colin would be helpful here; my view is that more concrete and valid examples of what Colin might do differently would be more useful at this point. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Aquillion}}, I acknowledge not having gotten through all of the diffs, but I have yet to see an example of an aspersion, much less an extended history of one. I have pointed out above one example of two unhelpful sentences describing poor sources-- that are nothing like some of the aspersions cast at Colin on this very page with diffs that don't support them. It would be helpful if ''anyone'' participating in this thread could give a concrete example of Colin casting an aspersion on any editor so that could be addressed and responded directly to, if there is one. It would at least benefit to understand the standard that Colin is being held to, so that the same standard can be upheld at other articles in the GENSEX realm. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 04:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Colin}}, I think you could strike "what a bizarre post"; viewed logically, you make valid points explaining why you see the post as bizarre, but the statement only adds heat, and your points are understood without it.{{pb}} Having looked at the alleged "aspersion" diff, now working back by date, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1233659733 to the next example listed in the original complaint as a "personal attack"], I'm not seeing that either. Since this is what I find on every diff I view, I would appreciate someone/anyone claiming a personal attack or aspersion posting a diff that actually shows one of those. We already have Colin acknowledging on this page a post to another editor's talk that was "inappropriate in tone and language"; the continued allegations of personal attacks and aspersions, sans diffs, are aspersions. Aquillion, I'm not defending aspersions; I haven't seen a diff where they have actually occurred. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 08:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
==== Statement by WhatamIdoing ====
I don't think that this is helpful. The subject is difficult. There is the expected amount of POV pushing. This AE report feels to me like an effort to "win" a content dispute by banning people who disagree with you.
Consider the complaint described as "Calling the use of the term “trans kids” fringe activist-language and attributing its use to American trans activism."
"Trans kids" was a term I used [[Talk:Cass Review#Downplaying facts|a current discussion]] about whether we need [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution for a statement that {{xt|"children with comorbidities did not receive adequate psychological support"}}. "Children with comorbidities" means kids on [[NHS England]] who have been referred for gender services and who also have [[autism]], [[anxiety]], [[depression]], [[eating disorder]]s, and other complex needs that are ''not'' about being trans. Some editors want this statement to be labeled as merely something [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1244764273 "The report claimed"]. (I disagree; I consider it a violation of [[MOS:CLAIM]] and [[WP:INTEXT]].)
This content background is necessary to understand why Colin objected to me using "trans kids" to describe these kids: "getting a referral" isn't the same as "being trans", just like "''not'' getting a referral" isn't the same as "''not'' being trans". I conflated the comorbid population with the trans population. We have sources saying that at the start of the multi-year Cass Review, trans advocates agreed that not every kid who was referred was actually trans, and that this shifted during the last months so that a small portion (that'd be "Fringe", right?) of the trans advocates (otherwise known as "activists", right?) started saying that every single kid who got a referral needed medical transition (e.g., puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) and should be expected to have a lifelong trans identity.[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/gender-identity-services-for-children-and-young-people-navigating-uncertainty-through-communication-collaboration-and-care/D0F6B23F37C3D82B38C2470DF65854C9] Colin asked all of us to be careful and precise, which IMO is fair. However, when you pull Colin's comment out of context, or just glance over the discussion, it can be unfairly twisted to sound transphobic.
Snokalok's contribution to this discussion is to say that the Cass Review is so controversial that INTEXT attribution is appropriate even when it's saying something undisputed,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review#c-Snokalok-20240910111400-Berchanhimez-20240910031100] and to say that psychological support may be a code word for [[conversion therapy]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review#c-Snokalok-20240910163400-WhatamIdoing-20240910162600]
Overall, I do feel like there are a lot of Americans (including me) involved in an article about [[NHS England]], and I do occasionally feel like one "side" sees it in terms of American politics. There seems to be a fear that if this report isn't criticized as heavily as possible on as many grounds as possible – we even talked about whether to mention a typo in a source that was cited in the final report[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_7#c-WhatamIdoing-20240622233200-VintageVernacular-20240622221100] – then bad things will happen ''outside'' of England. This is IMO just to be expected. I believe this article will be a lot easier to write in five years. In the meantime, we have to muddle through as best we can. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:Meta comment: Given the propensity to re-litigate content disputes (e.g., is a given person properly described as "an expert on transgender healthcare"? Is this or that source actually suitable for claiming that a different source is wrong or transphobic?), I wonder whether AE has ever inflicted a series of specified RFCs as a sanction.
:In the meantime, perhaps you all would try to confine your comments to the [[I-message]] format: "I felt ____ when he ____. Instead, I think he should _____" – and if the words you want to put in the second blank sounds anything remotely close to "disagreed with my POV/a source that supports my POV", then don't post it here, because that's not actually what AE is for. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]], it has indeed been difficult to get editors who are familiar with MEDRS to work on these pages for any length of time. I think this will get better over time, when we will have a greater number, and hopefully better quality, of academic sources to work with. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by LokiTheLiar====
As a participant in many of these discussions, and as someone who otherwise greatly respects Colin, I'm posting here mainly to say that I agree with Snokalok's complaint. Colin especially has a bad habit of casting weird nationalistic aspersions when anyone argues that the British government or media may not be a reliable source, regardless of their evidence for this. I should also point out he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235697107 does] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235701797 this] on non-MEDRS pages as well (those diffs are both from a dispute on [[LGB Alliance]], and they're not the only two diffs like it from that discussion), so it's definitely not just "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS". [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that to say [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1227469546 this] {{tq|repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis}} is pretty obviously the sort of ridiculous and inflammatory accusation that we're here about. What YFNS actually said is that SEGM and Genspect, two anti-trans hate groups (very well sourced on their pages), consulted on the Cass Review (and that therefore the Cass Review's conclusions are suspect for bias). And they did, YFNS gives [https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/06/05/genspect-segm-designated-anti-lgbtq-hate-groups-by-splc/ a source] for that too. The Los Angeles Blade is a subsidiary of the [[Washington Blade]], who our article describes as {{tq|often referred to as America's gay newspaper of record}}, and so there's every reason to think they're reliable for this information. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] I stand by my characterization of that source, and in fact knew that from the beginning. We don't usually question our source's sources here. If a newspaper is willing to republish a blog post, it's endorsing the factual content of the post. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 15:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
==== Statement by starship.paint (3) ====
I just read the diffs above by Loki on supposed {{red|weird nationalistic aspersions}} by Colin, as well as some of the context. It seems that there was a discussion where five British sources were brought in to back up a certain point. The British sources, [[BBC]], [[The Daily Telegraph]], [[The Guardian]], [[The Independent]], [[The Times]], cover a substantial spectrum of British views, and are quite well-rated on [[WP:RSP]] (though the Telegraph was temporarily downgraded to marginally on trans issues at the time of the discussion, the rest are generally reliable). Some editors responded by seemingly rejecting British sources altogether and directly comparing them to other countries such as Russia and Hungary, and that pretty much explains Colin's responses for Loki's diffs. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|1=Quotes of rejection of British sources and comparison to other countries. Bolding by me. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])'''}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235648988 Amanda A. Brant,] July 2024: {{tq|We are not going by how pretty much the entire press in "the country in question" treats various Russia-related topics. '''That the sources are British is not an argument in their favor.''' The UK in general[https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/01/25/council-of-europe-uk-lgbt-trans-rights-russ-apoland/] and the UK media have an abysmal reputation regarding LBGT+ issues, commented on by many observers and experts, so their media should be treated with the same caution we treat Russian newspapers as sources for the LGBT+ rights situation in Russia … The radicalization and virulent transphobia of British media doesn't change that. The only thing it changes is the reliability of British media, especially regarding LGBT+ issues, in the same way that we treat Russian media with a fair degree of skepticism, especially regarding contentious topics.}}<br><br>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235653187 Snokalok,] July 2024: {{tq|The Council of Europe has long held the '''UK’s institutional transphobia''' as being on par with that of Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. We would not uncritically trust Hungarian news sources to determine our description of gensex topics, we shouldn’t be doing so here either.}}
{{cob}}
{{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} - it seems that your {{tq|good example of the unnecessarily inflammatory interactions I am concerned about}} (and some others of Colin's comments) was prompted by assertions made by other editors in the topic area who are involved in this complaint. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|1=Quotes of characterization of the Cass Review and the UK}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227614032 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist,] June 2024: {{tq|a lot easier to take the Cass Review seriously if SEGM and Genspect weren't involved at almost every step of the process}}<br><br>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&diff=prev&oldid=1223078435 Snokalok,] May 2024: {{tq|This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence}}, then an analogy: {{tq|source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org}}<br><br>Same link as above, Snokalok then discusses the UK: {{tq|which country is more transphobic … In media it's also the BBC, the Guardian, the New Statesman, every outlet big or small across the entire political spectrum regularly runs pieces on how "trans women are here to replace biological women" or "should seeing a trans person in the bathroom be considered rape" or something like that, in government it's also Keir Starmer, it's also Wes Streeting, it's both major political parties, like half the SNP, half the Green party … not just the elected politicians either, it's the}} [[Equality and Human Rights Commission]], {{tq|it's the courts … it's the Queen of England … Why would we give page-reshaping weight to something}} the [[National Health Service]] {{tq|put out on the matter as though any semblance of objectivity or epistemic good faith can reasonably be expected? That’s not to say to exclude the NHS, just don’t treat its word as the gospel … an organization’s track record and position on a topic should inform how exactly we deploy the source … how much weight would we give that? It just happens that the UK government and most of its subsections, have a terrible record on the topic.}}
{{cob}}
{{re|LokiTheLiar}} - you highlighted YNFS' [https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/06/05/genspect-segm-designated-anti-lgbtq-hate-groups-by-splc/ source] and stated that {{red|there's every reason to think they're reliable for this information}}, but this source literally {{tq|republished}} a [https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/splc-designates-genspect-segm-as?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=994764&post_id=145346203 Substack] blog as a news article on [https://www.losangelesblade.com/category/news/political-news/religious-extremism-anti-lgbtq-activism/ Religious Extremism/Anti-LGBTQ+ Activism]. The Substack author is a self-described [https://www.erinreedwrites.com/ activist] whose tagline is {{tq|Advocacy For LGBTQ+ Justice}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
* Right, so no need to {{red|question}} the Los Angeles Blade in this case, with its relation to the generally reliable Washington Blade. Never mind that editors have questioned the Cass Review, questioned British sources (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Times, New Statesman)… '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
{{re|Raladic}} - I am quite surprised that you consider {{u|Void if removed}} as {{red|hounding}} you when they looked at your contributions to an WP:AE complaint '''you literally started against them.''' I would expect every ‘defendant’ at AE to meticulously scrutinise the AE complaint against them, this is not cause for sanctions at all. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Licks-rocks====
I don't much like AE discussions, and I don't tune in to the discussion at issue much anymore either, but I will say that I've grown quite annoyed at Colin's attitude towards the topic. Whenever I get involved with him in a discussion, the first thing I have to do is wade through a veritable river of small and larger misrepresentations about both what his conversational partners have said, and what the sources say. He has a bad habit of assuming the worst in other editors, and thus attacking the worst possible interpretation of their position, rather than the position those editors actually hold. I and others have called him out on this several times already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=next&oldid=1245322173] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1232596099]. In addition, as visible in the diffs snokalok already provided, he is consistently extremely dismissive of anything that writes negatively about the cass review, whether that be statements from WPATH, peer reviewed papers of any kind, or anything else, and will accuse other editors of bias when they argue back. Just in this last discussion he dismissively referred to a peer reviewed analysis of language used in the cass revieuw as an "activist's opinion piece" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245332239][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245322173][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245311531] and berated me for referring to it as anything else, in doing so again repeatedly insinuating that I and YFNS don't understand how peer review works. The paper in question ''is'' peer reviewed, not in the opinion section, and consists of a literature analysis. That's just not conductive to productive discussion! And yes, he did indeed berate YFNS for colloquially using the words "trans kids" in a discussion, calling it "fringe activist language", though he later walked it back a bit. This agressive, uncompromising, and accusatory attitude is extremely tiring and grinds discussions to a complete halt.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 11:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Void if removed====
Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be. Methodical, precise and absolutely focused on the best possible sources - and we disagree hugely on much of GENSEX, having butted heads many, many times, but always scrupulously fairly. [[Cass review]] needs more editors like this, not fewer. After being subjected to AE myself just days ago, I find it very hard to [[WP:AGF]] at this attempt to remove an editor of Colin’s calibre. This looks like an attempt to bully and "win" content disputes.
I agree completely with whatamidoing’s assessment of "trans kids" - in this specific context, it is unhelpful language, and its better to stick to the Cass Review's phrasing. There is a [https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/gender-dysphoria-in-young-people-is-rising-and-so-is-professional-disagreement/ dispute in healthcare in this area] and sticking precisely to what sources say and how they say it helps navigate, even if editors don’t personally like it.
The descriptions of the other diffs are disingenuous and misrepresented, eg. the "activist rage" comment is directed not at editors, but the authors of terrible sources.
The "Council of Europe" responses also I think need to be seen in the context of protracted cases of [[WP:IDHT]], with several editors on GENSEX UK topics repeatedly attempting to use a partisan political statement from a subcommittee of the Council of Europe as a trump card against UK [[WP:RS]], even MEDRS. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235653187&diffonly=1 this]
from Snokalok as part of the chain on July 20th. In the AE request against me, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1243869439 Raladic used it to attack another editor, and disparage the UK legal system]. It comes up [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_7#c-Raladic-20240619152600-Colin-20240619110100 time] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_4#c-Amanda_A._Brant-20231105192000-Colin-20231105175100 again], in all sorts of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#c-Amanda_A._Brant-20240703225900-Chess-20240603215200 contexts], from the same handful of editors trying to use it to exclude or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_7#c-Hist9600-20240624211400-Anywikiuser-20240624163800 question] [[WP:RS]] from the UK. Bringing it up ''again'' in this AE report is somewhere between [[WP:IDHT]] and [[WP:RGW]], and if Colin is fed up with it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_7#c-Void_if_removed-20240621090400-Raladic-20240619152600 he isn’t alone]. I'd be glad to see a page ban for any editor repeatedly flogging this dead horse.[[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 13:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:I notice the LA Blade article Colin described as an internet conspiracy theory is the same reposted substack article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1244072270 that came up in my AE last week].
:This is not a quality source. [https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/04/10/transphobic-report-by-uk-pediatrician-hilary-cass-released/ Both the author and this outlet consistently publish misinformation about the Cass Review].
:{{tq | the review '''dismissed over 100 studies''' on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality, applying standards that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric medicine}}
:This claim is [https://fullfact.org/health/cass-butler-stonewall-100-studies/ completely false], and MP Dawn Butler had to apologise for [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/22/labour-mp-may-misled-parliament-stonewall-cass-review/ repeating this myth in Parliament]. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:We've now had two back-to-back reports involving the same editors, in the same articles, with much the same arguments and diffs that are presented with {{tq | the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light}}. After taking mine on board I was hoping things would settle, but clearly not. Nobody wants another of these, so I would please ask that any decision consider seriously whether it will cool down or further inflame this contentious topic. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist====
I'll preface this with I don't believe Colin should be banned from GENSEX, and I find it funny that multiple editors have called it a POV-pushing attempt to TBAN someone when nobody has said they should be TBANNED...
That being said, I think a logged civility warning and/or bludgeoning restriction are probably for the best. Perhaps also a cool off block from the topic of the [[Cass Review]], but I'd hope that can be avoided.
The tirades on my talk page were particularly tiring -
# Colin came in to argue I'm heading for a TBAN because I noted a [[WP:RS]] reported that the Cass Review denied a FOI about the authors and arguing "if I see the Council of Europe mentioned one more time in a talk page discussion trying to dismiss a source from the UK, and a top-tier source like this, I will take whoever said it to the relevant forum for a topic ban" and accusing me of xenophobia against the British (funny considering I'm half British...). He accused me of trying to put it in a Criticism section (which I never did) and trying to defend PB's bc of my opinion (funny considering I think PB's are a regressive treatment and youth should be offered hormones instead in nearly every case) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#UK]
# Colin came in to say I'll be TBANNED and was pushing "conspiracy theory bullshit". When I back the claim I made with multiple RS (saying that [[Genspect]]/[[SEGM]] were involved), he argues my statement is somehow "typical of the misogynistic nonsense" towards Cass...[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#UK]
Colin also threatened Snokalok with a TBAN for noting the Cass Review's FAQ on their website is hardly [[WP:INDEPENDENT]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_5#The_view_that_%22Cass_is_not_a_reliable_RS_on_biomedical_facts_and_claims%22:_a_snapshot_of_the_For_and_Against_from_Talk_so_far] He has then accused Loki of being in "moon landing conspiracy territory" and threatened them with a TBAN for saying the Cass review is fallible.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LokiTheLiar#Be_careful]
Colin has been responding to any and all criticism of the Cass review by handwaving them away as "activists" and etc, repeatedly argued to exclude criticisms of the Cass Review from its article, and generally seems to be treating it like holy writ which cannot be criticized on any basis. The Cass Review is not universally well accepted by the medical community, and in fact has been quite criticized on multiple fronts (by human rights orgs and medical orgs and LGBT RS and etc). I'd like to see a warning to treat other editors civilly and not continue insisting everywhere that the Cass Review is somehow infallible.
I hope this is a wake-up call for Colin, because I think he's overall a valuable contributor to GENSEX, but am frankly sick and tired of his knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review from any and all criticism and his incivility doing so. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 18:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:I'll note 3 things from Colin's reply:
:# he says I repeat internet misinformation by saying the Cass Review explicitly excluded trans people from the Assurance Group, linking to himself[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1230376397&oldid=1230211708&title=Talk:Cass_Review]. In that comment, he repeatedly mocks and denigrates Cal Horton, handwaving their peer reviewed criticism as "opinions someone's mum" <small> for the record Colin, that bordered on misogynistic</small>. His comment is 2 paragraphs of insults in response to a quote saying {{tq|The original published Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Cass Review’s assurance group explicitly excluded trans expertise, stating that it “deliberately does not contain subject matter experts or people with lived experience of gender services”}}
:# He links to me noting the Cass Review denied a FOI (a very uncommon practice) as evidence of supposed xenophobia, and he continues insisting "they denied a FOI" requires [[WP:MEDRS]] (obviously not per [[WP:MEDPOP]]) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1214254720]
:# The note on my talk page speaks for itself. Multiple RS say these organizations had some levels of involvement. Colin apparently considers that "misinformation".
:[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Colin|Colin]] you keep using "disinformation" and "conspiracy theory". The [[Cass Review]] was criticized by [[WPATH]] and all of their regional organizations and the [[British Medical Association]]. The [[American Medical Association]] and [[Endocrine Society]] stood by their policies when Cass criticized them. [[Amnesty International]] has said the report's been weaponized. More criticisms are in [[Cass Review]]. Is there a single criticism from any org or scholar you'd not describe as "disinformation"? [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 18:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Colin|Colin]], you can't accuse everybody who disagrees with you of being {{tq|single purpose activist accounts, who are finding WP:MEDRS inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause}} (<small>btw, what exactly is the "ideological cause"?</small>) and {{tq|editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy}}. Nobody has called for your ban because even those who disagree with you find you a generally valuable editor, but are sick of being accused of stuff like this by you if we consider the [[Cass Review]] anything short of infallible. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Raladic====
I wasn't going to comment on this, but incidentally, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1245486133 Colin's own latest statement in the AE report] here now forced me to. This repeated attacks on Dr. Horton are reaching [[WP:DEFAMATION]] levels and may actually require [[WP:OVERSIGHT]]. Dr. Horton has several years of research experience and is an expert on transgender healthcare. You're welcome to read the draft [[User:Raladic/Cal Horton]] of their experienced and published research on the topic. It also seriously puts into question if Colin is acting in good faith on following MEDRS if he himself isn't actually able to leave his emotions in check and realize that this isn't just a random "activist" as he puts it, but an expert on transgender care who has dedicated several years of their career to it. To show how systemic this repeated denigration from Colin on this has been, admins can refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cal_Horton&diff=prev&oldid=1241210385] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cal_Horton&diff=prev&oldid=1241409538] where another user (who appeared to have been an SPA to advance anti-trans points and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive339#Peckedagain|was recently TBANNED from GENSEX]]) tried to repeat Colins earlier defamatory comments about Dr. Horton and those were revdeleted due to the defamatory nature by another admin.
One a separate note as it appears Void if removed is still hounding my edits as they are posting a diff to a comment that is not actually in the live comment that I made to another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#c-Raladic-20240903211700-Request_concerning_Void_if_removed as I reworded it a few minutes after the diff they linked], as you can see in the archived section, so the only reason they would have this diff is if they are somehow hounding my edits. I request they remove/strike their baseless accusation of me "attacking another editor" (with a diff that's not even live as I pointed out) as I simply linked to an article on Wikipedia, which summarizes the RS view, so calling what reliable sources report an attack is baseless. Since I did point out VIR may be hounding me in the original AE report and this appears to be another case to support this, may an admin advise on this? [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 15:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] - are your or another admin going to address the report I made above in my statement to tell Colin to stop his continued BLP violations/defamation of his misrepresentations of Dr Horton? [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 17:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Aquillion====
While I know that a single AE case cannot solve the problems of an entire topic area, one thing I would like administrators to keep in mind is the number of responses, above, that describe Colin's behavior as something to be emulated. This report is imperfect but the diffs above still document an extented history of [[WP:ASPERSION]]s and a willingness to approach the topic area as a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] - an approach some some of the ''comments'' by others above also reflect, in a way that shows how that sort of incivility metastasizes and spreads. Colin is experienced enough to know that that isn't how editors are supposed to interact with each other. When that sort of thing isn't met with some form of formal sanction, especially when coupled with a lack of contrition or any recognition that they've done something wrong, it is taken by everyone involved as permission to raise the temperature further, which is part of how the topic area has reached its current unpleasant state. If it's necessary to create reports for other people in the topic area then ''do'' it, but in terms of purely preventative measures that might help the topic area become more bearable, statements like {{tq|Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be}} and describing him as {{tq|our finest medical editor}} are arguments for being ''more'' strict with him, not less. Experienced editors whom others emulate should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Tryptofish====
I've been quietly watching this AE thread, and did not particularly want to involve myself. I want to say right off that I have long disagreed with Colin, and I'm sure that he and his friends would regard me as someone biased against him.
That said, I want to strongly endorse what Aquillion has said in his statement just above. Whatever else may or may not be going on here, and whether or not anyone else has unclean hands in making accusations against Colin, those comments are important for AE admins to consider seriously.
As some have already noted, in the Medicine case, ArbCom made a finding of fact about Colin: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Colin]. Ultimately, it doesn't mean any less because of how the Arbs voted, because it is still part of the final decision, and Colin should know about it. And look at the first diff of the three diffs listed there by the Arbs, and what he said about me, and most importantly, the way he said it. Based on that experience, here is what I said then on the case request page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=948413268]. I was near to quitting Wikipedia over how it made me feel (so my reluctance to comment now isn't new). And here is the evidence I provided in that case: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Tryptofish]. If you go to the second heading of March 30, and the paragraph starting "But Colin then entered the discussion, saying... ", and follow the diffs there, you'll see that the issues raised in the current AE thread have been going on a long time, with Colin issued an FoF back then, and a similar attitude continuing here, with little sign of repentance. Even if he is right on the content issues, ArbCom has correctly determined that [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]], and that principle should guide AE admins now. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Colin===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* Snokalok this is already a very comprehensive report. I'd ask you to consider what you feel the biggest issues are and the strongest diffs are and use that rather than going much longer. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I am completely uninterested in letting this report sprawl. If people have concerns about anyone other than Colin (and for me this includes Snokalok given that the diffs here are not about a 2-party dispute but if another admin feels that's too far, fair enough), they should file their own AE report. @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] the original report was with-in word and diff parameters (technically I count 22 diffs but the extension is granted retroactively) and so I will not be asking them to limit it further. But to your point the exception I'd be willing to make about sprawl are people who don't follow behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs - Lim-rocks your statement could have waited until you had time to support it with diffs) during this discussion. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
* I want to hear from Colin (and am prepared to grant a word extension if necessary because successful defense takes many more words than successful accusation) but I will note that some of the diffs I've looked at concern me as I think parts go beyond "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS" (though I definitely did see some examples of editors failing to understand MEDRS as well). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I feel like we're seeing, in miniature, the disputes I've now read about in this report and Void's, play out in in this AE report. It starts with a quote ({{tqq|You, personally, are American, so you don’t get to criticize British government sources}} that isn't actually a quote of Colin's. This absolutely sets the wrong tone for a discussion. Of course supporting that quote that isn't words Colin ever wrote are diffs which show that Colin does indeed have concerns about Americans criticizing British government sources. Why put words in Colin's mouth then? It then continues with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light, to characterize 20 more diffs of Colin's. In the full context of the quotes it becomes clear that Colin is responding to perceived shortfalls of others when it comes to using [[WP:MEDRS]]; I won't claim Colin's perception is always right but I would suggest on the totality of diffs at play here that those he's replying to should really think on the fact that many editors who've worked with Colin on medical articles outside this topic speak so highly of his understanding of that guideline.{{pb}}But none of that changes that Colin's over the top language - with one example in evidence by SFR below - creates conditions that perpetuate a battleground rather than collaborative atmosphere. The 2020 ArbCom's description of Colin as someone who {{tqq|has degraded discussions by baseless accusations of bad faith and needless antagonism}} seems to be true here as well. While I'm not necessarily opposed to Vanamonde's suggestion that no formal sanction is needed, my first choice at this time is a logged warning. Admittedly part of my reason for this conclusion is that the most recent GENSEX AE (Void's) closed with an informal warning and so passing equivalent sanctions would understate, for me, the severity of harm to the editing atmosphere in evidence with Colin. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*While some of what I see in the diffs looks to have been misinterpreted, there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions that don't technically refer to other editors need to stop, as does policing the use of terms like "trans kids"on the talk page. I, too, would like to see Colin's response. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it}} is a good example of the unnecessarily inflammatory interactions I am concerned about. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*I would like to see a more substantive response from Colin. What I am seeing so far is a mixed bag. I am seeing many instances of nuanced explanation by Colin that is being misrepresented. There is some strong language, but not generally beyond the bounds of what I would consider acceptable. I am also seeing allegations of xenophobia from Colin, and conversely some negative references to national character from those he is arguing with. Such language raises the temperature to no purpose. I'm not sure if sanctions are justified, but multiple participants here, including Colin, need to take a look at their own behavior. Editing a contentious topic requires patience and a willingness to examine nuance - treating it as a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]] is a problem, and us-vs-them language is a good reason to remove someone from a topic. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 19:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*:It bothers me that Colin's reply does not in any way acknowledge that his language was inappropriate, and as such I would support a logged warning, per Barkeep49 <small>(FTR, I use "sanctions" as shorthand for things that materially restrict an editor, rather than a rap on the knuckles).</small> I don't know why a Wikipedian of two decades tenure needs to be told this, but if an editor is bringing sub-par conspiracist sources to a contentious topic, the appropriate response is to bring them to administrator attention, not to post [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227530607 lengthy screeds] on their talk page. I'm also seeing that sort of inflammatory language from other editors though. Making over-the-top analogies to other countries isn't appropriate: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1214254720 this] is inflammatory. If editors cannot conceive of a position between "X is transphobic" and "X is the gold standard of medical knowledge", this topic is going to remain a disaster and the editors in it are likely to find themselves unable to edit it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I'm much less likely to support sanctions against editors who recognize that they lost their cool and commit to being patient, than ones who insist they did no wrong; and your first post, Colin, contained much deflection and little reflection. I ask you in the future to bring problematic editors to admin attention not because we are wiser - I certainly wouldn't claim to be - but because the community has empowered us to remove disruptive editors from contentious topics. If you believe admin intervention isn't necessary and that you can persuade an editor to see the error of their ways re: sourcing, then you need to do so with temperate language or step away. And like it or not, we're here because someone brought your conduct to admin attention: if you aren't going to discuss your conduct here, where do you intend to discuss it? And as to diffs; we aren't providing evidence, we're assessing evidence other people provided, and by your own admission those assessments are fair. If you disagree, you are free to try to persuade us, or appeal any outcome of this discussion to ARBCOM. {{pb}} Having thought on this further, I'm inclined to additionally support a logged warning for Snokalok. There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this. There's other editors whose language I'm not happy with, but many of the diffs I'm looking at are a little old to action. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 02:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Raladic, if you're talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1245486133 this diff], I don't see how it is defamatory, and I don't believe it rises to the level of revision deletion either; questioning the credentials of a source is a necessary part of content discussion. Colin's language is too harsh, but that is something I've already alluded to. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::I will note that I did look at this claim of possible OS when it was first made and found it lacking. I can find no evidence (including on the draft bio page) that what Colin wrote is wrong: Horton appears to have done no '''clinical''' or '''medical''' research (emphasis added). They have done other kinds of research and have academic credentials in the topic that are pertinent. Dismissing them out of hand as someone who only has the perspective as a parent isn't helpful (which Colin did) but neither is pretending what Colin wrote is defamation requiring Oversight. One disconnect that this does raise is just how much of the Cass Report is biomedical information requiring MEDRS sources and how much are other kinds of science/research. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|Barkeep49|ScottishFinnishRadish}} It's been a few days since an admin commented, and in my view the additional discussion here is not helping resolve anything. I still believe a logged warning is in order for Colin (for inflammatory language) and for Snokalok (for misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith). How do you feel? [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Is there more of a misrepresentation than just the quote? If not I'm not in favor of warning Snokalok. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)' |
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) | '<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter =339
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
==Johnrpenner==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Johnrpenner===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tgeorgescu}} 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Johnrpenner}}<p>{{ds/log|Johnrpenner}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBPS]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#{{diff2|1241571374}} 21 August 2024—violates [[WP:PSCI]] by immunizing [[Anthroposophy]] from [[falsifiability|falsification]] through performing [[WP:OR]] (seeks to reject the label of pseudoscience through attempting to make it look like a [[category mistake]]—but not according to any [[WP:RS]])
#a lot of previous edits at the same article, 21 August 2024, see e.g. {{diff2|1241567174}}, having the edit summary {{tq|cutting like a knife between physics and metaphysics}}
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on {{diff2|1221891274}} 2 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
<!--*About [[WP:OUTING]] at [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence]]: I did not Google Mr. Penner, I have Googled my own username. There is no policy against "doxxing" my own username.
*I even reported it at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#WP:MEAT at Anthroposophy]], and nobody complained that it were [[WP:OUTING]].
* A more nuanced view of how I see Anthroposophy: {{diff2|1241185089}}
* {{tq|attacks against users like myself}}—if you mean the reports mentioned above: I simply did not know that you were a Wikipedia editor. Otherwise, reporting you to arbitration enforcement is not a personal attack.-->
* Wikipedia is a collaborative environment—up to a point. We don't seek to "collaborate" with those who breach our [[WP:RULES]] with impunity. More to the point: Johnrpenner is violating [[WP:RULES]] such as [[WP:PSCI]] and [[WP:OR]]. If he thinks I'm wrong, he should [[WP:CITE]] mainstream [[WP:RS]] to that extent. Merely giving us his own opinion won't do. Again: his assertion that the label of pseudoscience is a category mistake, is solely based upon his own opinion. He did not [[WP:CITE]] anything to that extent. Even if his POV were the unvarnished truth, he still does not have [[WP:RS]] to that extent.
<!--* I'm not a villain, nor a [[WP:RGW]]-warrior. I'm simply a popularizer of mainstream [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]. Of course, some people are terrified by it. But that's what Wikipedia is for. A lot of people say they love mainstream academic learning. But that no longer holds when it's mainstream academic learning about their own religion. If their religion gets creamed at Wikipedia, it does not mean it's because of some villain, nor because of malfeasance. Malcontents should not blame me for what full professors write.
* About "critical" sources, e.g. from [[Talk:Anthroposophy#List of many]]: another editor stated that Anthroposophy isn't a religion because there was a court case in California which settled that issue. So, such statement made me curious about what real scholars (of all stripes and colors) are saying about Anthroposophy being a religion.-->
* {{re|theleekycauldron}} Until May 2024, I had no idea that Penner is a Wikipedia editor. In respect to what you say: I would accept a restriction of 1RR and a limit of 500 words per topic. Also, you have to consider that these Anthroposophists overtly stated they want me banned from Anthroposophy, so, while they knew they stand no chance in respect to their own edits, they were merely flamebaiting. Anthroposophists are generally speaking highly educated people, so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials, it is a token they are merely acting a show. Playing dumb and employing vicious libel (flamebait) is justified, according to them, since they are defending the public image of Anthroposophy. I mean: for a university-educated {{tq|Lead Technical Writer}} it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy. And if I lambasted them for failing to do so, my criticism was genuine and to the point. What do they stand to lose, here at Wikipedia? A bunch of disposable accounts. Since both Johnrpenner and the previous Anthroposophist at [[WP:AE]] are extremely fond of performing [[WP:OR]]—I don't think that's just a coincidence. When multiple accounts misunderstand Wikipedia in the same way, we may suspect they're [[WP:MEAT]].<!-- What the two have in common? They care for the public image of Anthroposophy, through rejecting claims of racism and of pseudoscience, and both have a cavalier attitude to [[WP:V]]. Another lead: SamwiseGSix has edited [[VxWorks]], and I have private evidence about Johnrpenner and VxWorks. But only by going by what Johnrpenner has posted upon his own user page, it is not an unreasonable conclusion.-->
* {{re|Ealdgyth}} It was not intended as mockery. I don't think he is unintelligent, and if he appears as unintelligent, that's for flamebaiting purposes (just to make me angry).
* Full disclosure: there was an off-wiki hounding campaign against me, see [https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/WikipediaVandalism/comments/15yeddo/need_to_report_selfproclaimed_schizophrenic_troll/], [https://medium.com/@astronomicadeceleste/was-rudolf-steiner-racist-a-review-of-the-facts-and-my-take-on-problematic-anthroposophy-410565963a91], and [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence]]—which I now came to see as flamebaiting. <!--I was reacting to such attacks, this explains my behavior.--> Its objectives are overtly stated: recruit other editors against me and get me banned from Wikipedia. So, I see my opponents at these articles as an organized campaign, starting with October 2023, or even earlier. The only damage I did to Wikipedia is extensively bickering about being hounded. It is rather unusual for Wikipedia that a cult organizes off-wiki to take action against a specific editor.
* If I get banned from Anthroposophy, the "Fortress Steiner" ([[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 63#Need some help on Anthroposophy and its related articles, particularly Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture|here]]) will regain its upper hand. Anti-fringe editors will be reluctant to intervene, since they lack a deep understanding of the topic. So I will have to get unbanned as the only person able to restore order. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
*{{diff2|1241572352}} 21 August 2024
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Johnrpenner===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Johnrpenner====
after making additions to the 'Anthroposophy' article — user tgeorgescu deleted / reverted my edits, and so i took it on to the talk page, asking him: instead of just deleting a whole bunch of stuff, why not engage in something more constructive? he did not engage in a friendly fashion, and quickly shut me down, and launched this Arbitration request against me.
if i were writing an article on the phenomenolgy of colour — i would expect to see criticism and debate — but i would also expect to see some effort in improving the article — doing what wikipedia does — helping provide some sense of the topic, which covers a neutral and informed point of view.
user tgeorgescu has expended considerable effort solely directed towards attacking and finding sources discrediting Anthroposophy (hundreds upon hundreds of edits.. almost as if it were some sort of personal vendetta). if one sees only efforts directed at this — then i might also question how neutral things are — when i dont see as much effort towards contributing anything that might help provide insight on the given topic.
tgeorgescu claims category error — and my claim is that anthroposophy is no more scientific than the subject of philosophy. in my edits — i did not dispute or remove his claims, and took care to preserve his references/links and to make it clear that anthroposophy is not scientific.
i believe i was following the wiki principle as stated in WP:RNPOV — as follows:
WP:RNPOV § Neutrality: In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.
in short — this issue could have been more constructively solved with some friendly edits aimed at improving the article, and making a subject more understandable — for example:
i) what are the epistemogical differences which distinguish anthroposophy from critical idealism?
ii) from whom did steiner get the idea — the article mentioned 'German Idealism', but neglected to mention Goethe.
iii) the article talks about 'perception of the spiritual world' — but it fails to mention the key role Anthroposophists place on Intuition in this regard.
these would all be useful things to know if i was a reader and unfamiliar with the subject.
instead, tgeorgescu has undertaken to report me to arbitration — i find it disingenous to spend such an inordinate amount of time logging in such an amount of effort cataloguing all criticisms against Anthroposophy — without making any efforts towards providing the reader with a better comprehension of what is being criticized — the criticisms and critics tgeorgescu has referenced only makes a case for condemning Anthroposophists — and deleting or reverting edits which disagree with him — and ultimately weaponizing the wiki process — which i find is generally quite fair, and i expect someone might be able to follow up and arbitrate his disproportionate critical activity, and attacks against users like myself which are trying to make honest contributions (as i have helped improve numerous other wiki articles, and believe in the wiki process).
i have no complaint against a good critical review of contributions to wikipedia - good editors, good referencing, and the good will to work together instead of shutting people down is what makes wikipedia great and useful. please, lets work together, and find a way to make better articles. peace out. [[User:Johnrpenner|Johnrpenner]] ([[User talk:Johnrpenner|talk]]) 03:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by fiveby====
{{u|tgeorgescu}} could use some help at [[Talk:Anthroposophy]] in trying to nip problems in the bud before they escalate. See this [[Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_96#Anthroposophy#Religious_nature|this FTN thread]] from November of last year (maybe just read {{u|Hob Gadling}}'s comment at the end of the collapsed "Extended content") All that effort expended when it turns out an editor was just [[Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Anthroposophy|using phony citations for content]]. When he raises issues at FTN i at least often feel behind the curve with an unfamiliar topic, and tgeorgescu usually seems to be going it alone on the talk page. I don't know if AE can do anything to help and maybe the answer here is just to remember to watchlist the articles and pay more attention. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 06:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by KoA====
I want to echo's [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]'s sentiment above, and I would caution admins to be mindful to check out what they link at FTN. I’ve been noticing that problem at the noticeboards and tgeorgescu’s frustration too often handling a lot of fringe stuff and now apparently becoming a target off-wiki for it.
[[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]], I am concerned about your comments here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1241626486#Johnrpenner at this time] in the AE and making them in the uninvolved admin section. I reviewed the talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthroposophy&oldid=1241960372], and the only recent dispute was from this interaction at [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Violation_of_WP:PSCI]]. However, I couldn't verify any of your claims made without diffs there such as {{tq|bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors}}, so that was a serious red flag when I instead saw tgeorgescu making very short replies and largely behaving properly at the time. The only little knock against them was that they should have stopped interacting before the {{tq|I have already reported you at WP:AE. . .}} comment, but even those comments are relatively chill compared to your characterization. If there are recent diffs prior to when you commented, those are absolutely needed, because when I see a mismatch like that in depiction, that looks a lot more like battleground pursuit on your part that we'd typically see of involved editors behaving poorly. If anything, it looks like tgeorgescu's talk page use had actually vastly improved and it wasn't until you started needling tgeorgescu with your initial comment that they got off the rails here at AE. At least as I've tried to review this report with an even hand, you created more heat than light.
However tgeorgescu, I do have some advice after seeing your comments on talk pages over the years. Remember to center yourself on the ideas of [[WP:NOTFORUM]]/[[WP:FOC]] more often on article talk pages. I have seen you give in-depth answers at times when not needed or just posting on the talk page not clearly tied to any edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anthroposophy#Univocality] Sometimes I've seen you come back for an "and another thing" comment when the conversation was just likely to die. I saw that before your warning theleekycauldron mentions, and it looks like you've been vastly improving in what I've reviewed so far. That said, be careful about personalizing comments about editors or how comments might appear to be a battleground mentality. That too creates more heat than light like I just cautioned theleekycauldron. When I look at the AE after their comment, you brought up that you felt like you were being trolled by Johnrpenner at the article with comments like {{tq|so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials}}. Even if you feel like that, don't take the [[WP:BAIT]]. You honestly were fine from what I can see initially until your interactions with theleekycauldron here. It wasn't until that moment I was seeing AE comments with a bit too much bite towards editors, so it didn't appear anything [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]] was needed on your part to that point. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]], I'm right at the word limit, so I'll leave it at this just to say the issue I saw was that when you look at recent edits before this AE (most stuff mentioned here is pretty stale or minor), it really did look like tgeorgescu was improving significantly in the last few months (especially the very last talk section at the page before AE) compared to the period of their warning or when I even told them to chill out on the treatises awhile back. Whatever threads the needle between "you've made some good improvements in mainspace/talk" and "you've still got scaling back to do" will be helpful here for a grounded approach. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 20:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Johnrpenner===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
* Looks like tgeorgescu is exhibiting the exact same behavior that landed them a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324#SamwiseGSix|logged warning for battleground behavior and incivility]] nine months ago. that's a shame, because they seem to solidly be in the right that Johnrpenner is only here to push a pseudoscientific POV. If Tgeorgescu doesn't agree to stop bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors, and generally behaving as if yelling at people about how wrong and stupid they are is the best way to make them go away, the pseudoscience topic area will lose a valuable editor. perhaps a topic ban from [[Anthroposophy]] is in order, since the last row took place there as well. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 08:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Support '''topic banning Johnrpenner''' from [[Anthroposophy]], broadly construed. Also support '''restricting tgeorgescu''' within [[WP:ARBPS|ARBPS]], broadly construed, such that they may not write more than 500 words across discussions related to this topic area (<em>not</em> 500 words per thread) in a calendar month; and placing them under 1RR. They are reminded to seek out admins before engaging in disruptive behavior in their attempts to combat disruptive behavior. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 07:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|KoA}} I'm taking my cues from [[Special:Permalink/1241960372#Evidence|this thread]]. Some of it was from before Johnrpenner was a wikipedian (although [[Special:Permalink/1241960372#Vandalism|this]] isn't), but I don't think it'd be ridiculous to say that it's relevant to the onwiki portion of this spat. I'm also considering the sum of other threads they've started since the SamwiseGSix AE thread. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 04:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
*Tgeorgescu - first, "A more nuanced view of how I see Anthroposophy:" has no bearing on how you should be editing. Your personal views are no more useful than the personal views of Johnrpenner or any other editors. In fact, you state later in this very filing that "Merely giving us his own opinion won't do" so putting your views here isn't helpful to the admins looking into your filing. Further, with "Malcontents should not blame me for what full professors write" you are continuing to describe other editors (I think? It's hard to tell if you're referring to other editors or merely folks who subscribe to Anthroposophy, but either way it's a sign of battleground behavior) as "malcontents". You were warned for this last November. Here's another unhelpful comment "I mean: for a university-educated Lead Technical Writer it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy." ... you're clearly mocking the editor who you filed this against. Really, this battleground approach needs to stop.
*Okay, so to the edit that is given as the basis for this filing: [[Special:Diff/1241571374|this edit]], I see a description of the subject sourced to a pile of what appear to be independent reliable sources (at a quick glance) that is being replaced with stuff sourced to Steiner's own works. Also, I see that "Though proponents claim to present their ideas in a manner that is verifiable by rational discourse and say that they seek precision and clarity comparable to that obtained by [[scientists]] investigating the physical world, many of these ideas have been termed [[pseudoscientific]] by experts in [[epistemology]] and debunkers of pseudoscience." this sentence (which is sourced to the pile of independent sources) is replaced with "Anthroposophy does not belong to the study of the physical sciences, any more than Plato's Metaphysics should be considered Physics — doing so would be [[pseudoscientific]]" while still sourcing it to the same pile of reliable sources. This is source mis-representation unless each of those sources actually supports this new text (I'll go on a limb here and say it likely doesn't). On the griping hand, though, Johnrpenner isn't exactly a prolific editor - his edit count is around 1700, but they are widely spread out and mostly appear to relate to Goethe. While they are not editing well, I'm not sure they've had a chance to learn that wikipedia isn't a philosphical debating place. They need to learn to edit well with others, but either a topic ban from the narrow topic of Anthroposophy or a warning about their editing there would probably be fine. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
** Topic ban for Johnrpenner sounds good. I don't necessarily disagree about a word limit for Tgeorgescu, but I'm not sure it's going to work or be easy to enforce. Call me agnostic on it. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 15:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
* A topic ban for Johnrpenner from Anthroposophy is reasonable, and some sort of anti-bludgeon/anti-thousands of words restriction on Tgeorgescu wouldn't be amiss either. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|KoA}}, just as an example of a {{tq|long-winded "own the crazies" rants}} see [[User:Tgeorgescu#My quarrel with anthroposophists]], or [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Category]]. I'd be interested in scaling back that type of engagement with the topic. I don't know if a word limit per month or discussion would be helpful, but even some advice or a warning might help. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
*:So the topic ban has consensus. How do we want to move forward with Tgeorgescu? Another warning, or something with a bit more oomph? I like the gist of {{u|Theleekycauldron}}'s idea, but I don't know how we'd ever track it.
*:On a broader note, this issue comes up a lot where a milder sanction might be able to end disruptive behavior, but we end up warning a few times instead, and eventually we hit a tipping point and we end up with a more severe sanction. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
*Johnrpenner has been an editor since 2005 but is not yet experienced, having under 1800 edits. Their first edits (example from [[Special:Diff/11803710|April 2005]]) concerned [[Rudolf Steiner]], the founder of [[Anthroposophy]]. The current edits are not appropriate and I support a topic ban from articles related to Rudolf Steiner, or just Anthroposophy if others support that. I have spent time advising tgeorgescu that they should cut back on excessive commentary but in checking a couple of recent discussions, I could not see a problem. We need editors like tgeorgescu who are able and willing to keep articles based on reliable sources so my only suggestion in that area is that I would be happy to investigate if anyone wants to draw my attention to a future discussion where a participant might be overdoing it. I agree that ScottishFinnishRadish's links just above ("own the crazies") show excessive enthusiasm: tgeorgescu should stick to verifiable facts related to current editing proposals. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*It certainly seems that ''some'' action is needed here, so I'll try to take a look. For the moment, just commenting to avoid the bot carting this prematurely to the archives. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:It looks like the topic ban has pretty clear consensus, so as far as tgeorgescu goes out seems like we just need to decide on the level of reminder/warning, or discussion restriction we want to go with. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm rather torn on that. I don't generally like to give more than one warning, or it turns into "Stop that, I really really ''really'' mean it this time", but I sure don't love the idea of rewarding a harassment campaign either, and it seems there's at least pretty credible evidence that something like that is going on. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::The issue, as I see it, is that a single admin has much more blunt tools than AE as a whole. At AE we can tailor a word limit or other anti-bludgeoning measure, but a single admin can only block, topic ban, iban, or set a revert restriction. That seems overkill for this behavior. Perhaps we can form a consensus here that if the behavior continues after a warning any admin can institute an anti-bludgeoning sanction as an individual admin action? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::I am not up to speed at all on this report. But is there a reason not to just institute it now? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The topic ban? I don't think there's a rush on that part, as they haven't edited in two weeks. No reason not to log it, though. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Oh I thought you were proposing an anti-bludgeon sanction in lieu of the topic ban. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Maybe an "anti-bludgeoning" sanction could be applied at page level, rather than to a specific editor? Having had a look at [[Talk:Anthroposophy]], tgeorgescu is far from the only frequent poster there, so maybe some sort of "If after X amount of discussion, consensus has not been reached, engage further dispute resolution or drop it" sanction could be applied there in general? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I don't think anyone else has dropped 3000 words to themselves, like [[Talk:Anthroposophy#Category]]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::That's...impressive, indeed. I think we could find a sanction that could curb that type of thing; there's really nothing added to the discussion by a huge wall of text like that (and if it's a "note to self" type thing, that can always be kept in one's userspace instead). But I still don't think Tgeorgescu is the only problem there, either. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::I linked to their 3000 word "note to self" on their user page earlier in this discussion as well. I don't think they're really the core of the problem, but they need to moderate their response, and as they've already been warned we need either a warning with some teeth, or a tailored sanction. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}I think we're largely in agreement at least in principle, and the devil's more in the details. How would you envision a "warning with teeth"? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 11:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:I ''think'' with a rough consensus here that an individual administrator can institute an anti-bludgeoning measure on them if they continue then that would add, in this particular case, that tool to an administrator's toolbox. Then, rather than having to come back here, whatever admin saw it could just say, "you're limited to 1000 words a month on the topic of Anthroposophy," or "you're limited to three replies per week on the topic of Anthrosophy." That way it's not a warning that requires another trip to AE. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds good to me. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Unless any uninvolved admin raises an objection in the next day or so, I will close this as proposed above. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05==
{{hat|Appeal granted. The restriction of {{u|Toa Nidhiki05}} editing biographies of living persons in the area of post-1992 American politics is lifted. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 09:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Toa Nidhiki05}} – '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
; Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from BLPs related to post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, imposed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive327#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05]] and logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#American politics 2]]
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Vanamonde93}}, {{admin|Guerillero}}
; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero&oldid=1242734042] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93&oldid=1242734097]
===Statement by Toa Nidhiki05===
Since my topic ban was scaled back to only include BLPs, I've engaged in a lot of productive discussion and editing within the AMPol 2 topic area. Probably the biggest achievement has been consensus at [[Republican Party (United States)]] and [[Democratic Party (United States)]] on political positions - ending a dispute that has been ongoing for over a decade - but I've also engaged in routine maintenance and vandalism removal across the topic a. Lifting the restriction on BLPs would allow me to do the same in the entire scope of AMPol 2, including handling the sorts of routine vandalism that occurs on political BLPs. I think my pattern of behavior and achievements in the seven months or so since the ban has shown my general commitment to productive behavior and conduct within the topic area. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
:To respond quickly to {{u|starship.paint}}: from my recollection, that first bit was in a fairly contentious period where frequent edits were being made, and discussion on the talk page was ongoing. The day of those edits the discussion was this ([[Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)/Archive_33|Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties]]), and edits I made there were in response to talk page discussion on the matter - specifically, in response to comments by{{u|Carlp941}} and {{u|BootsED}}. The tl:dr of the broader dispute at hand was that a consensus had been reached to add content to the main page, but the consensus didn't actually follow specific reliable sources. After further research and discussion, this consensus was modified pursuant to reliable sources. During the interim period here, the page was fairly tumultuous on both mainspace and talkspace. If there was a technical 1RR violation there, I apologize, although the full context of talk page discussions is important here.
:As to ongoing reverts - many of these are responding to vandalism or source hijacking maintenance. Unfortunately, political party pages are frequently subject to drive-by edits from users or IPs, specifically in the "ideology" or "faction" section of said pages. The most common mode of operation is to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1230965113 delete reliably sourced content] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1232135627 add content] (without adjusting current reliable sources - [[WP:HIJACKING|creating the misconception existing sources support it]]). These drive-by editors generally do not explain their edit, nor do they stay behind to discuss. As it stands, we have strong consensus on the page for specific wordings in these sections, hashed out either through discussion or RfCs. Other reverts in this thread are generally in response to specific issues with sourcing or the addition of incorrect information/removal of correct information. I could provide context for each one if you absolutely desired - most of them were hashed out on the talk page. But broadly I would just categorize this as maintenance of a page that receives a lot of edits. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 17:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::To respond succinctly, {{u|starship.paint}}:
::*The first one you listed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1236319943]) is two things: unexplained removal of reliably sourced content with a talk page consensus (removing center-right - very sloppy at that, as they didn't remove the citations), and also source hijacking (adding that only the "the [[Right-wing populism|populist]] faction" of the party receives support from specific groups).
::*The second one ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237396921]) kind of relates to question on whether party platforms in and of themselves are the most reliable source for what parties support. As far as I know this dispute has not actually been resolved, but the other editor in question here, {{u|JohnAdams1800}}, noted the specific dispute in the second edit ended with an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToa_Nidhiki05&diff=1240356857&oldid=1240146646 impasse on amiable terms]. I'd consider this broadly a low-level dispute, personally. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::So for those specifically {{u|starship.paint}}:
:::*For June 24, the sources don't actually back up the claims. Putting aside how poorly worded "it has been argued" is ([[Template:By whom|who is arguing this]]?), the sources cited don't actually mention neoconservatism or populism at all. Just try searching either - you won't find it. There might be merit to talking about factional divides, but those added sources don't back up the claim, which means the content can't be added.
:::*For July 31, that was part of the low-level neoliberalism dispute {{u|JohnAdams1800}} mentioned (see: [[Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Is_the_Republican_Party_neoliberal_economically?_I_have_sources_that_it_isn't_anymore|this talk page discussion]]). Several editors objected to identifying the party as having a core ideology of protectionism. The discussion kind of stalled out and is probably worth looking more closely into. On the face of it that content you mention could be noteworthy and I might have been too reckless in reverting the whole thing, but it's also not an especially important bit of information (USMCA was a fairly major trade deal, and the Biden admin isn't really noteworthy to what the GOP views trade as). '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 13:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by Vanamonde93===
===Statement by Guerillero ===
===Statement by starship.paint===
I thought I should support if Toa has not been involved in much controversy. Toa's talk page archives does have one controversy, a violation of 1RR on 19 June (another controversy is present but I think it was minor and resolved). 1RR: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1229851590 01:34] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1229984442 21:35] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1229984543 21:35 again] Since then, Toa has carried out a high number of reverts at the same article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1230741612 24 June] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1230965113 25 June] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1232135627 2 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1232422089 3 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1234727945 15 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1235891507 21 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1236094572 22 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1236319943 24 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237396921 29 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237843512 31 July] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1239773497 11 August] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1240454578 15 August] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1241131371 19 August] /
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1241310408 20 August] / I am not saying these reverts are bad, but perhaps we can get Toa's comments on the above (1RR and the volume of reverts). '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 15:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*Right, I skimmed through the "Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties" discussion and your reverts above. On the surface, based on the arguments brought forth and the sources brought forth, it seems that Toa's editing is within the bounds of reasonableness. But, perhaps Toa can offer more explanation for these three diffs in particular, as they seem to be separate from the issues in the other diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1236319943 24 July] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237396921 29 July] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1237843512 31 July]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
**Toa, for the 24 June diff, I was actually interested on the part that you did not respond about. You removed {{tq|However, it has been argued that the preference of [[Urban–rural political divide|urban voters]], [[Educational attainment in the United States|college graduates]] and high-income earners continues to favor non-populist Republicans from the [[neoconservative]] establishment}} [https://abcnews.go.com/538/college-educated-voters-arent-saving-nikki-haley/story?id=106236805 Reference 1] and [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-hampshire-primary-sees-strong-turnout-unaffiliated-voters/story?id=106613187 Reference 2]. For the 31 July diff, you, in part, removed {{tq|As of 2024, the last [[Free trade agreements of the United States|free trade agreement]] enacted was the [[USMCA]] in 2020, which replaced [[NAFTA]] while maintaining most of its provisions. No other free trade agreements have been enacted during the [[Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration|Trump]] or [[Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration|Biden administrations]]}} [https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/biden-struggles-to-push-trade-deals-with-allies-as-election-approaches-fc512595? Reference] '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
***I've now read the sources and Toa's explanation and I am satisfied with the explanation. At this moment I am supporting the repeal of the topic ban unless some other significant evidence is brought up that would force me to re-evaluate my position. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by JohnAdams1800 ===
I'm commenting about this appeal, but don't know the full details about this dispute.
I '''agree''' with [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05]] that our edit dispute was a low-level dispute, specifically regarding support for [[neoliberalism]] by the Republican Party over time. We have both made thousands of edits, and occasional edit conflicts are bound to arise.
The pages about political parties and politicians are among the most contentious pages, with edit conflicts much more frequent. Users often try to impose their own views when editing. I personally don't edit most BLPs of politicians. [[User:JohnAdams1800|JohnAdams1800]] ([[User talk:JohnAdams1800|talk]]) 02:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by BootsED===
I want to speak out in support of Toa Nidhiki05. I am surprised that there is a ban on Toa's contribution to post-1992 United States politics in place, as I found the work he did on the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] page to be very well done and reasoned. I found his comments during a debate on the "factions" of the party helpful, constructive, and showing out-of-the-box thinking that greatly helped us better understand the problem at hand. I even left a positive [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toa_Nidhiki05&diff=prev&oldid=1228852349 note of thanks] on his talk page.
In regards to the revert violation, my understanding is that it occurred near the end of the 24-hour period and was an honest mistake. Toa really took to improving the factions and political position section of the article and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a lot of back and forth from editors during this time, some of whom were confused or mistaken about what was discussed as the discussion on the topic at hand had gotten disorganized on the talk page and spread out over multiple sections.
While a lot of editors simply used their own personal opinion or low-quality references, Toa stuck to finding and providing higher-quality journal articles that helped ground the debate. Looking back at Toa's original ban, I think I understand how editing on Wikipedia can make people very frustrated, especially when some individuals are quite clearly either trolling or mistaken. I think that understanding intent is an important aspect to consider when punishing editors, and while obviously one should always strive to maintain proper decorum, I think that Toa's heart and intent on Wikipedia is in the right place and deserving of this appeal. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by (involved editor 1) ===
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05 ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by GoodDay====
Give T.N. a chance to prove themselves. Lift the t-ban. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*I will have time to review this tomorrow (Monday) and we need some input from other admins also, especially those who worked on the initial sanction and prior appeal. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 06:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
**I have now reviewed the history, but before opining I'd still welcome input from admins who participated in the initial sanction discussion and/or the earlier appeal. This could include [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]], [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]], [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], [[User:Swarm|Swarm]], [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]], and [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
**I am okay with lifting the topic-ban, similar to the two comments below. However, if this is granted, I would suggest that Toa Nidhiki05 move cautiously in returning to these articles, as opposed to (for example) jumping into the most contentious BLPs about people involved in the current elections. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 08:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*I had seen this but held off of commenting because I had wanted fresh eyes on it: but I suppose it's not getting enough attention. I skimmed Toa Nidhiki05's recent edits, and I did not find anything egregious, so I'm willing to accept an appeal. I reviewed the discussion of the Republican's political position, and while I believe the OP could be better about sticking to sources rather than personal opinion, so could everyone else in that discussion, and some were doing a lot worse. I assume, too, given the polarized nature of this topic, that any genuine infractions would have been brought up here, and none has been. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 02:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm seeing a fair bit of improvement from the time the topic ban was placed, so I think lifting the ban is worth a try. Toa Nidhiki05 is, I'm sure, well aware of what the result will be if the problems start up again, but that hasn't happened to date, so I think this is worth a shot. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:As this has been open for a fair bit of time, unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this appeal as successful. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 11:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Silvertide goldwaves==
{{hat|{{u|Silvertide goldwaves}} is [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] indefinitely from the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Silvertide goldwaves===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Number 57}} 01:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Silvertide goldwaves}}<p>{{ds/log|Silvertide goldwaves}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4]]
Silvertide goldwaves made a large number of Israel-Palestine conflict edits prior to meeting the 30/500 requirement. While this was potentially an inadvertent breach, there were several other issues with the editing, much of which was highly partisan, and also contained misleading edit summaries like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netiv_HaShayara&diff=prev&oldid=1242407826 this].
Although they have now passed the 30/500 threshold, their edits continue to be problematic. When some of their edits were reverted (by another editor who does not meet the 30/500 requirement), they reinstated them with disparaging edit summaries like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adamit&diff=prev&oldid=1243177954 this].
I noticed some of their pre 30/500 edits today and undid them on the basis that they were ARBPIA violations. They then reinstated the edits with the same disparaging edit summary as mentioned above. I followed this up with a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASilvertide_goldwaves&diff=1243188925&oldid=1239069699 notice on their talkpage] and re-reverted a couple of their edits that I felt were of concern (and on the basis that the initial revert was exempt from ARBPIA4 on the basis that it was enforcing the extended confirmed restriction).
Despite now being aware of the 1RR restriction, they reverted for a second time with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hosen&diff=1243189375&oldid=1243189081 another disparaging edit summary]. They have since followed me to football-related articles that I have recently edited and deleted entire sections (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worthing_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=1243189963 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Counties_Football_League&diff=prev&oldid=1243190160 here]).
While this initially looked like an ARBPIA sanction might be required, their most recent behaviour makes it look like it might be a [[WP:NOTHERE]] case.
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASilvertide_goldwaves&diff=1243191909&oldid=1243189140 here]
:In response to the comments below, my "allergy" to reliable sources is due to them not supporting the claims Silvertide goldwaves is using them to make. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimshit&diff=prev&oldid=1243189682 Here] they claim that the source states that Shimshit is "Jewish-only". In fact the source describes them as Jewish but not Jewish-only, and more importantly, the Central Statistical Bureau's census figures for Shimshit (which can be downloaded from [https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/settlements/Pages/default.aspx?mode=Yeshuv here] (just click on the Excel icon; Shimshit is row 1,232 in the resulting file)) confirm that it is not Jewish-only – it has a population of 2,441, of which 2,428 are Jews and 13 are non-Jews. The same is true for Givat Ela (which Silvertide [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Givat_Ela&diff=prev&oldid=1243188245 has also claimed] is Jewish-only; the census figures (row 268) show it to have a population of 1,896, of which 1,873 are Jewish, 4 are Arab and 18 are other). The latter contradicts their use of the source to claim the villages prevent Arabs from living in them. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning Silvertide goldwaves===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Silvertide goldwaves====
"I noticed some of their pre 30/500 edits" which ones? Be specific. What is "problematic"? Be specific. Do not waste anyone's time by dancing around the heart of the matter - your allergy to inconvenient yet reliable, even academic sources - by operating in vagaries.
"Following" you or me is A-OK on Wikipedia, and unsourced information on Wikipedia should be removed. That I see pages you edit, that have unsourced information (potentially fiction), necessitates their removal.
====Statement by Zero0000====
Silvertide goldwaves' edits have indeed been problematic, and I'm sorry I didn't turn on the fire hose earlier. The 500/30 violations need to be seen in the light of the absence of CT notification, but the poor sourcing and aggressive behavior are harder to excuse. I also disapprove of the mass removal rather than tagging of sourceable-but-unsourced information even though the rules allow it. Number 57's comments on "Jewish-only" communities don't work because there are many small communities in Israel with policies against Arab residents which nevertheless have a small number of such residents. This has been legal since 2014 [https://www.haaretz.com/2014-09-18/ty-article/.premium/court-allows-villages-to-veto-residents/0000017f-e5a1-df5f-a17f-ffff98fd0000] but I don't know the situation in the communities named here. Obviously that comes down to sourcing and it seems that SG's sources were not sufficient. I don't think SG is likely to be a good contributor in the near future, but (perhaps optimistically) a time-limited block might provide an opportunity to cool the enthusiasm and learn our policies and practices better. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 09:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
Just an observation, but Silvertide goldwaves' editing appears to act as an ECR violating probable-sock magnet e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GilbertGreich here]. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 01:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Silvertide goldwaves===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I see some significant concerns here, including the {{tq|fixed typos}} edit summaries for contentious substantive edits and the retaliatory deletion of uncontroversial material from unrelated football articles. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 04:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
*The poor edit summaries, both attacking an editor and inaccurately stating {{tq|fixed typos}}, along with the general hostility leads me to believe they should be removed from the topic area. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'd tend to agree on the ARBPIA stuff. I'm not as concerned by the removal of unreferenced material from the football articles (unreferenced material is always subject to removal at any time), but the edits and certainly the edit summaries on the ARBPIA articles are needlessly nasty and inflammatory. I do not think this editor should be editing ARBPIA articles, and absent objection by an uninvolved admin within a day or so will close with a topic ban from that area. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Mountain of Eden==
{{hat|result=Appeal is moot as the block has expired, but there wasn't much appetite to overturn it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 22:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|The Mountain of Eden}}
; Sanction being appealed : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024&diff=prev&oldid=1243098108 One week block from editing the article Mohammad Deif]
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=prev&oldid=1243381668 Diff of notification]
===Statement by The Mountain of Eden===
I was accused of violating [[WP:1RR]]. I did not. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1243092819 I committed only one revert]. On my talk page, I explained that an edit that {{u|Makeandtoss}} accused me of being a revert is just a copyedit since I did not undo any other editor's edits. <br>
So far, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} has refused to answer my repeated attempts to ask why I was blocked, both on my talk page, and their talk page. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 04:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Mountain_of_Eden&diff=prev&oldid=1243146011 An univolved admin refused to unblock me on procedural grounds, and advised me to appeal here.] [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 04:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:I can't really write "I won't do that again" if I didn't do it the first time. The first edit that alleged a revert was not a revert. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 13:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}:<br>
*Date of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1242634160 restore death into infobox w/ the note that Hamas is disputing the death.]: '''21:46, 27 August 2024'''
*Date of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1243092819 Undid revision 1243089857 by Makeandtoss (talk) The references are already at the end of the sentence]: '''13:11, 30 August 2024'''
⇒ '''More than 24 hours.'''
<br>
*Date of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1239934391 edit for which you are alleging a partial revert]: 14:30, 12 August 2024
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=1243088223&oldid=1239934391 That's 18 days and 36 edits later]. I think that should be considered as established text.
[[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 14:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1239934391 the edit in question] was not a removal of content. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 15:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}: Unattributed??? The attribution is at the end of the sentence: <nowiki><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/01/hamas-commander-mohammed-deif-killed/|</nowiki>'''title=Top Hamas commander Mohammed Deif killed in Israeli strikes, IDF says'''<nowiki>|author1=Louisa Loveluck|author2=Shira Rubinwork|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=August 1, 2024|access-date=1 August 2024|archive-date=3 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240803052718/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/01/hamas-commander-mohammed-deif-killed/|url-status=live}}</ref></nowiki> (emphasis added). [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|Barkeep49}}, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}: I went back and looked at the allged first revert, and I believe it is absolutley unfair to call it a partial revert.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1239934391 The 14:30, 12 August 2024 edit]: changed "is or was" to "is"
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=next&oldid=1242783712 On 03:58, 29 August 2024]: a different editor changed "was" to "is or was"
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=next&oldid=1242856223 My alleged first revert on 12:36, 30 August 2024]: I chaged from "is or was" to "was (or, according to Hamas, is)".
You have to compare to the most recent version, not a version from 36 edits and 18 days prior. I am disappointed that this is not an open and shut case that I did not violate 1RR. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 04:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Please do not procedurally close the appeal on the grounds that the block has expired. If appropriate, a 1 second block could be issued to add a statement to the block log saying that the previous block was successfully appealed after the block expired. Or, as I see the case currently standing, a 1 second block could be issued to say that an appeal of the previous block closed without a consensus, as I am not seeing the community affirming the sanctions imposed against me. [[User:The Mountain of Eden|The Mountain of Eden]] ([[User talk:The Mountain of Eden|talk]]) 22:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
Negating the effect of an edit is a revert. There have been many long term edit wars over attribution, like the locus of this revert. The whole point of 1rr is to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring, and is a bright line. In this case the editor has already had an issue with 1rr and not recognizing a revert, and responding with hostility to the 1rr notification.
As for my responsiveness, I received around 40 alerts and notifications in the past 24 hours, and I have around 5400 pages on my watchlist. I don't see any ping from their talk page, just an unblock request that didn't generate a notification. The message on my talk page looks to be about 24 hours old.
Lastly, it would be nice to see one of these appeals say, "I won't do that again." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ScottishFinnishRadish|contribs]]) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)</small>
:The first edit was a partial revert of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1239934391 this edit]. That's about as clear a 1rr violation as you can have. As far as my remedying the 1RR violation, that is covered at [[WP:CTOP]], {{tq|Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted... An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.}} With clear violations I sometimes make a revert while addressing the behavior.
:In this situation we don't even have to get into the weeds of what negating a previous edit means, or that we have CTOP sanctions that refer to something that isn't defined in policy. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 09:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:It was also a revert of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1241704007 this]. Looking back just to the beginning of August this is a long running slow edit war. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:And lastly, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1242634160 restore death into infobox w/ the note that Hamas is disputing the death.] is a clear demonstration that they were aware they were reverting an earlier removal. You don't restore something that wasn't removed. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|The Mountain of Eden}}, in my earlier 1RR warning I said, {{tq|After some amount of time which is highly variable and seldom agreed on content becomes the status quo and removing it is a bold edit rather than a revert. If you're editing in a contentious topic it's safest to assume that any removal is a revert.}} Continuing a long term edit war is definitely going to fall on the revert side of the line. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Barkeep49}}, I don't see continuing a dispute they were aware of with a summary like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1243088223 Only Hamas would use the present tense of the verb] while leaving the IDF/Israel claim unattributed as seeking consensus. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by Sean.hoyland===
No one is going to like this idea because it's premised on the notion that certain events, like a block, should trigger a checkuser in PIA. An offer. If they pass a checkuser they can be unblocked. I'm curious whether the user would accept this kind of deal. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 16:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, since the question was raised, the Lehi Street bombing socks are probably not The Mountain (Icewhiz). But, as far as I can tell from a technical data (that does not qualify as evidence at SPI), The Mountain could be a sock of [[User:Plot Spoiler]]. This result is (surprisingly for me) consistent with the fact that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=The_Mountain_of_Eden&page=&wpdate=2024-05-01&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist registered their account at 2024-04-30T21:39:22], less than an hour after Plot Spoiler's last sock, [[User:Loksmythe]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Loksmythe was blocked at 2024-04-30T20:45:08]...unless it is all a coincidence, which is absolutely possible. I am not going to file an SPI (mainly because a) the evidence I have is not evidence at SPI and b) blocked accounts can simply create a new account if they haven't already done so and rapidly gain EC thanks to the many tools Wikipedia provides for new users to get them started). [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 05:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by Selfstudier===
Reported editor is not paying attention to their block anyway, see [[Lehi Street bombing]] (article created by sock on 24 August and substantially edited by edited by another on 2 September). [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{Re|Barkeep49}} Apologies, I got as far as "you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week" and assumed it was a full block. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 22:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Hum, a source title does not constitute inline attribution in the way I understand that, reported editor likes to wikilawyer stuff, I think.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Mountain of Eden===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Aquillion====
This was clearly not a revert, not unless we're going to classify every single edit as a revert (which would make editing in 1RR areas untenable). The effect of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1242856223&oldid=1242783712&title=Mohammed_Deif this edit] was to add a statement. Adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1243088223&oldid=1242856223&title=Mohammed_Deif attribution elaborates on that statement]; it does not "undo" it. That sort of addition is not a revert unless comparable attribution had previously been present and had been removed, which was not the case here.
I'm also a bit puzzled by the fact that the blocking admin then immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1243097964 restored the previous revision] afterwards; maybe I've just missed it, or perhaps practice has changed, but AFAIK that has never been part of the remedy for 1RR/3RR violations. The 3RR is about conduct and not article content; therefore, the remedy consists of a block or some other preventative measure but does ''not'' normally involve undoing the offending revert as an administrative action unless BLP violations or some similarly compelling situation requires it. Actual administrative action to change article content is rare and reserved for situations like [[WP:BLP]] where the issue is the content itself and not editor conduct; the administrator guidance for edit warring talks solely about blocks and the like, not about throwing a final revert onto the pile to "fix" things.
Both of these things - the 3RR generally not covering genuinely new additions that might "water down" the text except in the most egregious cases, and revisions to article content not being part of the remedy - are IMHO important because the 3RR sits on a delicate balance; we need a red line to prevent revert-wars, but we also want to avoid situations where the red line could be weaponized to force the article into a particular state, which could lead to [[WP:STONEWALL]]ing and paradoxically encourage revert-wars by rewarding the first mover. This is even more true for the 1RR; the 3RR is somewhat safe because pushing things to the line is itself misconduct, but the 1RR requires so little that an even slightly intransigent editor raising totally reasonable objections and making entirely reasonable reverts could bring editing on a low-traffic article to a standstill if it was interpreted too broadly. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by The Mountain of Eden===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*Sometimes I think that the ambiguity over what constitutes a revert or not for purposes of 1RR is just hopeless. I can readily understand why The Mountain of Eden perceives that the first edit listed did not constitute a revert, but I also understand why the party who originally complained thought it was. I'll allow some time for statements, especially from the blocking admin, before commenting further. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 06:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I generally agree with this. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*::First off, in response to [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]]'s comments, those who participate regularly on AE appreciate his efforts in this area and have no concerns about his level of responsiveness. With regard to the substance of the appeal, however, after further review I am unable to agree that the first disputed edit constituted a revert. The situation appears similar to this hypothetical: Editor A edits an article to say {{tq|X is true}}, Editor B deletes that statement, and Editor A then inserts {{tq|Jones says X is true}}. Editor A has reinserted the concept of X, but as a much more qualified assertion that might, depending on the circumstances, be acceptable as compromise language even to B, thereby resolving rather than perpetuating the editing disagreement. I do not believe this would constitute a revert for 1RR purposes, and in any event it is not so clearly an improper revert as to warrant a block. Therefore, subject to other admins' further input, I am inclined to accept the appeal. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't think that's what happened here? And if it is I'm reading the article history wrong. SFR can you clarify what the diffs that constituted the 1RR were for you? Thanks [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|Barkeep49}} From the discussion on [[User talk:The Mountain of Eden]], I believe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1243088223&oldid=1242856223&title=Mohammed_Deif this] is the diff whose status as a revert is disputed. There is no dispute that there was a revert (or another revert) later that day. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Thanks NYB and SFR. I think The Mountain of Eden has violated 1RR. This is mitigated by the fact that they attempted to find consensus through differing wording combinations and by participating usefully in a talk page discussion about it (a discussion which was mainly a bunch of IPs acting unhelpfully and in violation of ECR in the topic area). On the other side of the ledger is that Mountain still doesn't seem to realize that there was any violation which doesn't inspire confidence for the future. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I still am not convinced that restoring ''part'' of a prior edit is always a revert, nor that the use of the word "restore" is an admission that it is. The example I gave here the last time this issue came up is this: Editor A edits a 1RR article by adding {{tq|X, Y, and Z}}, Editor B removes that with the edit summary {{tq|Z isn't true}}, and then Editor A posts {{tq|X and Y}} with the edit summary {{tq|restoring X and Y which no one disagrees with and omitting Z}}. That would be a sensible attempt to seek consensus, not edit-warring. The actual edit history here is more complicated than my examples, as ScottishFinnishRadish correctly observes, but I ready understand why The Mountain of Edit does not perceive they violated the 1RR. That being said, if no other admins here agree with me, then a consensus to modify the sanction does not exist. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::At least for now it's just me and you. I am curious what a hypothetical third admin says as I see the consensus seeking element at play here that seems important to you, while also seeing the broader context that led to SFR's sanction. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|*:::::}}Do I love that edit summary? No. However, I stand by my statement: {{tqq|they attempted to find consensus through differing wording combinations}} which in a non-1RR topic area would certainly be enough for me but even here strikes me as the good faith (perhaps naively so) interpretation of their actions. However, we are in a 1RR topic area so it all gets trickier. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Selfstudier}} I'm confused. The Mountain of Eden is only blocked from a single page. Are you suggesting that Lehi Street bombing socks are also The Mountain (Icewhiz)? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish|Barkeep49}} I too would be interested in what other admins think about the issue we disagree on, but while we've been waiting for more input, the page-block expired by time several days ago. Should we continue to leave this thread open, or close it as unsuccessful (over my dissent) for lack of consensus? Meanwhile, if any other admins would like to weigh in, now is the time. Thanks, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*Responding to NYB's request for more input. I agree with NYB in principle that an edit that partially negates a previous edit isn't necessarily a revert by definition, but in this case, I think the disputed edit is indeed a revert, because I cannot parse the language and come to the conclusion that the intent was anything other than to largely negate a previous edit. The effect is marginally mitigated by an attempt to find different wording, but the qualifier was also very clearly intended to minimize the weight of the claim. It could easily have been proposed on the talk page: why wasn't it? As such I would have declined this appeal, were it not moot. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks Vanamonde. Given this I think we can close this appeal. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Void if removed==
{{hat|Closed with no action, although {{u|Void if removed}} should take on board the commentary of the administrators and other editors about their behavior. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Void if removed===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Raladic}} 23:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Void if removed}}<p>{{ds/log|Void if removed}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality]]
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1132804830#Behaviour 14:25, 10 January 2023] Early warning by another user following their recent edit warring block (linked below) in the CTOP area and a COI warning by another user just prior due to the appearance of the user being here for promotion of a singular topic
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1150114662 11:21, 16 April 2023] POV pushing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1151259015 revert], [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender-critical_feminism&diff=prev&oldid=1179960546 15:45, 13 October 2023] POV, removal of historic context of TERF movement ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender-critical_feminism&diff=next&oldid=1179960546 revert], [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]])
#[[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_October#TERF_(acronym)|13:57, 13 October 2023]] Further attempts to try to whitewash Gender critical feminism of its origins
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TERF_(acronym)/Archive_4#c-Void_if_removed-20231015221900-Amanda_A._Brant-20231015161600 22:19, 15 October 2023] More POV attempts trying to remove GCF from its TERF origins
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=prev&oldid=1181203046 14:53, 21 October 2023] More POV attempts trying to whitewash Gender Criticam feminism, removal of RS
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1191247000 11:10, 22 December 2023] Another POV attempt at deleting the hate group designation as they will try again below in June 2024 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1191247000 revert], [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1192822266 14:31, 31 December 2023] NPOV trying to whitewash [[Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversion_therapy&diff=next&oldid=1192822266 revert], [[User:Pepperbeast|Pepperbeast]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1200367777 10:05, 29 January 2024] POV removal of pseudoscience note ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1200308439 revert], [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1227449952 19:58, 5 June 2024] POV removal of RS, repeating SPLC removal they also attempted in December 2023 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1227540245 revert], [[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=prev&oldid=1227580423 16:11, 6 June 2024] POV, Repeat removal of the same RS content from another article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=next&oldid=1227580423 revert], [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=prev&oldid=1230296231 21:57, 21 June 2024] POV removal of RS of the historic evolvement of TERF and GCF terms ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=next&oldid=1230296231 revert], [[User:Raladic|Raladic]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy#c-Void_if_removed-20240610105900-Turban's_claims_about_sex_ratio 10:59, 10 June 2024] POV promotion of furthering ROGD fringe theories
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy#c-Void_if_removed-20240708154600-Another_source 15:46, 8 July 2024] More continuation of the same FRINGE POV pushing, RGW disruption as called out by [[User:HandThatFeeds|The Hand That Feeds You]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1243234898 08:57, 31 August 2024] POV removal of that country's largest medical organizations criticizing the restriction of PBs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puberty_blocker&diff=next&oldid=1243462942 revert], [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]])
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#c-Void_if_removed-20240830081400-Raladic-20240822174300 08:14, 30 August 2024] It seems they now decided to start [[WP:HOUNDING]] me personally and get involved in articles they never [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/1/World%20Professional%20Association%20for%20Transgender%20Health had any involvement in]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies&diff=prev&oldid=1243239259 09:48, 31 August 2024] More [[WP:HOUNDING]] to the list, commenting on a project [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/5/WikiProject%20LGBT%20studies they have never been involvd in] and accusing me of canvassing on a discussion they also have never shown any involvement with
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1128385508 21:45, 19 December 2022] Edit warring block in CTOP area
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1135211680 08:57, 23 January 2023]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Void_if_removed#c-Void_if_removed-20240608221400-Zenomonoz-20240608105300 22:14, 8 June 2024]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
This user has shown a continuous repeated pattern of [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] editing and arguing with users. Their editing appears to be a pattern of a [[WP:SPA]] (editing almost [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/0 exclusively on about 10 articles]([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/1 talk])) with the sole intent of furthering Gender criticism feminism as a non-fringe movement and erasure of its origins, as well as the [[WP:PROMOTION]] of their personal beliefs and Gender critical organizations (for which they also received a COI warning by another user over a year ago, which was just deleted without addressing it).
The user appears to be [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia, but instead only to promote their personal beliefs/[[WP:POV]]s (many of which have been in opposition of [[WP:HID]]) on this and continuous arguing with any editors that fall into the trap of trying to do so. Of their 1,500 edits, only [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec-namespacetotals/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed 28% of their edits have actually been to the mainspace], of which [https://en.wikiscan.org/user/Void%20if%20removed at least 33% had to be reverted by other users](at least the ones tagged with mw-revert, likely many more that were manual reverts) due to (as the above Diffs give a bit of a highlight of and were reverted content) continuous [[WP:POV]] pushing.
As the above diff history shows, this isn't a single once off, but at this point, a two year long, steady pattern of [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] editing, much of which [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec-namespacetotals/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed the majority of their editing has been in talk page arguing]. It is especially egregious that some of their editing is (trying to) remove the same things again, months after they were previously reverted. Their continuous pattern of [[WP:CIVILPOV]] pushing and arguing in talk pages with long [[WP:Wall of text]] to wear down others is systemic. They usually always have a long answer ready after someone reverts their POV-pushing in the talk page on why their edit was [[WP:RGW|right]], often [[WP:TAGTEAM]]ing with others that support their ideological views.
At this point, I do not believe that these arguments, or the edits to the main space (much of which was reverted POV pushing) are a productive addition to the project, so I request a [[WP:TOPICBAN]] from [[WP:GENSEX]] topics, broadly construed.
:@[[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]], Wikipedia has a higher standard against the [[WP:PROMOTION]] of hateful transphobic views than the [[Transgender_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom#Transphobia_and_"TERF_Island"_debate|UK]] (see [[WP:HID]]/[[WP:NQP]]). [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 21:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] you missed on June 5th that immediately after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1227450630 their self-revert], the immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1227450630 re-reverted and removed the information again out of the lead]. Just as they then did on June 6 from the other article, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1227451409 having been reverted already on June 5], basically trying to ram through [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=prev&oldid=1227580423 their POV on the other article] after failing on the first one. Please also note that this POV push had started in December of 2023([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1191247000], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine#New_source]) as YFNS has pointed out as further evidence below in their statement (and which had been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1193021703#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine settled already by NPOVN], so the June 5/6th incidence was a covert repeat attempt against settled consensus. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
*[[User_talk:Void_if_removed#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion|AE notice given]]
===Discussion concerning Void if removed===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Void if removed====
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Void_if_removed&diff=prev&oldid=1132804830#Behaviour This warning] was a turning point for me and I definitely took it to heart, and I have to say I have learned an enormous amount since then from this editor. Despite regular disagreements, I consider them fair and even handed and I have improved my own contributions as a result. Certainly I was far too combative early on, but I've definitely toned it down in the last 18 months, especially after getting involved in subjects where [[WP:MEDRS]] applies.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1150114662 Here] I simply changed the text to match the wording of the main article. I felt this was more consistent, and that the arguments for "controversy" over "discredited" should not be rehashed on another page. This is currently the consensus wording, so I'm not sure why there's an issue here?
* The 22 December edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1191247000 was a standard disagreement over content] and is wrongly described in the report as an "attempt at deleting the hate group designation" which isn't even mentioned.
* On January 29th [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1200367777 I reinstated the lede] and asked the editor responsible to stop edit warring and take it to talk.
* In the June 5th edit I noted "Hate group" had been added to the lede of the SEGM page but not the body, which I removed because I didn't think the source supported it but I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1227449952 immediately self-reverted] as I had erred and read the wrong source! I then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=1227450630 moved it] to the body per [[WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY]] and [[WP:SPLC]] which states SPLC's hate group designations are not necessarily DUE for the lede.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=prev&oldid=1227580423 This June 6th edit] was because the source was simply not terribly good (a substack reposted by a non-notable publication), but it was replaced with a better one in a later edit so I had no further objections.
* The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=prev&oldid=1230296231 21st of June edit] was to remove material from the lede which had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TERF_(acronym)&diff=prev&oldid=1230270444 just previously been disputed in the body] as not due for wikivoice because it was opinion. I think that should have been discussed on talk, but since it was reverted I left it. If there is no appetite among a group of editors for a discussion there's little point in raising one so it makes sense to simply move on in that situation.
* [[Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy#c-Void_if_removed-20240610105900-Turban's_claims_about_sex_ratio|The June 10th edit]] - systematic reviews are not FRINGE, so I dispute this description of this discussion. Turban's paper on sex ratios is contradicted by systematic reviews, so it is entirely valid to raise on talk whether it should be given that level of prominence, <s>or should be placed in context (ie, the conflict between self-report survey information and clinical observation)</s>.
* The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1243234898 31 August edit] is mostly a reinstatement of the previous wording, but also a trimming down to remove bloat. This section is supposed to demonstrate the evolving use of puberty blockers in the UK. I don't think an episode of woman's hour mentioning the NHS had updated its website is the best source for that. Likewise the claim attributed to the BMA (the trade union and professional body for doctors) is not supported by the [https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-lgbt-health-idINL8N2GD35H/ source], and saying in 2022 it supports "self-id" is irrelevant to the timeline of the NHS backing away from puberty blockers. I think this should be more concise for the reader and stick to the most important points, per [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]]. A logical next step would have been to raise this on talk, and I may have got round to doing that myself today to see what other editors thought, were it not for this AE request.
* I don't think that [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#c-Void_if_removed-20240830081400-Raladic-20240822174300|replying on the NPOV noticeboard]] is hounding - I was simply offering helpful information that there may have been some confusion as the editors appeared to be talking about two different sources.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies&diff=prev&oldid=1243239259 WRT the LGBT->LGBTQ rename] I think it is fair that if a page move that is expected to instigate a category rename that affects tens of thousands of pages it should be seen by a good range of people, and only notifying one project could possibly skew that. This is not hounding, merely a coincidence. I have to say though, I'm not sure of the proper protocol here and some advice would be helpful - is it possible to raise concerns of [[WP:VOTESTACKING]] without also violating [[WP:AGF]]? As in, I am assuming this is done in good faith and not wishing to cast [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], I just think the end result is too narrow an audience for such an impactful change, and it would have been better to err on the side of more eyes rather than fewer.
WRT the edits to [[Gender-critical feminism]], there are differences of opinion, and those are evident on talk. I don't think a few edits out of context cover the amount of good faith effort I've made to read the sources and try to present what they actually say with NPOV. If most of my contributions are on talk, that is because GENSEX is an area where consensus is incredibly difficult to achieve and requires huge amounts of discussion and source evaluation, something which I have spent time doing simply because I find it interesting. I also endeavour to make changes conservatively via talk first because I know how sensitive the subject is. Sometimes I make bold changes, and if reverted try and follow BRD. I try and avoid anything that can be construed as edit warring.
As for edits in other areas, at the start of the year [[User_talk:Void_if_removed#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Dead_Lions_(January_18)|I tried to branch out into creating pages on the Slow Horses book series but]], frankly, I got sucked in by the release of the Cass Review in April. I would ask anyone to read my contributions on [[Cass Review]] and [[Puberty Blocker]] and see whether I am sticking to RS and attempting to neutrally present what RS say and actively seeking compromise, trying to advance NPOV in good faith. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:Further response Re: "LGB Alliance founders" issue.
:As an inexperienced editor I wrongly thought that [[Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_14#c-Void_if_removed-20221125145500-Founders|making a tiny correction]] would be a simple task, and I became mired in a [[WP:RGW]] crusade, with some [[Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_13#c-Void_if_removed-20221202164500-John_Cummings-20221202133300|snarky]] and [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] [[Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_14#c-Colin-20221128150500-Void_if_removed-20221128143000|behaviour]]. With hindsight, this was a terrible way to learn the ropes, though I did discover an awful lot of policy and procedure along the way. After a combative start, and lots of pointless [[WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY]] I did get better at [[Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_20#c-Void_if_removed-20230622170500-Void_if_removed-20230622164400|working toward compromise]] in this [[WP:CTOP]]. I [[Talk:LGB_Alliance#History,_Founders,_Reliability_of_Pink_News|brought the "founders" issue up again]] in July last year when a new secondary [[WP:RS]] appeared, but I was again in a minority and after admittedly too much pointless discussion the stick was dropped. What I (eventually) learned from all this was to not reflexively respond to every reply, because unless other editors agree with you a discussion is going nowhere.
:Almost a year later I came across [[WP:WSAW]] and (along with the publication of another [[WP:RS]]) perhaps unwisely thought I could demonstrate my growth as an editor, and [[Talk:LGB_Alliance#c-Void_if_removed-20240623081400-History,_Founders,_Reliability_of_Pink_News|offer a constructive compromise]] to allow additional material to be added to the organisation's history to improve this page which otherwise doesn't work, and perhaps get some closure on a bad early chapter, but after what I thought was a promising start I was unsuccessful. While a disappointing experience, I believe it shows my commitment to improvement. Though I admit my mind hasn't changed, this isn't a topic I plan on ever raising again. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49]] RE: June 6th edit, please see fuller June 8th explanation about establishing DUE for lede with involved editor [[User talk:Void if removed#Please use accurate edit summaries (and about the SPLC)|here]]. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 17:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49]] June 10th edit was referencing [[Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_8#c-Void_if_removed-20240310234000-Hist9600-20240309153400|this discussion]]. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49]] RE 22 December - the report is wrong, this was not about "hate group" designation, it was about weight, balance and order of newly added content (and I mistakenly cited RSOPINION incorrectly). The "hate group" designation [https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/06/10/anti-trans-organisations-hate-groups-southern-poverty-law-center/ did not happen until June 4th 2024]. When that designation did appear my argument was that it was due for the body, attributed per [[WP:SPLC]], but for the lede I thought it should have secondary coverage in a [[WP:RS]] to establish [[WP:DUE]]. That is what I was arguing for, why I didn't think a reposted substack was sufficient secondary coverage, and wanted to hold off for notable secondary coverage. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 22:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49]] Re: {{tq | 31 August I'm not sure how Void found this discussion}} The LGBT -> LGBTQ page move triggered mass category speedy renames affecting many hundreds of pages, including those on my watchlist, I went looking for why, drew the move closer's attention to my concern it possibly hadn't been seen by enough eyes for such a widespread change (which they responded to), and went to notify the one project that had been notified of the move that I had raised that concern as a courtesy, found a discussion in progress, and noted it there. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 08:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Silver_seren====
Saw this, thought I should just pop in here as an old source to note that the POV pushing in regards to Void if removed's editing started from the very beginning of their account in 2021 and involved me. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sir_Ewan_Forbes,_11th_Baronet&diff=prev&oldid=1059182047 first edits] were to start tendentiously arguing that [[Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet]] didn't count as being transgender, despite what the references said. They also began edit warring about that on the book article I had recently made about Forbes, ''[[The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes]]''. They then disappeared for almost a year and then popped up at [[Mermaids (charity)]] in September 2022 to start pushing more of their same topic POV edits. And that has been the entirety of their editing ever since. In their three years, they [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed have made] two articles, a [[Rebecca Wait|short author stub]] and [[Cass Review]], which continues the same topic area issues. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 00:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Colin====
When [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] first showed up on my radar I was concerned about their editing and raised these concerns on their talk page, as linked above. In the subsequent 18 months Void has become a much better Wikipedian, to the point where I think they are one of the best editors in this contentious topic domain. I say this even though we disagree on much. My experience is that Void is capable of listening to advice and genuinely seeks to improve as an editor.
Some of the diffs demonstrate revising text that then ends up saying less of what I assume Radalic would like the article to say. And? This is normal. Such articles attract poorly sourced negative shit or dubious claims that fail source verification. Editors disagreeing on the weight of a factoid or strength of a source is normal. Void is not one of the editors who add such poor material.
Void is capable of accurately describing and understanding the many sides in this culture war area and offering high quality sources to backup what they say. As someone who bangs on about MEDRS, I appreciate their focus on the best reliable sources in these medical topics. Void created the [[Cass review]] article, now a most important medical trans topic, and has helped defend it from misinformation.
When I find myself disagreeing with Void, I am relieved that I don't have to deal with (a) unsourced personal opinion (b) stuff sourced to some blog or low-quality magazine or (c) misinformation they credulously repeat.
Nearly all editors on these articles have a POV that becomes obvious fairly quickly. In a contentious topic domain, the point is you have to demonstrate an ability to work with editors who have a POV you don't like or agree with, and to push for the best sources and most accurate and fair text. I don't think the diffs presented are evidence of a problem with Void in this regard, despite the two paragraphs of [[WP:UPPERCASE]] that followed them.
[[WP:ACTIVIST]] says {{tq|Editors operating in good faith, not seeking to promote specific views, will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors.}} Void has his opinions, sure, but I find those three C's in my experience editing with Void. I think they are here to build an encyclopaedia. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Update: [[Talk:Cass Review#BMA (percentage)]] would appear to be the flashpoint that provoked this arb request. IMO it is an enlightening read wrt POV pushing and encyclopaedia building. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] for what it's worth, the edit summary of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genspect&diff=prev&oldid=1227580423 6th June edit] makes it clear the issue is DUE for the lead, not WP:V. As you note, there was a link to the SPLC website that verified the text, and in fact Void added that ref to the body text mentioning this designation which the edit retained. The revert wrongly argues "SPLC is a WP:RS" as it isn't an independent source establishing DUE. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by LunaHasArrived====
I want to start off by saying I was surprised to see void appear here and that they are an editor I have been able to compromise and cooperate with in the past. However a couple of their comments in their reply astonished me. Firstly, in the section about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy#c-Void_if_removed-20240610105900-Turban's_claims_about_sex_ratio tenth of June edit] they seem to believe that they raised on talk wether to put Turban in context. From what's written Void wanted to remove the claim at minimum and the entire mention at maximum, I made the suggestion about context and received no feedback so to see Void claim they made the suggestion feels slightly insulting.
Secondly whilst a single edit doesn't show overall behaviour [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance#c-Void_if_removed-20240623081400-History,_Founders,_Reliability_of_Pink_News this edit] and the entire topic thread (both done post warning) are particularly bad in terms of being combative and failing to drop the stick.
[[User:LunaHasArrived|LunaHasArrived]] ([[User talk:LunaHasArrived|talk]]) 07:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] Sorry to add on, but I don't think my second diff above has been considered (admittedly I failed to put a date on it) it was from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance#c-Void_if_removed-20240623081400-History,_Founders,_Reliability_of_Pink_News 23 June] this year so definitely seems applicable.
16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], combative may have been the wrong language to use. Void admits that their early behaviour on this topic was bludgeony and I struggle to see much improvement. With the recent discussion(June 2024) Void made up 15/35 of the comments and seems very keen to have the last word in any reply thread. Void has commited to not bringing this topic up again but the recent behaviour struck me as problematic and I feel like it should be considered.
[[User:LunaHasArrived|LunaHasArrived]] ([[User talk:LunaHasArrived|talk]]) 16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Sweet6970====
This is an inappropriate request by {{u|Raladic}}. It starts {{tq|This user has shown a continuous repeated pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and '''arguing with users'''.}} [my emphasis] Without civil, rational, argument, Wikipedia cannot function. All this complaint amounts to is that Raladic disagrees with Void if removed on various content matters.
Raladic refers twice to something which is supposedly ‘whitewashing’ gender-critical feminism, as if being a gender-critical feminist is some sort of criminal offence. In fact, ‘gender critical’ views are protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010, and several people have successfully made legal claims for discrimination on the grounds of this philosophical belief.
I also note that this complaint starts with edits in January 2023, and refers to a block in December 2022. The heading for this page includes: {{tq|Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale.}} [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 20:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist====
VIR's FRINGE promotion has not been sitting right with me for a while and I think a GENSEX TBAN may be necessary. Their whitewashing of conversion therapy is particularly galling. Below are a few of the more egregious things I've seen from them:
# [[Gender-critical feminism]]/[[Gender-critical feminism#Conversion therapy]]
#* Mass deletion of section on GCF views on conversion therapy[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1197412084], and then multiple walls of text on talk arguing for it's removal.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_6#Conversion_Therapy_/_Gender_Identity_Change_Efforts]
#* Here they argued to remove material about the origins of the GC-movement in the 70s because it was from an encyclopedia of trans history.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_5#Removals_from_history]
#* Additionally, I would be rich if I had a dollar for every time VIR notes the majority of RS are critical but says we should go out of our way not be (clear [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender-critical_feminism&diff=prev&oldid=1162632323] I'd be richer if I got another for every time they've argued we should scrap the article in favor of directly quoting books by GC feminists.
# [[Conversion therapy]]/[[Gender exploratory therapy]]
#* For the past few months, they have repeatedly argued on talk the section should be rewritten to say GET isn't conversion therapy, often citing primary sources from GET practitioners and advocates.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Void%20if%20removed/1/Conversion%20therapy][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conversion_therapy/Archive_26][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conversion_therapy]
#* This continued on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Conversion_Therapy_and_%22Gender_Exploratory_Therapy%22 fringe theories noticeboard] when I sought input there
# SPLC
#* As mentioned above, they have repeatedly tried to remove statements about organizations from the SPLC by calling them opinion pieces. They did this at [[SEGM]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1191247000], particularly at talk[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine#New_source]
# [[ROGD]]
#* Here they bludgeoned multiple editors while being told they were misrepresenting the sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_8#break:_'scientifically_unsupported'].
#* They've also tried to add FRINGE sources to the further reading section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_7#Further_Reading]
# VIR has made 235 edits to the talk page for [[LGB Alliance]] and 59 to the article itself.
#* I believe they have a COI with the organization which I will not disclose here due to [[WP:OUTING]], but which I will email an admin evidence of.
Having seen VIR frequently pop up in discussions, I believe their behavior can at best be described as [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]], [[WP:RGW]], [[WP:CPUSH]] and [[WP:PROFRINGE]]. On VIR's talk page at the moment is a discussion where they claim that the majority of transgender children are "LGB kids with mental health issues" that are being transitioned improperly and will regret it... [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 23:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
: {{ping|Barkeep49}} I've emailed the evidence - in addition to what I believe is an overly close relationship with the LGBA, there's evidence of canvassing and relations with other prominent GCFs he's written about / cited.
: I'm also tempted to write [[WP:YFNS's law]]: {{tq|You are not allowed to say bigoted things about trans kids unless you generalize it to most of them}} - ie "you shouldn't have transitioned because you're just gay and mentally ill and will regret it" isn't ok but somehow "most trans kids..." is somehow fine. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by LilianaUwU====
I feel like I should link [[User:LilianaUwU/Civil POV pushing is POV pushing|my essay]]. Anyways, I agree with YFNS' call for a GENSEX TBAN. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 01:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by berchanhimez====
The evidence provided by the user starting this complaint consists primarily of edits that are old and/or a few recent disputes. One of those disputes is on [[Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy]], where VIR has been attempting to have the article be balanced in line with [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. As the sources VIR discusses on the talkpage make clear, this is controversial and while there is not a widespread agreement that it's accurate, there is also not a widespread agreement that it's inaccurate. There is no solid evidence for or against it, yet some editors wish to exclude any and all information about the current debate over how it may be investigated further, because they think that it's unproven = [[WP:FRINGE]]. That's simply not true. For something to be fringe, it must either be conclusively disproven, or there must be widespread agreement that there is no way it can be reality. Editors know this, hence why they are trying to shut down any source discussion as RGW and not include any sources that investigate it as possibly true.
The other dispute is as Colin points out ([[Talk:Cass Review]]), and I have nothing to add to that. There are also claims of POV pushing through removal of [[SPLC]] designation of being a hate group. [[WP:SPLC|While they are considered reliable, that does not mean that information needs to be included]], and explicitly states that their classifications should not automatically be included in the lead, yet it was readded fairly quickly after VIR moved it to the body, without any talk page discussion in at least one case ([[Genspect]]). Ultimately, this pattern follows in most of the other evidence - VIR makes a [[WP:BRD|bold edit]] B that someone disagrees with, they are reverted, and nobody starts a talk page discussion about it - but there is no evidence that VIR has gone on to make the edit again without discussing though they may continue to improve the material in question via further edits.
Ultimately, there is one group of editors who [[WP:RGW|wish for Wikipedia to only aspouse one viewpoint]] on this topic, even though they [[WP:CIVILPOV|don't outwardly state that is their goal]]. As part of that, they are trying to remove users (and sources such as the Telegraph) that they dislike from Wikipedia. I trust that AE administrators will see through that. If anything, the filing user is hounding VIR, and the behavior of users who are ignoring or attempting to shut down valid DUE discussions on talk pages should be warned against doing so. I don't believe AE can implement it, but probably the best solution here is a BR'''D''' restriction - if any user reverts an edit in this topic area, they must explain their reasoning on the talk page to allow for others to chime in and discuss rather than hiding it in an edit summary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 11:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by starship.paint====
The complaint is that VIR shows a {{tq|continuous repeated pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and arguing with users ... the majority of their editing has been in talk page arguing ... They usually always have a long answer ready after someone reverts their POV-pushing in the talk page on why their edit was right}}. But doesn't this sound like how [[WP:BRD]] is supposed to function? '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Snokalok====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
Void definitely acts and edits in a way that often feels bad faith or blatantly POV, but with that said, I really can’t deny that he’s one of the less painful editors with a clear POV to collaborate with. That’s not to say his edits aren’t tendentious, but like, he is indisputably polite about them in a way that others aren’t.
He never cites British court cases to say that you as an editor are not allowed to compare the article on terfism to the article on white supremacy, he never goes on tirades about his wounded national pride in which he says that everyone with an American IP shouldn’t be questioning the weight to give British govt sources, he never blanks entire sections in favor of rewriting them in barely comprehensible English with no other changes, and he is sometimes willing to meet halfway.
Take that for what it’s worth.
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Void if removed===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*Void: it would be great if you could get your response down to 1000 words (seems to be at 1100 right now) but your request is granted. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Raladic|Raladic]] please [[WP:TALK#REPLIED|do not edit comments]] after people have responded to them. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm going to try and go through the 2024 edits reported here. I will not have time now to do all of them:
**Jan 2024 - the revert seems to be restoring a long established LEAD, for which there was no talk page consensus to change and where Void was the 2nd person to revert someone attempting to BOLDLY change it. I am untroubled here.
**5 June - Void immeadiately self reverted (wasn't even like they were asked by someone to revert, they just realized their own mistake). Absent that it would have been a problem, but we do have that, so not a problem.
**6 June - The substack explanation doesn't fly as there was a link to the SPLC itself supporting the information included
**21 June - A single revert, along with the explanation provided doesn't trouble me on its own.
**10 June - I'm still making my way through this discussion, initial thoughts are credit for starting the discussion, but possible concerns about number of editors who had to explain Void was wrong (absent any indication that was a [[WP:LOCALCON]]).
*:My initial impression is that this is an editor with a point of view but one who is, in 2024, squarely editing with-in Wikipedia norms and standards for a contentious topic, though if further evidence supports repeats of 6 June and talk page POV pushing (the worst case outcome for the 10 June discussion) this impression will change. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
**10 June and 8 July: I've now read these two+ times. On the one hand having to reexplain the samethings to the same person is exhausting. On the other hand, I Void is bringing new sources, and reasonable enough (if not ideal) sources to the table. On the third hand, rebutting that is even harder and so a good faith effort from one person becomes a complete drain on the energies of others. But also this is an area of active academic research so there being new sources worth discussing also is an appropriate talk page endeavor. I may or may not come back to comment on this further.
**31 August I do not find the reasons for removing the BMA (that it was old and the section was too long) compelling. If there was a chance it needed updating it seems very possible to find out what the current BMA stance is on puberty blockers and so the right move would have been to update rather than remove. And why a major medical group was the right one to be removed in the name of preventing UNDUE coverage is not at all clear to me.
**30 August This is at a major noticeboard. Void clearly has shown an interest in the topic area. This to me explains how they found it and why they participated in something they'd never edited before - in fact that is the whole point of a noticeboard, to draw eyes on something from people who weren't already involved with it. I find nothing troubling about their responding to Raladic (though Void should probably attempt to avoid responding directly in the future where possible given the way Raladic is interpeting their actions).
**31 August I'm not sure how Void found this discussion, but their participation in it doesn't strike me as troubling either. I ran their [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Void+if+removed&users=Raladic&users=&startdate=20230101&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki interactions] and I'm not seeing anything that immediately is troubling but I note it in case there is something there.
**22 December Went back here per Radilacs response to my first batch. [[WP:SPLC]] notes that they are reliable but their labeling shouldn't automatically be included in the LEAD. I'm curious in what circumstances Void would find it appropriate to include a gender related hate designation in the lead given their reluctance on these two.
**I have also evaluated the diffs provided by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist. On the whole I don't find their evidence shows what they claim. I would encourage them to email {{nospam|paid-en-wp|wikipedia.org}} their evidence of the COI and to let me know when they have done so, so that I may fully evaluate that claim.
*Having now reviewed all the December 2023 and later diffs from Radilac (plus the diffs from YFNS) , while I don't find everything Void did to be ideal and I find Void to have a clear POV, I see them to be generally following the [[WP:CTOP#Guidance for editors|contentious topics guidance for editors]]. Void does seem to often be holding a minority viewpoint, but the way they act on that is with-in the bounds of our policies and guidelines (both content and conduct), and I personally do not find repeatedly holding a minority viewpoint with-in a topic area to be sanctionable. It's a fine line an editor like this has to walk but for now Void appears to be walking it. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{re|LunaHasArrived}} I've spent a lot of time already on this report (given the credible accusation of CIVIL POVPUSHING it felt like this deeper dive was necessary in order to confirm or not the allegation). The comment you link to doesn't strike me as combative (it strikes me as an attempt to find a new compromise). The discussion continues for a long time after that and from a skim of Void's comments I'm not seeing combative there. Can you link to 2 or 3 comments, along with the phrases you find combative? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Luna: thanks for your clarification. Things I think about when determining if I think someone's replies have bludgeoned the conversation, and thus crossed into disruptive editing (which is what is actually a policy/guideline violation as BLUDGEON is an essay) are the number of replies, the length of those replies relative to others contributions in the discussion, how many replies are in given chains and the closely related how often the editor lets someone else have the last word, and how frequently the negative patterns above repeat. I think Void is close to, but not over, that disruptive editing line but given their past history it's osmething they should be aware of. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Realized I should have pinged {{u|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}} about emailing the COI evidence and letting me know when that's been done so I could take a look at it. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I've received the evidence. I need to examine the COI stuff more closely and have passed along the CANVASS information to ArbCom as acting on that is more their remit (or not). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm broadly in agreement with Barkeep, but I'm not going to go into the level of detail they did as to avoid duplication. Having a POV, even one that is generally not the POV found in our articles is not in and of itself disruptive. When I'm looking at evidence of civil POV pushing I'm most interested in seeing examples of stonewalling or refusal to accept consensus, which is beyond simply taking part in discussions. Reasonable discussion from other points of view can actually serve to make our articles better, as it forces us to answer the arguments of a "devil's advocate," and makes it more likely to provide stronger sourcing or more balanced text in situations that may be overlooked when editors share a point of view.{{pb}} While not all of their editing was perfect, it appears to me that they are good faith contributor following community norms. They also have shown positive development as an editor while engaging in this topic. As such, I don't think there is much to do here, except perhaps for a reminder to bow out when it is clear that consensus isn't shifting, and not to avoid repeating arguments, especially when they're not gaining traction. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Absent another admin weighing in with a contrary take I plan to close this in the next day or two with no action taken (though I do hope Void takes the feedback on board). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Zatinya==
{{hat|The articles created in violation of the ECR rule have been deleted, and Zatinya warned that further such violations will result in a block, by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Zatinya===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Pppery}} 16:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Zatinya}}<p>{{ds/log|Zatinya}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA4]] extended-confirmed restriction
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Israel_Advisory_Board_(VIAB)&diff=prev&oldid=1242734961 31 August 2024]: Moved [[Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB)]] to mainspace (this was before the CT alert)
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Coalition_for_Human_Rights_(VCHR)&diff=prev&oldid=1243972439 4 September 2024]: Moved [[Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR)]] to mainspace (after the CT alert and speedy deletion nomination saying they aren't allowed to create articles in this area)
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zatinya&diff=prev&oldid=1243561069 Given an alert] on September 2, 2024
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
This seems to be a misguided Wiki Ed project. But the fundamental principle of Wiki Ed is that their editors should be treated by the English Wikipedia community the same way as others, so here we are. And in any event the most recent creation is a messy, poorly-sourced article with no evidence of meeting [[WP:NORG]].
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zatinya&diff=prev&oldid=1244362470
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Zatinya===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Zatinya====
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Zatinya===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I've deleted the articles and given them a clear warning that further ECR violations will result in a block. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==IntrepidContributor==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning IntrepidContributor===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Levivich}} 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|IntrepidContributor}}<p>{{ds/log|IntrepidContributor}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBPIA]]
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
#[[Special:Diff/1244525758|Sep 7 16:55]] - first revert
#[[Special:Diff/1244532794|Sep 7 17:41]] - second revert
#[[User talk:IntrepidContributor#1RR]] - declined to self-rv
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : 24hr 3RR block on 10/15/22 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=137961681]
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): [[Special:Diff/1240971127|alerted Aug 18]]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I think this account is almost certainly a sock. Compare their [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/IntrepidContributor timecard/edit history] with {{u|Wierzba}} ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/Wierzba Wierzba xtools]) and {{u|IsraPara2}} ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/IsraPara2 IsraPara2 xtools]) (see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wierzba]]). IntrepidContributor, AFAICT, had never edited in ARBPIA in its first round of activity (7/22 - 2/23). The account was mostly inactive between 2/23 until August 17, 2024, when they started getting involved in ARBPIA for the first time. Aug 16, 2024, is when the AE against O.maximov closed with a warning ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive338#O.maximov]]). IntrepidContributor has only made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=IntrepidContributor&offset=&limit=30 30 edits since Aug 17], almost all focused on fighting the "Gaza genocide" move. O.maximov was later blocked as a sock at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#27 August 2024]]. I could go file at SPI, and this account was on my list of SPIs-to-file, but it would save a bunch of paperwork if reviewing admin could just {{t|Checkuser needed}} here to see if these accounts are a technical match, which I expect they will be. If you want more behavioral evidence before requesting a CU, or if you want me to file a separate SPI, let me know. Thanks, [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{tqq|I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis...}} [[Special:CentralAuth/IntrepidContributor]] says 0 edits to ruwiki or ukwiki. Perhaps they edit there with another account? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::So if I understand correctly, AE is not well-suited for multi-party disputes, but it looks at all parties? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 06:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:SFR: {{tqq|it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs}} Diffs/links for this incredible claim? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::Damn, SFR. That first RM was just about the disambiguator. It said "It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording." That's why the second RM was OK in that instance. Not comparable to this case. Your analysis is very similar to BM's in that you're overlooking massive differences. Can't believe this. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::SFR, please re-ping those arbs and explain your earlier accusation was false in light of what I've written above. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh no, SFR, your second example doesn't support your statement in multiple ways: it wasn't multiple editors, and anyway, in your second example, the first RM ended in "not moved" and explicitly suggested further discussion: "This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion". You just made the same mistake twice, comparing RMs that explicitly said no prejudice to another RM. I went over this in detail on BM's talk page. You need to fix what you wrote, not double down on it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:FWIW I'm 100% going to appeal this to AN, TBANs or not. Reopening the RM was massively disruptive. I don't believe the community will decide that it was OK to launch that RM or that the right thing to do was to let it run. AE got this one wrong. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::FWIW, separate from asking at AN whether shutting down the RM was the right thing to do, I'm also probably going to ask ARCA to take another look at the whole "1RR doesn't apply" thing again. If that's the scope of 1RR, it at least needs to be documented somewhere, because right now every 1RR talk page notice says 1RR applies to "this article" which everyone will understand means the talk page too, and [[WP:1RR]] says it's the same as 3RR, which explicitly applies on all pages. (Also it doesn't make much sense to exempt talk pages anyway.) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:@BK: never closed, just deleted. I deleted it, then Self, then SN, then Self un-deleted it after this AE, and it's since run. Surely no one will touch it now (except an admin). I have no problem with "should have been been closed instead of just deleted," if that's the procedure I'll follow it, but I have a big problem with what happened here, that it's just been allows to run. We went from non-disruptive (me shutting it down) to disruptive (it running), IMO.
:BTW could you please tell me: I suggested two masters above, and your answer about CU mentioned one of them. Is it also "unrelated" as to the other (o.max/"icewhiz")? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks @[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], I will do so. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] @[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]], idk if this is the one you're referring to, but [[Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 2#Requested move 3 May 2024|the May 3 RM]] that ended up at "Gaza genocide" had a move review that ended [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July|Aug 22]]. The [[Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 7 September 2024|new RM]] (that brought us here) was opened Sep 7, 16 days later. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:Gee I don't know why more people don't bring AE cases. What could possibly be stopping them? 😂 [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [[Special:Diff/1244541208]]
===Discussion concerning IntrepidContributor===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by IntrepidContributor====
As I mentioned to Levivich on my talk page, 1RR does not apply to talk pages and fixing TPO violations. The diffs provided show me reverting the improper removal of an editor's post on a talk page. Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account. I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis and I have never heard of those editors I am accused of being. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 18:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:@Selfstudier, if you didn't like WikiFouf's RM, you could have voted against it instead of deleting it. Removing the proposal is a TPO violation and a third editor doing it doesn't make it right. There was an RfC and no moratorium was agreed on page name move requests [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_4#RfC_on_page_move_moratorium], so you should not be obstructing an uninvolved editor from a good faith attempt. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] there have been a number of editors who have objected to the page title since the last RM, and the MR that was closed a month after it. The RM discussion itself was very tight and should have been closed as no consensus, leaving the page name as '''Gaza genocide allegation''' or accusation. The MR brought up the fact that at 30 on 30, with three choices of names, the closer should have weighted it according to the similarity in two names '''Gaza genocide allegation''' or '''Gaza genocide accusation'''. But I don't think this is the right venue to arguing the case for the a new move request, and that should be left to the community. [[User:IntrepidContributor|IntrepidContributor]] ([[User talk:IntrepidContributor|talk]]) 17:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Selfstudier====
Regardless of the 1R problem, this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior. There was a well attended recently concluded RM that in addition went through MR and nothing has changed since. Rather than specifying anything new, the presented nomination is chock full of personal opinions such as {{tq| I wholeheartedly believe that "Gaza genocide" is a premature title and does more harm than good, risking the erosion of public confidence in Wikipedia for a wide swath of the population}} and regurgitates everything that was already discussed in the recent RM. Yes there are editors that actively dislike the current title, that is not a sufficient reason to go through all this again.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&curid=75681281&diff=1244545504&oldid=1244542780 A third editor has now reverted the RM proposal] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 19:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ample opportunity to engage was given to reported editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&oldid=1244531331#RM here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IntrepidContributor#c-Selfstudier-20240907175500-IntrepidContributor-20240907175200 here], instead they chose to edit war and only then the matter was raised here, all within a couple hours, no-one having responded to the RM in the interim. This seems to me, in all the circumstances, to be a proper approach, BM attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation notwithstanding. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the revert by a third editor and the RM is now running. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 02:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Not that it has anything to do with this case but seconding what Levivich says and that's not the first time you have taken out of context "otherstuff" to bolster your argument together with naming me in the process. Quite wrongly in my view. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by TarnishedPath====
Given that there was an RM which was closed on [[Special:PermanentLink/1232356978#Requested_move_3_May_2024|3 July 2024]], endorsed at a move review [[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Gaza_genocide|22 August 2024]] and that there have been three RMs on the article this year, the [[Special:Diff/1244512946|filling of another RM so soon after the last one had been endorsed by a move review]] by WikiFouf was disruptive. IntrepidContributor restoring it not just [[Special:Diff/1244525758|once]], but [[Special:Diff/1244532794|twice]], is even more disruptive regardless of whether 1RR applies to talk pages or not. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Berchanhimez|Berchanhimez]] per [[WP:TAGTEAM]]: {{tq|Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus}}. <br>
Where's your evidence for coordinated meatpupperty? If you don't have any you need to retract your personal attacks/aspersions. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's comment at [[Special:Diff/1244972583]], in which they engage in personal attacks and aspersion casting against every editor who has voted for a procedural close in the RM at [[Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 7 September 2024]] by stating that they are all engaging in "POV pushing or stonewalling". ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 09:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd further like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's [[WP:CANVASSING]] of editors to [[Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 7 September 2024]] at [[Special:Diff/1244837374]]. When I drew their attention to the fact that they'd engaged in canvassing at [[Special:Diff/1244979886]] and that they should ping all involved editors to remedy their breach of behaviour guidelines they responded at [[Special:Diff/1244988992]] by stating that I should remedy their breach for them. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Editors constantly making personal attacks and accusations of bad behaviour without providing the slightest bit of evidence is getting rather tiring. It needs to stop. SFR floated the idea of giving short term topic bans to any editor who had done so and at this point I say go for it. Scorch the earth. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] if you're going to imply hypocrisy in voting in support of a RM which was opened not long after another was closed and then voting procedural close in another RM in similar circumstances you need to demonstrate that editors were aware of that. I certainly wasn't aware of the prior RM for the Israel-Hamas war article and can't be expected to have known given that my contributions to the PIA area is sporadic. What you present shows nothing unless there is something more. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], I don't think it's an absolutely wild suggestion that a lot of editors wouldn't have read each and every comment in such a large discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] and why would they have been more likely to read the first comment than the comments further down near where they placed their !vote? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 06:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], what you state to be general isn't universal. It's being debated because you are implying the motives of other editors and I happen to be one of those editors. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 06:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by BilledMammal====
First, [[Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_4#RfC_on_page_move_moratorium|there was a consensus against a moratorium on that page]].
Second, it was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive333#Makeandtoss_and_M.Bitton|recently established]] that involved editors shouldn't be shutting down/closing formal discussions that they disagreed with, and should instead go to an admin when the discussion is problematic. I note that one of the parties that shut down this discussion, Selfstudier, participated in that discussion, and so should have been aware of that.
Third, Selfstudier [[Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_2#Battleground|previously objected to involved closes]] in relation to RM's on that page. As part of that, they were warned against reverting closures, and told to go to an admin in the future.
In general, I think the editors closing this discussion, but especially Selfstudier who has been involved in these issues before and appears to be espousing a double standard, have behaved far below what we expect of editors in a contentious topic. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:Given the recent comment by David A, particularly their second sentence, I want to call out the obvious POV pushing that is occurring here.
:In this AE, we have a number of editors objecting to opening an RM proposing moving the article to a less definitive title just two months after the previous was closed in favour of the title they supported.
:However, that RM was opened just a month after a previous RM was {{diff2|1215727822|closed ''against'' moving the article to a ''more'' definitive title}}.
:These same editors had no objection to that RM, and some such as David A were {{diff2|1229328000|instrumental in opening it.}}
:Effectively, these editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not - and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this.
:Such behaviour is a violation of half a dozen policies and I believe AE needs to act against it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:<small>{{ping|David A}} Off topic, but I don’t have a position on the reliability of +972, and I don’t express one in the discussion you linked. I also don’t seek to remove all references to Al Jazeera, although I do question its reliability. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)</small>
:For the editors asking for an example of editors who objected to this move request, but had no objection to others opened within a similar period:
:[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 34#Requested move 23 December 2023]] was closed on January 4, and the close was finalized on January 10, with a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war".
:[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 40#Requested move 23 January 2024]], which proposed moving the article to "Israel-Gaza war" was opened 19 or 13 days later, depending on where you are counting from. Of the editors objecting to the move request under discussion here:
:#{{user|Selfstudier}} supported a move on 23 January 2024
:#{{user|David A}} supported a move on 31 January 2024
:#{{user|Levivich}} supported a move on 6 February 2024, with their first comment on 24 January 2024
:#{{user|TarnishedPath}} supported a move on 16 February 2024
:Other editors in this discussion participated in that RM, but as I haven't interpreted their comments as objecting to this move request I haven't included them in this list. There are also a large number of editors who objected to this RM on procedural grounds within the RM, but supported that RM without any objection; I also haven't considered them for this list. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} The first line of the first !vote in the 23 January 2024 RM (mine, for the record) said {{tq|there was a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war" less than two weeks ago.}}
::Unless these editors aren't reading any of the discussion before !voting, they would have been aware.
::In addition, Selfstudier was indisputably aware of the prior discussion - [[User_talk:Robertsky/Archive_6#Your_close_at_Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war|they participated in an objection to the close of the 23 December 2023 RM]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} They wouldn't have needed to read {{tq|each and every comment}}; only the first line of the first comment. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} I'm surprised this is even being debated. In a general context, it is well established that for various reasons comments at the top of a discussion are far more likely to be read than comments at the bottom - and in a Wikipedia context editors need to go to the top of a discussion to click "edit source", not the bottom. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by WikiFouf====
@[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] That's really a bad-faith interpretation. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but don't pretend like I didn't detail why I think that A) the title is premature and, B) it can erode confidence in WP's neutrality. I don't cite new sources, yes, but that's the whole point : I reviewed all of the sources ''we do have right now'' and I disagree with the verdict that {{green|'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources}}. Hence why I launched the RM, and encouraged people go through the sources table. I'm not trying to be "disruptive". [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 12:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
It seems likely that ongoing efforts to change the title of the Gaza Genocide (which includes less polite efforts like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_genocide&diff=1244476546&oldid=1244334950 this]) are explained in part by the attention/canvassing occurring off-wiki on social media sites etc. I don't know (or care) whether the concerns are legitimate policy-based concerns, but what also seems likely is that this attention is not dependent on the number or details of the RMs, it is dependent on the result of the RM not being the current title. Unless an RM is guaranteed to result in a change to the title that supporters of Israel find satisfactory, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 13:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, out in the real world, interest in this Gaza Genocide article formed about 1000th of a percent of what people looked at last month in English Wikipedia (amounting to over 10 billion views), so the article title issue does not appear to be an urgent or significant issue from a global statistical perspective. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 13:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Just like targeting the title of the Gaza Genocide article is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, the targeting of Selfstudier is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, in my view. I find this concerning, not because of anyone's opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but because by my estimation, since the start of 2022, around 1800 of Selfstudier's edits (and probably more) are directly related to implementing/enforcing ArbCom remedies including ARBECR, notifying new users, handling edit requests and creating edit notices. So, this particular user, the topic area's top (non-sock) contributor by edit count (normally a positive thing, but apparently a negative thing in PIA), spent over 12% of their revisions on essentially policing the largely unprotected topic area. For me, it's to be expected that editors will ignore this aspect of an editor they perceive as an obstacle or opponent of some kind, but if admins ignore it the AE process starts to resemble an autoimmune disorder. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom."
* I don't think this idea has any utility.
* Like it or not, Levivich is one of the topic area's countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity. They are part of PIA's immune system.
* The statement can therefore be re-expressed as "There is a strong case to disable one of the countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity in the topic area."
If an editor sees what they regard as disruptive behavior or policy non-compliance in the topic area they should be able to report it here at AE. ArbCom is not going to be able to solve many of the systemic problems in the topic area because the on-site effects are produced by external factors, off-site things they have little to no control over, like whether a person decides to evade a ban, or engage in/respond to canvassing efforts, or allow their personal views to take priority over policy compliance etc. And there is no obvious misalignment between Levivich's stated objectives in their reports and the objectives described by policy and existing ArbCom remedies. They have a much higher resolution view of the state of the topic area than ArbCom is likely to ever have. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 06:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{u|Berchanhimez}}
* "immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere)" - this is not what I see. I see an editor documenting what they regard as inconsistencies between actions and rules.
* "It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so." - This is easily explained by friction and a number of other factors. I could bring numerous editors to AE and SPI, and yet I don't, because, for me, the cost/benefit ratio makes it too expensive. There aren't many editors willing to put in the work required to gather evidence and present a case.
[[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by xDanielx====
A new RM might arguably be appropriate now that the [[Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation#Requested_move_21_July_2024|closely related RM]] for the parent, [[Palestinian genocide accusation]] → [[Palestinian genocide]], was unsuccessful. In any case, if editors feel it's too hasty, they should request a speedy closure by an uninvolved party, or possibly snowball close it if there's a clear consensus that it's too hasty (which seems unlikely given the consensus against a moratorium). It's really inappropriate for two highly involved editors to simply ''delete'' a good-faith RM they don't agree with. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by David A====
I do not think that Levivich or Selfstudier should receive any punishment. People who disapprove of the current page title keep forcing us to vote over and over and over regarding the same topic, with very brief breaks in-between, until they get their desired result.
It is to demand too much from Levivich and Selfstudier to expect them to know exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or is not allowed in every possible development in this regard.
Also, they are knowledgeable, constructive, and well-behaved editors. Putting them on restraining order for such a limited reason would cause longterm damage to the overall wellbeing of the pages concerning this topic. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
In response to accusations by BilledMammal, there does not exist any coordination between myself and other Wikipedia members. We are merely people from different parts of this world who seem to share a humanitarian concern for the unnecessary loss of innocent lives, particularly children, and going by the United Nations recent voting records regarding the currently ongoing military actions by the government of Israel, the vast majority of the population of humanity strongly disapprove of them, so statistically speaking there should logically be a much greater shortage of people in Wikipedia who agree than those who disagree.
Also, I was referring to that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July this was not the first time that there have been attempts to overturn the recent page title move within a brief timespan], although going by my, possibly flawed, memory, most of them were by new editors to Wikipedia who did not have extended edit-confirmed rights to respond to the [[Gaza genocide]] talk page.
In addition, even from my, likely very limited, observations of BilledMammal's own activities here in Wikipedia, he has very actively participated in several attempts to remove all references by both [[Al Jazeera]] and [[+972 Magazine]], which are the two main news organisations that report war crimes by the Israeli government. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_434#Al_Jazeera_reliability] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Al_Jazeera_-_factual_errors] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Reliability_of_Al_Jazeera] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#RfC:_+972_Magazine]
Also, for the record, I have been subjected to death threats and multiple serious personal attacks from people who support the current military actions of the Israeli government. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1160#A_death_threat_towards_myself] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=1230628929&oldid=1230627695] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=1230761440&oldid=1230758807] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=next&oldid=1230796071] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_genocide&diff=1243729749&oldid=1243728651] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_genocide&diff=1244476546&oldid=1244334950] [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|BilledMammal}} Okay. My apologies for making a mistake regarding +972 Magazine, but as far as I am aware, disqualifying sources from being considered reliable by Wikipedia allows editors to systematically remove all of them from Wikipedia pages, which in the case of Al Jazeera would severely cripple the reporting from the Gaza war. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|BilledMammal}} For the record, all that I recall of the renaming procedure is that the ongoing move discussion was extremely disorganised, lengthy, tiresome, and all over the place, so I assembled the three main titles suggested by other members that were not too long and awkward, and seemed to have good arguments and Wikipedia page title precedents backing them, and then put them to a vote by pinging all of the previous participants in the discussion, in order to help bring some order and structure to the chaos.
There was no deliberation involved beyond that I thought that all of the three alternatives were shorter and less awkward that the then current title for the page, nor did I expect the current title to get the most votes at the time. I do not recall voting in a preceding survey before the very lengthy sprawling discussion that eventually resulted in the current title, but if I did, I probably just voted for what I thought was the least bad available option at the time. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|BilledMammal}} Never mind. It seems like you are talking about a renaming discussion for another page. My adhd unfortunately strikes again. Anyway, I do not recall reading your own quoted comment there. I likely just voted for what seemed to be a less inappropriate title. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 06:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with {{ping|Sean.hoyland}} about that Levivich is a highly knowledgeable member who helps to bring order, structure, and fact-based resolutions to discussions, so getting rid of him would cause active harm to the parts of Wikipedia where he is active, and contrary to {{ping|Berchanhimez}}'s claims, I think that the attempts to shut up editors who are highly concerned about human rights violations via this arbitration discussion seem considerably more prevalent and concerning. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Berchanhimez}} As far as I am aware, I have only made fact-based additions to Wikipedia, especially lots of reliable statistics, and do not think that I have made any disruptive behaviour via insults or bad editing. I used my wording as one that seemed neutral, given that there are some editors who are concerned about human rights violations in general, regardless of who is doing them, and others who seem to act in a more partisan manner regarding this topic.
:Absolute objectivity is not an inherent part of human nature. Some people just attempt to systematically hide their subjective traits whereas other are compulsively honest about them, the latter of which is a part of my type of autistic mental condition. However, that does not mean that I have ever made dishonest edits that I know of. I think that I have gone to extremes to attempt to word all my information article page Wikipedia edits in a matter-of-fact neutral manner, make certain that they use reliable sources, and to evaluate all of the available facts regarding this situation before reaching a conclusion. Just because I do have a moral system that says "Over 18,000 dead children and around 1 million starving people = not good", this does not remotely make me a disruptive editor, and I think that people without any such ethical concerns would be considerably more concerning, as a lack of conscience is also a form of bias, and of a far more socially destructive variety. Any viewpoint whatsoever is a bias. It is inherently unavoidable. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 08:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Bluethricecreamman====
Will point out the obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process. Won’t argue against the fact that violating [[WP:TPO]] by deleting a discussion isn’t POV-pushing itself by the pro-Pal folks either… I saw the admins saying that ARBPIA states all rules are more especially enforced in this area, but maybe the request for ARBPIA5 could resolve such matters by putting in place much more explicit rules within ARBPIA instead of relying on the entire corpus of wikipedia policy? [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by berchanhimez====
I'd like to say I'm surprised to see this. But I'm not. Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV. While the last move review was closed as "endorse", the closer was quite clear that that was mostly a "no consensus to overturn (but not necessarily meaning there is a consensus that it was correct and proper)". The closure of the last RM "overturned" what was about a 3-to-2 majority (if not more) for a title ''other than the now-current one'', but because of the actions of some editors (not necessarily here), the closer found a "majority" for the current title. Then editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed. And now they're mad that the community is being asked to opine again given the woefully improper close of the last move review that amounts to a supervote.
That all said, since AE has already been unable to take action on a recent report in the area because of the number of users involved and the cross-user issues (tag-teaming, POV pushing, potential off wiki coordination, etc), this report should simply be punted to ARCA as evidence in the already ongoing request for a new arbitration case. Specifically, this case should be used as evidence that Levivich (and others) are attempting to weaponize AE to remove people they disagree with from the topic area so their POV pushing cannot be questioned. Beyond that, the only short term action that should be taken is a prohibition on the most flagrantly abusive users (Levivich coming to mind as making multiple threads here recently) from making AE reports until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. If a user is truly problematic, Levivich should be able to trust that someone else can make a report. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*And just to be extremely clear, I disagree completely with Barkeep's message below that he does not consider threatening another user (BilledMammal) on their talk page to be evidence that should be considered here. Levivich is weaponizing AE, and is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at, because they made the report. Should not be allowed whatsoever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 04:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I will not retract anything, but I will clarify that "their" here was not solely intended as a third-person singular pronoun, but also to cover other editors with whom Levivich frequently tag-teams (whether intentional or not) on reporting editors. As SFR replied on BilledMammal's talk page, it's more than ripe to have the behavior of others involved brought up when evaluating a AE request, because the actions of others influence and inform the evaluation of the reported user. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 05:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*Levivich has now taken to claiming that AE shouldn't review the whole circumstances of the situation when a report is made (in other words, that they want a first mover advantage), and claimed that they intend to "appeal" this even further because they think they should be able to [[WP:OWN|own the topic area]] and [[WP:TENDENTIOUS|have their views on a discussion taken as fact before adequate discussion]], making [[WP:INVOLVED|involved closures/removals]] without repercussions. If this isn't more than enough evidence that Levivich is one of the biggest problems in this topic area ''on either side of the debate'' I'm not sure what would be. Textbook [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]]. I'll say again - if there are disruptive editors there are more than enough other people who can bring those editors to AE. But Levivich's participation in this topic area at this point '''and especially in AE regarding this topic area''' is no longer beneficial or constructive - and it's been that way for quite some time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:To be extremely clear: I am fine if AE admins choose to punt this to arbcom in conjunction with the recent ARCA request for a new case in the Israel-Palestine conflict area. But do it already - stop giving the guise that anything can (or should) be done here if that's going to be the end result. I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom. They are wasting administrator and other user time at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 03:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:To Sean, I say that the mere fact he is reporting potentially valid disruption does not justify his immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere). There are plenty of other editors who can continue to bring editors to this noticeboard and discuss them without Levivich's participation/reporting of them. It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so. The mere fact his complaints seem "facially valid" does not justify the disruption they cause, nor the dogpiling they bring. I haven't seen a single case they've brought recently that has been so urgent as to not be able to wait for the ARCA request to start a case. But what it ''does'' do is create a chilling effect for editors wishing to participate in this area. If you don't agree with Levivich (et al - those who agree with him and show up quickly to comment on these requests and discussions they start/opine in on talk pages) you risk being taken to AE in an attempt to silence you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 06:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|David A}} Wikipedia isn't the place to [[WP:RGW|"be concerned about human rights violations"]]. We report facts, not what we want people to hear. Attempting to pass off disruption as okay because you think they're trying to be "right" is the exact sort of disruption that makes us violate our core content policies in this topic area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 07:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
{{u|berchanhimez}} has utterly misunderstood the situation in their claim that {{red|Levivich … is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, '''their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at,''' because they made the report.}} Levivich’s position has been consistent. Less than a month ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1240705863 Levivich said:] {{tq| Don't use my [AE] report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people. Please respect the time I put into this. '''Unless it's about me,''' or HaOfa, it doesn't really belong in this thread, it belongs in a new one.}} Levivich did not mind his own conduct being examined in the same AE thread, he just wanted other editors to be examined in new AE threads. I look forward for berchanhimez's false claim to be retracted. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 04:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{re|Valereee}} - the context was that the 12 January move, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1195213208 ] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1197331648#Requested_move_12_January_2024] explicitly said: {{tq| This RM is intended specifically to fix the incorrect year disambiguation as soon as possible: a clearly incorrect title shouldn't be left in effect long-term on a heavily viewed page. It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording.}} This move was closed 20 January 2024. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Valereee}} - you are correct. There is a May RM that ended in June and which move review ended in <s>July.</s> '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
**move review ended in August. My bad, thanks {{u|Levivich}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by PhotogenicScientist====
Apologies for the tangent, but I think this is worth clarifying while we're here: The applicability of 1RR to talk pages is not clear from current policy/Arbcom pages.
* Per policy ([[WP:EW]]), the [[WP:3RR|three revert rule]] (and [[WP:1RR]] by extension) applies to all "pages", {{tq|including those in talk and project spaces.}}
* Per ArbCom ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_126#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4]), 1RR is meant broadly to address article content, and specific talk page 1RR "violations" were deemed to not be violations.
So, 2 questions:
# If ArbCom's standard applies to [[WP:ARBPIA]], would that standard apply to all CTOP talk pages? And to all talk pages generally?
# If the above are true, should [[WP:3RR]] be amended to remove the explicit mention of Talk pages?
Thanks. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] if that decision is binding, then can [[WP:3RR]] be summarily updated, on that basis? [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] that separation I (vaguely) understand. Though, the ArbCom 1RR sanction appears to be documented [[Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Standard_set|here]], where "revert restrictions" links directly to the section with [[WP:1RR]]. And in that section, 1RR is explicitly defined as being analogous to 3RR with a few specific changes (none of which mention excepting Talk pages).
::So, can the [[WP:EW#Other revert rules]] section be modified to reflect the ArbCom decision? It's on a policy page, but that section starts off saying its material is from ArbCom. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 18:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning IntrepidContributor===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I'll probably circle back to the substance of this report but from a CU perspective IntrepitContributor is technically {{unrelated}} to Wierzba. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*Turns out I circled back faster than I had anticipated. {{u|IntrepidContributor}} can you please address the substance of why you are restoring the RM, not just why it is/isn't 1RR, and why it is not disruptive. Namely, why a new move discussion is appropriate now given that the previous move review closed 17 days ago. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm unimpressed with Intrepid's response, which has large elements of "I don't agree with the consensus so I'm going to try again and see if I can get my consensus." While I am sympathetic to the idea that the MR closed a month after the move discussion itself and that this is a developing situation, {{tqq|the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Consensus_can_change]. I also continue to have concerns, as I expressed in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_126#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4|May]] with editors reverting formal discussions - such as moves or RfCs - in order to shut them down. Now that May discussion also clarifies that 1RR does not apply here but that doesn't mean that I don't find some behavior here troubling. I'll wait to see if any other admins post thoughts before stating what specific outcome I favor. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]] has the RM been closed? Or was the RM simply reverted so no one knew it was attempted? I was in favor of closing the RM which I note in the comment above. When Selfstudier decided to revert SN, I nearly procedurally closed it myself. If another uninvolved administrator is thinking about closing it, I would support them doing so. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]] I did not check the account against Icewhiz. You're welcome to ask for that to be done at SPI. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_126#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4 this] answers your questions (decided by ArbCom itself rather than AE so it is more binding). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|PhotogenicScientist}}, 1rr is an arbitration sanction, 3rr is a community policy. Two different things. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::PS: ArbCom can't make policy. It can only make decisions within its remit. Which includes this conflict and 1RR. So the decision to update the policy page is up to the community to include (or not). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Up to the community about updating that or not. So if you're interested I'd read [[WP:PGCHANGE]] about what that looks like. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*First, I'm in agreement with Barkeep that the 1RR question is adequately addressed by Arbcom, and there is no violation here. This is very similar to a repeat of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive333#Makeandtoss_and_M.Bitton|May report]] specifically dealing with involved editors vetoing consensus establishing processes. In that report we issued a final warning for exactly what {{u|Levivich}} and {{u|Selfstudier}} did here, and it was clear that such involved closures were inappropriate. Although the RM didn't bring anything new to the table, this is not an uncommon situation in the topic area. Selfstudier [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1198291634 supported a RM three days after the closure of a prior RM], and even if they disagreed with the RM procedurally, they should understand that editors often disagree about when another RM is appropriate. [[Gaza genocide]] has been through several recent RMs in close proximity so another, though not great, isn't so flagrantly out of process, e.g. started by a non-EC editor, that heavily involved editors should have stepped in. This should have been brought to AN or an uninvolved administrator, ''or at the absolute least'' brought up at the editor's talk page.{{pb}}With the unrelated result of CU we're looking at an extended-confirmed editor in good standing who opened a RM two months after the prior request that, while as Barkeep pointed out doesn't really bring anything new, isn't wildly malformed or procedurally flawed beyond repeating a two-month old discussion. Involved editors do not have veto power on discussions that they believe are occurring too close to another recent discussion, or any other formal process. This was already widely agreed upon at AE. That two editors who are taking part in a discussion about involvement and involved actions in this specific topic area would think that this reversion was acceptable is surprising to say the least. Additionally, simply believing that someone is a sockpuppet doesn't free us of [[WP:AGF]], and contributions can not be reverted simply on suspicion of sockpuppetry.{{pb}}In my view the shutting down of a discussion started by an extended confirmed editor in good standing by two involved editors is more of an issue than starting an RM too soon after the last one. [[WP:SNOW]] or [[WP:AN]] exist for this situation. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:SFR: I'm not being glib here: are you saying that the "trout" noted in the closing summary was in actuality a final warning? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Makeandtoss received a final warning for closing the rfc. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::OK. I understand now. I suggest a warning for IC and Selfstudier, and maybe even a narrow topic ban on closing/reverting formal discussions for Selfstudier. I don't see the same history for Levivich and I see attempts to use our processes so I don't see a need for a warning about the conduct in this complaint (which I do not consider [[User_talk:BilledMammal#c-Levivich-20240908144200-We're_going_to_have_a_problem|this message]] a part of). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't see a functional difference between a warning not to close discussions you're involved in and a topic ban. The result of doing it again is likely to be the same. so I think a warning is fine in that instance. A more sternly worded reminder that editors should not be closing or removing consensus establishing discussions when they are heavily involved might be in order, as well. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::That all makes sense to me. I do want to note the general warning will only carry so far - for instance I would not expect everyone in the topic area (even "regulars" at this forum) to see the message. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::To be honest, I don't think we should even have to give such a general warning/reminder, because that is covered in [[WP:CTOP]] and the alert pretty much every editor in ARBPIA has received or given. {{tq|Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice}}. This type of behavior shouldn't need a warning, because [[WP:INVOLVED]] and [[WP:TPG]] already cover it in detail, and editors ''must'' comply with all applicable policies and guidelines and follow best practices. Why are we making sure everyone gets a notification that they ''must'' do this if we're just going to warn for violating PAGs? So, I guess what I mean about a more sternly worded reminder is saying that this already prohibited behavior will be sanctioned if it occurs in the future. We don't need to hand out any more individual warnings for this, because everyone with a CTOP alert has already been put on notice. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{u|Barkeep49}}, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not {{tq|edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.}}? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|Aoidh|Cabayi|Guerillero|HJ Mitchell|Moneytrees|Primefac|Sdrqaz|ToBeFree|Z1720}} here we have another case where at first blush there is one issue to address that AE could probably handle, but it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs. Editors from across the spectrum can't help but to show up and accuse each other of bad faith editing, to make bad faith accusations that everyone supporting an option in an RM are {{tq|People who apparently support Israel's current military actions}}, to demand other editors not take part in AE proceedings, or claim that editor misbehavior in the RM and MR led to a POV issue with an article title. No one seems to think their aspersions or personal attacks are the same as the aspersions and personal attacks other people cast, and this shitshow happens pretty much every time we end up here for any but the most obvious behavioral issues with new or inexperienced editors. There aren't enough AE admins to be expected to take the brunt of the fallout from any significant action, if there is even consensus for anything. Can we maybe put the scoot on getting a case started? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|TarnishedPath}}, I've pinged the few others from those discussions and given an only warning for canvassing. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Levivich}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1197331648 Closed 19 January], New RM opened on the 24th, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1198291634#Requested_move_23_January_2024 Selfstudier], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1201354794 David A] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1204241927 Levivich]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::So there's also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1206944480 Closed 13 February], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1211100016 new RM 29 February], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1211982877 David A], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1212041640 BilledMammal].
*::Both of those RMs had no prejudice towards another RM, as did the RM at the center of this report, which had a consensus against a moratorium. We're, again, looking at standard behavior in the topic area. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Also, if we're looking at the reasoning behind the move, that RM on 29 February was spurred by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1211072465 this], which is about as "there was no consensus for the name I wanted, but I disagree with the previous close" as it gets. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:SFR, I'd need to see the context for {{xt|multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing}}. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
* I looked through this filing and the comments from other editors ... and I have to agree with SFR - the accusations are certainly piling up here. From a quick read ... the following statements stood out to me as being less than optimal (in fact, often completely useless) in helping to resolve issues:
** "Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account"
** "attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation"
** "People who apparently support Israel's current military actions"
** "and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this"
** "That's really a bad-faith interpretation"
** "this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior"
** "obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process"
** "Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV"
** "editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed"
* Note I didn't link these to specific editors because they are examples of the continual low-level sniping, accusations, and off-topic digressions that continually interfere with non-involved admins ability to get to the bottom of issues. I get it that the real world war is inflaming passions all around. But it doesn't help the issue here on wiki if we tolerate this sort of sniping/off-topic digressions/etc. Ideally, all editors would agree to dial things back, and at least try to pretend to pay lip-service to the ideals of editing here. Unfortunately, I think its gone on too long and I certainly can't say that I have any intention of opening myself up to actually taking action in this CT - because why should I expose myself as a target of this level of constant sniping? Why do folks think this is what editors should be acting like? I don't like the idea of treating everyone in this CT like a toddler who needs to be sent to time-out, but honestly - what other choices do non-involved admins have? The best way to discuss things is to not discuss what you think the motivations of other editors are, but rather to engage with sources and facts. None of the above examples do that - and frankly, until that type of editing goes away .. nothing will improve in the CT.
* As to the actual original complaint about breaking 1RR, Barkeep and SFR discussed this above. All the other stuff about possible sockpuppetry in the original complaint - that should have gone to SPI, which is the correct venue for handling possible sockpuppetry. (I note that Barkeep ruled it as the two accounts being unrelated on technical reasons) All the extraneous commentary from many other editors above ... is pretty much useless. So, we're left with - nothing. We can close this without addressing the other issues, as the one complaint that was suitable for this venue appears to have been decided as not a problem - if I'm reading the statements by Barkeep and SFR correct? While I might like to see something done about the digressions by everyone and the kitchen sink, I don't have the bandwith right now to topic ban everyone on my own admin authority nor do I care to deal with the nasty fallout I can see as likely in my future if I did such a thing. Close this and wait for the inevitable next time when we go through this same cycle again. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:There were some warnings above that Barkeep and I were roughly in consensus about, although as I asked above, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not {{tq|edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.}}? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. We can do that with a rough consensus here without having a lone admin eat the inevitable dozen hours of shit at all the appeals. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:: I could get behind topic bans imposed by a consensus of admins here, although I really wish that we didn't have to treat other editors like toddlers. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::ArbCom has a procedure for temporary injunctions to handle the kind of situation described above. I am opposed to AE usurping that authority for itself. I remain open to the warning expressed above. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::No, I don't have the appetite for tbans all around. That feels punitive. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]], {{xt|Scorch the earth}} usually causes a lot of collateral damage. For instance, battleground language could get caught up in it as well. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 10:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
* No opinion on whether this is the wrong venue for 1RR in this case, but starting a new RM that quickly simply because you disagree with the previous one is clearly disruptive, and I do think 1RR should apply here. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:We could choose as AE to impose 1RR on that talk page going forward, but I don't think we can decide the previous reverts were a 1RR violation. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Yeah, I get it. I missed the discussion, but I'd have said reverts on talk pages at CTs are disruptive enough, too. Not going to reopen that recent discussion. :D [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Starship, there was an RM that ended in June [[Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_2#Requested_move_3_May_2024|here]] that was endorsed in a move review at the end of July -- am I reading incorrectly? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::NM, I realize you were responding to a post above, sorry! The context there was the closure itself, which actually invited another RM. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Berchanhimez|Berchanhimez]], re: {{xt|It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so}}. There's a work factor, a knowledge factor, and a risk factor that might prevent others from wanting to mess with AE. The fact someone is more willing to do it is not necessarily evidence of disruption by them. It may simply be they're the only one with both the capacity and the will. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*I find myself unimpressed with the behavior of several participants here. As Ealdgyth notes, the ad homimen snipes serve only to raise the temperature. Socking has been ruled out and 1RR appears to be a non-issue, which doesn't leave much that is actionable. I am opposed to TBANs at this time; it feels disproportionate to the conduct here. I would support logged warnings. The CTOP restrictions do lay out behavioral expectations, but only in the most general terms. I would make a warning explicit as to the behavior that we find to be a problem. For me, in this case, it is the venue-inappropriate sniping, but particularly the bludgeoning of a process in violation of procedural convention when the outcome is not to your liking, or alternatively the use of procedural fine points to shut down a discussion when a previous outcome was to your liking. As far as I can tell many users have engaged in this behavior, on both "sides", and it isn't acceptable in any case. {{pb}} That said, I want to flag a concern with my colleagues' comments above. Sometimes there isn't anything differentiating parties in a dispute, and the appropriate response is either mass sanctions or an ARBCOM referral: but sometimes a single user's behavior is very clearly actionable, because they are pushing the envelope further than any others. I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other - we are in no way obligated to deal with all the disruption at once. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I definitely agree with the approach Vanamonde suggests in the second paragraph. Though admittedly I'm not sure who all that means would get a warning (where the 1st paragraph seems to be going). Per the {{tqq| I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other }} note I'd still favor logged warnings for Selfstudier and IC as an appropriate close out of this. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*Just noting that I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1245044764 closed the RM]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish|Vanamonde93|Valereee|Ealdgyth}} is there any appetite for any sanction out of this report? The most concrete proposal - topic bans all around - has no support. But I do so see some consesnus that there were conduct violations here so just closing it as no action doesn't seem to reflect the consensus any better. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Warning for starting another RM without any new reasoning shortly after the last closed. Warnings for removing the RM as an involved party, and for not discussing with the editor that stated the RM first. Warning for edit warring over the removal of the new RM. Warnings all around for battleground behavior. Lastly, a raise for us. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 22:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I am supportive of each of those warnings. I have not made an exhaustive list of which editors raised the temperature via ad hominem commentary, but that seems to me to be deserving of a warning. I'm honestly inclined to word that last as a reminder - not logged- and apply it to all parties to this report. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*: Frankly, how many times have folks here been warned for some of this? But, if that's the best we can agree on, I can support that. I really wish that warnings didn't feel totally toothless and ineffectual. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*::My quick check of the log earlier this week said there hasn't been warnings about this for the people involved her I found troubling. As such I support SFR's path as well. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:No objections to warnings others think are appropriate. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*We'll double your current salary, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}. Other than that, I think that's a reasonable solution. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jaredlcravens==
{{hat|Appeal declined; the sanctioning administrator was not notified despite repeated requests to do so. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Jaredlcravens}} – [[User:Jaredlcravens|Jaredlcravens]] ([[User talk:Jaredlcravens|talk]]) 18:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
; Sanction being appealed : arbitration enforcement topic ban of gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaredlcravens#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240905201500-Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
===Statement by Jaredlcravens===
Reason for sanction was "You have been sanctioned for clearly being unable to constructively edit on the topic of a person's gender."
Wikipedia page of Imane Khelif I edited (Imane's gender is currently being internationally disputed) says "Khelif was born female," and the sources cited for this are only news article quotes from Imane saying "I was born a female" and "I am a female."
I replaced Khelif "was born female" with "claims to have been born a female" because the sources cited do not evidence Khelif being a female, they only evidence her CLAIM of being female.
My comment to this revision was "Sources listed quote Imane as saying "I am a female," no evidence in these sources of Imane's biological sex. It is merely a claim. So the most factual way of stating this, and the statement that most accurately reflects the sources, is that Imane states or claims to be a woman."
This was a very objective, non emotional, topical comment. Not only do I believe my edit was the most factual and true according to the source, but I believe the comment in question was absolutely constructive. If you look at the arbitration log, you'll see that ScottishFinnishRadish has been continually sanctioning anyone who he/she disagrees with on the subject of sex/gender.
I would like the sanction removed, as I have done nothing to violate the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality decision and my comment was very constructive.
*::Who is the sanctioning administrator, and in what way should I notify? I didn't see this anywhere in the instructions. Thanks. [[User:Jaredlcravens|Jaredlcravens]] ([[User talk:Jaredlcravens|talk]]) 01:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks for your attention, I appreciate it. It's very much an unsupported claim, as Khelif has offered, and there exists publicly, no evidence of Khelif's biological sex. People are capable of lying. "Khelif claims to be a woman" is the most factually and semantically correct way this can be stated. I understand that it would be unproductive and just plain poor writing to have the article on Theodore Roosevelt say he "claims to be male" but in a case like this where there's a legitimate dispute, wording should be approached in a much more careful and selective way. A medical doctor from a professional sports organization claims Khelif is a man, and several professional boxers and coaches in the league are very suspicions of that too. There's enough here to acknowledge that there's serious doubt, and because no evidence exists publicly, it's both false and irresponsible to use Khelif's verbal claim as fact in this article. For instance, you wouldn't allow us to say O.J. Simpson was innocent of the murder on his Wiki. Instead, "found not guilty" or "acquitted" is appropriate and factually true. [[User:Jaredlcravens|Jaredlcravens]] ([[User talk:Jaredlcravens|talk]]) 02:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::No I'm not very experienced here, I assumed the user who sanctioned me would automatically receive notifications of this. I've followed the instructions as best as I could. [[User:Jaredlcravens|Jaredlcravens]] ([[User talk:Jaredlcravens|talk]]) 12:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jaredlcravens ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by Jaredlcravens===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*The cited source ([https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/totally-unacceptable-gender-identity-dispute-surrounding-boxers-lin-yu-rcna164995]) states {{tq|Both boxers have always competed in women’s divisions and there’s no indication that they identify as transgender or intersex}}, clearly indicating that this is ''not'' some dubious or unsupported claim, but rather stated as clear fact in the source's own voice. Inserting that the person "claims" that into the article, as though such a claim were otherwise unsupported, is therefore both a misrepresentation of the source and a violation of the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy, and this editor is rather lucky to just be topic banned rather than indefinitely blocked given those. I would decline this appeal. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Also, it looks like {{u|Jaredlcravens}} has not, as is required, given notification about this appeal to the sanctioning administrator. If that is not shortly done, this can be procedurally closed. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|Jaredlcravens}}, is it somehow difficult for you to see that {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} signed the sanction notice on your talk page? And you need to leave them ''some'' notification; anything is better than nothing. I am starting to doubt whether you are [[WP:CIR|competent]] to participate here at all. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==IOHANNVSVERVS==
{{hat|IOHANNVSVERVS is formally warned against edit warring and violating [[WP:1RR]] in the Palestine-Israel topic area. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning IOHANNVSVERVS===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|XDanielx}} 17:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|IOHANNVSVERVS}}<p>{{ds/log|IOHANNVSVERVS}}</p>
; Sanction or remedy to be enforced
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4]]
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:
The sequence of reverts:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1231928382 2024-06-30] IOHANNVSVERVS adds a new section
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240111201 2024-08-13] xDanielx removes it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240137176 2024-08-13] IOHANNVSVERVS restores it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240495587 2024-08-15] xDanielx removes it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240496216 2024-08-15] IOHANNVSVERVS restores it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240526069 2024-08-15] {{u|Alaexis}} removes it
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240537368 2024-08-15] {{u|Nableezy}} rewrites the section, with better adherence to [[WP:V]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240541869 2024-08-15] IOHANNVSVERVS restores his version alongside Nableezy's
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1241366317 2024-08-20] Alaexis removes both
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1241367516 2024-08-20] IOHANNVSVERVS restores both
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1242375839 2024-08-26] xDanielx removes IOHANNVSVERVS' version
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1242408479 2024-08-26] IOHANNVSVERVS restores it (while also reverting my other minor edits, not sure why)
Note the 1RR violation on 2024-08-15. Nableezy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240550920 requested a self-revert]; IOHANNVSVERVS didn't reply.
The pattern of dismissive replies, sometimes with links to [[WP:IDHT]] or [[WP:CIR]], is also frustrating. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240137630 2024-08-13] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240191460 2024-08-13] were perfunctory replies which didn't meaningfully engage with the concerns raised about sourcing. Several such concerns were never really answered. Edit warring without more substantive engagement makes it difficult to reach an understanding or compromise.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any:
N/A
; If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
*Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IOHANNVSVERVS&diff=prev&oldid=1185323426 2023-11-15]
*Filed an AE request on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1233576200 2024-07-09]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
{{yo|Ealdgyth|ScottishFinnishRadish}} An RFC might make sense, but here at AE I'm not asking for a resolution to the content dispute, which I will probably [[WP:LETGO]]. Rather I'm requesting enforcement, at least of 1RR since it's a brightline rule, to ensure that future content disputes can proceed on a fair playing field. I'll try to file more expediently next time (I had a busy few weeks IRL), but I didn't think there was that much time sensitivity around incidents with conduct policies. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping to keep this report simple, and avoid dragging admins into the content dispute. Since I've now been accused of POV-pushing, I'm inclined to respond, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to this request so I'll collapse it. If editors genuinely think I've committed sanctionable POV-pushing, I think a separate request would be the better venue. Here it seems like a distraction, since even if the accusation had merit, it wouldn't excuse the conduct that's the subject of this report. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Summary of my take on the content dispute}}
Levivich and IOHANNVSVERVS seem to hold a similar view, closely related to the content in question, which Levivich expressed as {{tq|the causes of the Nakba [aren't] in dispute}}, or {{tq|there is not scholarly disagreement about the quantity, motivations, or (immediate) causes}}. This is quite an extraordinary claim given the vast body of literature, both old and new, which examines and debates the motivations behind expulsions and the causes of flight. There are certain points of agreement, such as the fact that some significant number of expulsions occurred, but even there the quantity is a matter of controversy.
Of course, it comes down to what reliable sources say. Levivich and IOHANNVSVERVS have been providing sources which are related to the content, but don't really back it in the clear and explicit manner that [[WP:V]] requires ({{tq|must clearly support the material as presented}}, {{tq|the information is present explicitly in the source}}).
The initial sources were very broad statements about things like {{tq|the central facts of the Nakba}} or {{tq|what happened in 1948}}. At first glance, such broad statements seemed to fail the aforementioned standards of verifiability. Since IOHANNVSVERVS seemed adamant that {{tq|the content is well sourced}}, I spent several hours examining the context of the sources, but still couldn't find anything very similar to content like {{tq|violence and direct expulsions ... were the primary cause of the displacement}}.
I [[Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#c-XDanielx-20240813205800-IOHANNVSVERVS-20240813185800|explained]] my attempt at verification and [[Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#c-XDanielx-20240814001000-IOHANNVSVERVS-20240813233200|asked]] for pointers to any explicit statements I might have missed. I didn't get a substantive answer, although IOHANNVSVERVS did add an additional source, Khalidi 88. That one was admittedly more explicit, but far too old for a "Present scholarship" section.
Levivich later joined the discussion and collected additional related sources. At first glance they all appeared to suffer from similar issues, with none explicitly backing the content in question. If one examines the context of each source, most of them are saying that there's no doubt that expulsions or ethnic cleansing occurred, which we all agree on. Beyond that they're not claiming a consensus about causes or quantities. I [[Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#c-XDanielx-20240817063200-Levivich-20240817045700|raised these issues]] but didn't get a very useful reply. It's rather surprising to see him accuse me of bad faith based on that exchange.
I believe Levivich and IOHANNVSVERVS have far too lax an attitude toward [[WP:V]], leading to content with plenty of sources but none that provide genuine verifiability. But I recognize that this claim would be much more complicated to evaluate than that of edit warring, which is why I made the latter the subject this request. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{yo|SashiRolls}} I already acknowledged the more explicit Khalidi 88 source in my (collapsed) summary above. I was summarizing events chronologically; that source was added later. As I mentioned, it's too old for a "Present scholarship" section - it's a 1988 paper which summarizes Segev's 1984 (so 40 year old) book. Please cut out the sarcasm. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 15:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{yo|SashiRolls}} regarding the source you highlighted, such vague language ({{tq|what happened in 1948}}) is not useful without more context. I did read the [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.13166 article] to understand the context, and [[Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#c-XDanielx-20240813205800-IOHANNVSVERVS-20240813185800|explained]] why it didn't back up the content in the clear manner that [[WP:V]] requires. I didn't receive a substantive response. I have never and would never deny that massacres and expulsions occurred. The question at hand was whether works which also examine ''additional'' causes, such as Morris' seminal [http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf 2004 book], are part of the modern scholarship, or outdated historiography as a few editors have claimed. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 19:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IOHANNVSVERVS&diff=prev&oldid=1245044591 2024-09-10]
===Discussion concerning IOHANNVSVERVS===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS====
I will respond shortly. Please don't close this thread. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 21:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Do I have permission to exceed 500 words? [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 21:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]. Here is my statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IOHANNVSVERVS/sandbox#My_statement_regarding_this_AE_report]. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 22:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], I'll note that most (~1000 words?) of my statement is taken up by summarizing and explaing diffs, including quotations of the content which was in dispute and being added or removed in each edit. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 22:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the reason I didn't think I violated 1RR at the time, and why I'm still not sure if I've done so, is because in the first revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=next&oldid=1240495587] I restored both a change to the lead and a sentence beginning "present day scholarship". In the second revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1240541869] I did not restore the lead change (per 1RR), and though I again restored the "present day scholarship" sentence, I did so while ''also adding an additional citation.'' So it wasn't just a revert but I also changed the content.
This additional source was added to address Alaexis' objection that "Indeed there is no doubt that the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, but how does it follow from this that "violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces [was] the '''primary cause''' of the displacement of the Palestinians"?"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&action=history&offset=&limit=500] (emphasis in original) The citation I added said "Segev's was the first account published in book form to use the Israeli archives to show that mass expulsions of the Palestinians by the Zionist forces, before May 15, 1948, and in succeeding months by the Israeli army, were the main cause of their flight." Note that the edit of Alaexis that I (partially) reverted had only an edit summary of "no consensus, see the issues at the talk".
So I wasn't just repeating the same edit/reversion, but I substantially changed the content by also adding that citation, addressing what was Alaexis' primary objection on the talk page at the time. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], regarding "If you have concerns about other editors' conducts you are able to file separate AE requests for them." - I really don't understand how AE works in this regard. I could have sworn [[WP:BOOMERANG]] was a thing and that "we're going to look at the entire situation when assessing AE reports. Bringing up the behavior of an editor that was party to a specific dispute is expected."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal&diff=prev&oldid=1244729953] Anyways, I'm a Wikipedia editor not a Wikipedia prosecutor; I have little interest in filing a separate report. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 17:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] "I was referring to the fact that your sandbox (at least from my skim) was alleging misconduct by multiple other editors." The others I accused are parties to this specific dispute. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Andrevan====
I agree with the comments by xDanielx. 2 weeks is certainly not too stale to consider, so I would humbly request admins do not discard that evidence. I recently had an interaction with this user [[User_talk:Andrevan/Archives/64#Removal_of_sourced_content|here]] where they in my opinion, expressed a wrong and confused perspective about reliable sourcing and my responsibility to inform them of changes. While the conversation was quite civil, I think they might need a refresher on Wikipedia policy on ownership of articles and the responsibility of sourcing, verifiability not truth and so on. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 19:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Levivich====
{{tqq|had a busy few weeks IRL}} - had time to make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/XDanielx&target=XDanielx&offset=&limit=50 50 edits] though, including commenting at the AE I filed above. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:This is the same "various causes" POV-pushing that have been featured in my previous AE reports. Look at this discussion in which xDanielx and I participated: [[Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Merge, split, or re-scope?]], where xDanielx [[Special:Diff/1240736563|says]] "I wouldn't agree that the causes are not in dispute" and I and other present like 10 sources that say the causes are not in dispute, sources with statements as clear as:
:* "the hard facts regarding the developments during 1947–48 that led to the Nakba are well known and documented"
:* "now a recognised fact by all but diehard Zionist apologists"
:* "It is no longer a matter of serious dispute..."
:* "There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba."
:* "We don’t need to prove what is now considered a historical fact"
:* "serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948"
:* "What happened is, of course, now well known"
:* "The facts about 1948 are no longer contested"
:(Note how many sources xDanielx brought to the discussion.)
:How does an editor come out of ''that'' discussion, with ''those'' sources, and then make [[Special:Diff/1242375839|this edit]], with the edit summary {{tqq|Per talk discussions, the sources don't really support this...}}?
:Yeah, on Aug 15 it was a 1RR violation, but this "various causes" POV-pushing is a more serious problem. There is no good-faith way to interpret those sources and say "I wouldn't agree that the causes are not in dispute." And there is no good-faith interpretation of that talk page discussion as consensus that the sources don't really support this. And there is no good-faith interpretation of the sources in which they don't support that content. Words are written in black and white, they mean what they say; "no serious dispute" means no serious dispute. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 23:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::@Van: thanks, I will do so, due to RL it'll probably be a day or two. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by SashiRolls====
After detailed reading of the complaint, it becomes clear that pillars #2 (NPOV) and #4 (civility = no editwarring) were violated by repeated removal of well-sourced DUE content. This complaint seeks to penalize the defendant for unplugging the chainsaw being used to fell the pillars without using proper Briteline<sup>{{small|TM}}</sup> safety gloves.-- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 23:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Reading glasses for xDanielx}}
xDanielx: {{tq|I spent several hours examining the context of the sources, but still couldn't find anything very similar to content like}} {{purple|violence and direct expulsions ... were the primary cause of the displacement}}.
Somehow xDanielx missed this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACauses_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=1241372526&oldid=1241368328] -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 08:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
The original text added on {{diff2|1231928382|30 June}} that xDanielx repeatedly removed contained the following: {{tq|This has established what Ilan Pappé has summarised as the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’, a process involving {{highlight|massacres and expulsions at gunpoint}}. In light of the ever-growing historiography, serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948.}} (dated July 2022) I am certain that admins can judge whether a boomerang is appropriate for denying even now in this report that "massacres and expulsions at gunpoint" are "violence and direct expulsions". -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 18:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{Ping|xDanielx}} I'm sure it has escaped the attention of absolutely nobody that Benny Morris is name-checked no fewer than 45 times in the entry. This does not explain why you began edit-warring to remove a different POV than Mr. Morris' starting on 13 Aug. Your claim that "what happened in 1948" is vague in the context of [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.13166 this source] is quite simply false. "What happened in 1948" had already been clearly exposed earlier in the same section on Nakba denial: {{tq|The Nakba—Arabic for catastrophe—is the term used to capture the events of 1948 which led to over 80 per cent of the Palestinian population being {{highlight|violently forced to flee}}, and becoming stateless refugees in and outside historic Palestine}}. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by Alaexis===
{{ping|Vanamonde93}}, just wanted to respond to your comment below. You're right that my edit summary wasn't well phrased. What I intended to say was that the provided sources do not support the change but now that I re-read it I can see that what I wrote was different. I'll make sure I'll do better in future especially in the IP area. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
===Result concerning IOHANNVSVERVS===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*By my (admittedly somewhat tired and cranky) count - the latest diff listed is 15 days old. I can't say I think that uninvolved admin time is best utilized in investigating something that is that stale. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 18:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*: The thing is... *I* am busy. Like SUPER busy. It's fall - I'm trying to put some weight on some older horses before winter, it's crunch time with work, I have clients wanting pedigrees, so why should *I* drop everything to deal with something this messy that the filer didn't think was important enough to deal with when it happened, but rather waited until they had time. Uninvolved admin time is not an unlimited resource... [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 19:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*This is long-term edit warring from multiple parties, there's sniping in the talk page discussion about it, and there's no RFC. The last revert was two weeks ago, and multiple parties were edit warring so unless we want to drop some 0RR sanctions there's not too much to do here right now. {{u|XDanielx}}, start an RFC. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Logged warning is fine with me. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*This is a bright line rule violation. So I think we should log something about that, but agree that something which last happened two weeks ago (at least in a 1RR sense) is stale. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] how many words do you need? If it's more than say an extra 100 put it in a sandbox and we can respond substantively. If it's 100 or less go for it. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Personally I find 1800+ words for an initial statement too much (even granting some grace for theoretical [[Brandolini's law]]) but will leave a final decision for some other uninvolved administrator. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Skimming over your sandbox draft I noticed any number of ways that it felt that it could be made slimmer and part of the value of a word count, for me, is to force people to hone in on their strongest points (we can't all be [[q:Blaise Pascal#Pascal plus longue|Blaise Pascal]]). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::IO, I appreciate you focusing your reply and hope to substantively analyze it soon. If you have concerns about other editors' conducts you are able to file separate AE requests for them. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] a boomerang is a possibility for the person filing the report (though as Vanamonde notes below, some things deserve their own thread). I was referring to the fact that your sandbox (at least from my skim) was alleging misconduct by multiple other editors. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] yes I understand they are party to the dispute. However, the only two ediotrs who are party to this AE thread (at least at the moment) are you and xDaniel. So a boomerang is possible for xDaniel for their conduct (which is even older than yours) but you would need to file a seperate thread for anyone else you think should be sanctioned. Speaking only for myself, if the only thing is this edit war I agree with Vanamonde that you reverted more than anyone else and so if all that's happening to you is a logged warning it is unlikely that more than that would happen. And it's possible that less would be done. If there is other conduct with those editors that you want to highlight that is different. But again should go in its own AE report. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:After reading IOHANNVSVERVS' reply, I don't see anything that suggests this was not a brightline 1RR violation. A revert is still a revert {{tqq|whether involving the same or different material}} and so the small changes IO talks about doesn't change that they were repeatedly reverting this content and did so against a number of other editors. Absent any admin feeling otherwise, I plan to process the logged warning. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*I would support a logged warning. This is a bright-line violation, per BK49, and I'm also seeing two more reverts than anyone else has made, unless the timeline is incomplete. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Levivich, based on what you have provided so far I can't tell if this is a legitimate content disagreement based on different sources or if xDanielx is engaging in sanctionable POV-pushing - but I take claims of source misrepresentation seriously, and I would suggest you file a separate report. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 23:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
*I am still working through the sandbox report. A good bit of it doesn't appear actionable to me, and it does not change my view of the need for a logged warning about 1RR: there is rarely any urgency to fix what you perceive as an unjustified revert. That said, I wanted to note my unhappiness with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1238418684] this revert by {{U|Alaexis}}. That edit summary is demonstrably false: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&oldid=1232056462 this] is the state of the talk page at the time, and sources supporting the disputes content are prominently featured. I take no position on whether they are sufficient, or whether the disputed content should have been included; but sources had been provided, and claiming they had not is plain dishonest. It's also a very poor look to make that sort of revert, and then fail to engage on the talk page for another 10 days [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Alaexis&page=Talk%3ACauses_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&server=enwiki&max=]. xDanielx is, on the other hand, engaging substantively on the talk page. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{re|Alaexis}} It's encouraging that you undertake to do better, but my concern is broader than imprecision in your edit-summary. It looks very much like a reflexive revert with no prior and little subsequent engagement with the substance, which is evidence to me of treating the subject like a battleground. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ecpiandy==
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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]]).''</small>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Ecpiandy}} – [[User:Ecpiandy|Ecpiandy]] ([[User talk:Ecpiandy|talk]]) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
; Sanction being appealed : Arab–Israeli related article topic ban
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
; Notification of that administrator : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&direction=next&oldid=1245054504
===Statement by Ecpiandy===
I was unaware of recent Wiki rules in relation to 1RR on Palestine articles and was not actively checking my talk page; I am a long-standing good faith Wikipedia editor of more than 10 years now there won't be any more issues on articles related to this (or any) topic going forward, you can see through my historic time here I attempt to contribute to articles in a positive way. If it is possible to get a second opportunity to participate in articles relating to this topic I would be grateful; lots of the time it just for simple things like updating statistics rather than attempting to be involved in any debate.
===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (Ecpiandy appeal)===
I warned them for edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ecpiandy&diff=prev&oldid=1236485422 here] and two days later they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides&diff=prev&oldid=1236853715 continued to edit war] and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmiri&diff=prev&oldid=1236854029 canvassed another editor] to help them continue the edit war. Then in early August they violated their topic ban several times, which I blocked them for. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ecpiandy ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)====
===Result of the appeal by Ecpiandy===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*Longtime editor runs afoul of expectations in a contentious topic is something I have a lot of time for. I cannot, however, justify overturning this topic ban at this time. Per the criteria, the action followed the criteria (standard 1) and was reasonably necessary to prevent damage (standard 2) given the extensive set of warnings, the number of issues, and the subsequent topic ban violation. For me standard 3, {{tqq|no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption}} is the most favorable one to Ecpiandy and for that I would want to see 3-6 months of problem free editing elsewhere. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'd tend to agree with Barkeep49. "Not actively checking my talk page" is really not a great idea; if you're in the middle of making a series of edits and a talk page message notification pops up, it is probably unwise to carry on with the rest of your planned edits before you go see ''why'' someone is leaving you a message. And if you don't, well, everyone would just say "I didn't see it", so we have to presume that if a talk page message gets left, it will get read. So, I would decline the appeal, with the same note that if good quality editing is done over the next several months in other areas, I would very much consider lifting the sanction at that point. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
* I'd need to see a firm commitment to checking your talk page and really any pings, too. Just get into the habit of checking to see if there are notifications at the top of the page. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
==Colin==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Colin===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Snokalok}} 22:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Colin}}<p>{{ds/log|Colin}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality| Contentious topics - GENSEX]]
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
Colin has severe issues regarding GENSEX topics in a UK context.
Oftentimes when a source written by the British government regarding transgender topics is added, some editors will - while agreeing that the source merits inclusion in the article - nonetheless discuss its due weight and neutrality, often citing the UK govt’s record of targeted human rights abuses against trans people (as documented by the UN and the Council of Europe), as well as citing criticisms by reliable orgs against the particular source in question (the widespread MEDORG criticism of the Cass Review for instance).
Colin’s response on this topic is often to come in and deliberately misrepresent anything less than total deference as a personal {{tq|xenophobic}} attack on anyone of British nationality, and assert that editors or reliable sources from outside the UK have less right to doubt the British government than British ones do, accusing those who do of being political activists.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214652375 March 20 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1232156187 July 2 2024] ‘You, personally, are American, so you don’t get to criticize British government sources’ along with aspersions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214573067&title=User_talk%3AYour_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diffonly=1 March 19 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227530607 June 4 2024] Absolute tirades against YFNS, containing pretty much everything but the kitchen sink.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1214536786&title=Talk%3APuberty_blocker&diffonly=1 March 19 2024] Telling other editors to save their editorial opinions for a blog, aspersions of bigotry against the British, accusations of bad faith, accusations of editing in service of {{tq|trans politics}}.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245146596 September 11 2024] Calling the use of the term “trans kids” {{tq|fringe activist-language}} and attributing its use to American trans activism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1230376397 June 22 2024] Calling everyone who shares YFNS' points {{tq|amateurs who are so filled with activist rage that they don't even read the documents carefully}}.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1218074663 April 9 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1235276994 July 18 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1232536893 July 4 2024] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235701797 July 20 2024]
Aspersions of bigotry against the British + accusations of bad faith against Hist and myself (I was saying that if someone wikilinks “Gender exploratory therapy” and it redirects to the GET section of the conversion therapy page, that’s not a bigoted edit. He considered that me making it personal for some reason? I've never been through conversion therapy)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214682371 March 20 2024]
Mass accusations of bad faith and bigotry against the British, aspersions of being from ({{tq|some little twitter bubble}}):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214664561 March 20 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1218084560 April 9 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1220688623 April 25 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LokiTheLiar&diff=prev&oldid=1220070001 April 21 2024] Accusations of bad faith.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1218725070 April 13 2024]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1236274587 July 23, 2024] Miscellaneous aspersions. {{tq|Please base your arguments on what actually appears in the report and not what twitter feeds}}, {{tq|This is political game playing.}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1214685536 March 20 2024][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1233659733 July 10 2024] Personal attacks. {{tq|a matter for clever people, not wikipedians or twitterati}}, {{tq|embarrassing themselves on the internet}}
I don't know what the best solution is. But I do know that this behavior makes it exponentially more difficult to collaborate constructively. I tried saying as much on his page on May 9th, but he quickly turned it into a discussion on our personally held views regarding transphobia in the UK which I abandoned once it was clear this wouldn't change anything.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
NA
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Void_if_removed| Participated in this case]]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
Requesting word + diff extension
Edit @[[User:Colin]] YFNS uses she/they pronouns, not he/him
Edit 2 For whatever it’s worth, I would like to acknowledge that my own behavior does need improvement, and it’s something that I intend to work towards.
Edit 3 {{User:Barkeep49}} {{User:Vanamonde93}} since this is proving a matter of some discussion, I’d like to note that I intended the use of single apostrophes without tq as a means of paraphrasing, not as a direct quote. Do with that info as you will.
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|Colin}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&diff=prev&oldid=1245254954]
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Colin===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Colin====
There's text in quotes and green attributed to me but that I didn't write. And it seems most times Snokalok has confused me attacking the authors of weak sources and claimed those words were directed at editors, which would be clear with careful reading in context. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 08:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The [[Cass Review]] was commissioned and published by [[NHS England]]. It in turn commissioned two systematic reviews by [[National Institute for Health and Care Excellence|NICE]] and published [https://cass.independent-review.uk/nice-evidence-reviews/ here]. Subsequently seven systematic reviews were commissioned from the [https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/ York University Centre for Reviews and Disemination]. Those were published [https://adc.bmj.com/pages/gender-identity-service-series here] in the [[Archives of Disease in Childhood]].
These systematic reviews, which form the evidence-base for the Cass Review, have been repeatedly attacked on the basis that they are from the UK, and thus prejudged transphobic, and should be no more considered reliable than if they were published by the government of Putin's Russia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1214254720 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1229938597 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1232833346 here]. I have not accused any editor of xenophobia but have repeatedly complained that xenophobic comments have been made to dismiss these top tier sources. As others have noted, this happens elsewhere on Gensex topics. It seems unlikely, does it not, that this British transphobia has infected not just Dr Cass, chosen to chair an independent review as "a senior clinician with no prior involvement or fixed views in this area", but the NICE team, the eight world-class researchers at York and the editor and peer reviewers of the Archives of Disease in Childhood.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1230376397 This comment] repeats internet disinformation that the Cass Review excluded transgender health experts.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227530607 This post on YFNS talk page] is in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1227469546 this post] which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it.
It seems, given some of the comments posted, I haven't been clear enough that I'm enthusiastically attacking the authors of an awful source, rather than editors. I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that. YFNS claims I am here to provide a "knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review", and WAID notes that there's a US-politics battle to discredit the Cass Review. I'm not concerned with that battle. I'm concerned that medical matters on Wikipedia stick to the highest MEDRS sources, and don't repeat disinformation and conspiracy theories, from whatever side makes them. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Wrt Loki's "ridiculous and inflammatory accusation", I didn't make any of that up. It is all there in the sources YFNS cites above and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227614032 in their talk page response]. The "ghostwritten" part comes from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&diff=prev&oldid=1223078435 this post on my talk page by Snokalok] where they describe their "side" as "This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence" and later refer to it as "a theoretically top MEDRS source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org". But they are referring to the same conspiracy theory as YFNS. There is no reliable evidence that "SEGM and Genspect were[] involved at almost every step of the process". Every step?
Wrt YFNS accusation of misogynistic language, I recall YFNS told me they didn't do twitter, so may be unaware that Horton's twitter handle is "@FierceMum". Their language. I joined Wikipedia 19 years ago to edit medical articles as "someone's dad". I'm frequently reminded of the limitations of "parent" as a medical qualification. Horton is an activist, with no medical or clinical research background, whose body of research consists of interviewing their social media circle. And yet editors cite their opinion as though stronger than our systematic reviews and all the learned bodies in the UK, as though, at the very top of the [[WP:MEDASSESS|MEDRS source quality pyramid]], above the nine systematic reviews Cass commissioned, lies "Activist Opinion". -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 09:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] I have the greatest respect for you three admins so please take what I say in that light. Have a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1245426724#Colin the state of the AE request when I commented more fully]. I have 500 words to respond to 20 diffs from Snokalok which, as Barkeep acknowledges, are full of misquotes and characterising my words in the worst possible light. And at the bottom of the page, I have three admins making comments like "some of the diffs I've looked at concern me" and "there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions" and "language raises the temperature" and "need to take a look at their own behavior" and "treating it as a battleground is a problem, and us-vs-them language". Every one of these comments are undiffed, and ''if made by any other editor at this venue'', would be met with stern warning, as Barkeep did to Licks-rocks, of "behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs..". Do I argue with these opinions? No, they are fair. I respond that I would be "more than keen" to have a discussion with any one of you about my tone and language, but at another venue.
I was unaware that it was expected that I explicitly acknowledge my sins vs respectfully listen to what you guys have to say when you examine the diffs, which I certainly have. Of course my post to YFNS about her conspiracy theories was inappropriate in tone and language. You guys have already said as much, in a handwavy way, and I have not disputed that one bit. But Vanamonde93, I had at this point, no intention of seeking administrative action against this user, nor do I think ANI is the first step in dispute resolution or the place to resolve content disputes. If you may allow me to poke you a bit in return: I'm surprised an editor with a decade of experience thinks it is. If by "administrator attention" you believe admins are wiser than other editors, what can I say. Void is testament to the fact that a stern warning can rescue an editor from a topic ban, but there is light and day between the post I made to void and the one I made to YFNS. Did you think I can't see that and need to say it out loud like a child? If you did, I feel insulted and wonder why you think the criticisms you three have made aren't acknowledged and accepted. That simply isn't my character, which I think Barkeep, WAID and Sandy can attest to. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, I can only repeat what I said earlier {{tq|"I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that."}} Wrt my first post, you should consider I woke up to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1245298746 this] and posted a brief comment, addressing some of my concerns about the opening post, before I could start my day job. When I could return properly to this in the evening, you had added your concerns and advice. My feeling really at that point is that I had three good admins who would review my edits, weren't fooled by the misrepresentation by Snokalok, and could decide fairly whether this was an editor they want editing in this area, and make a reasoned decision as a result. I was seriously tempted not to write anything more and just let what will be will be.
I am concerned that you think an editor of 20 years should be made to perform a little dance of contrition for everyone's amusement, in order to get a more lenient sentence. Or think this weird forum with our own little boxes to write in, and word counts that seem to have gone out the window, is a sensible place for an editor to engage meaningfully with their peers/superiors about good editing practice and improvement. If you guys think I'm a valuable editor who they'd like to work in this area, if you agree with me there are issues with quality MEDRS sources being dismissed on prejudicial grounds, that disinformation is being pushed and outrageous conspiracy theories credulously promoted, and would like an editor of my calibre to deal with that, then I already made an offer to any of you to join me somewhere else for a bit of learning and improvement. That would be a respectful response I could work with. You have other options too. If you feel this area is not a good one for my mix of strengths and weaknesses, say so as one might to a friend or colleague, and I'll heed that advice. While this particular rabbit hole has rather distracted my contributions, as a fascinating area of medical controversy, I'd be off editing elsewhere. If instead you think a logged warning is called for, and I'm not arguing it isn't a fair, if rather algorithmic, response to a review of my conduct, it will certainly be enthusiastically preventative. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@[[User:Aquillion]]<s>what a bizarre post.</s> [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]: "Wikipedia is not ... the place to carry on ideological battles" and yet you accuse me of it ("an approach some some of the comments by others above also reflect") by taking at face value the attacks on me by [[WP:SPA|single purpose activist accounts]], who are finding [[WP:MEDRS]] inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause. Those editors may view Wikipedia as a BATTLEGROUND, and that surfaces in the way they view and describe me as an editor, and the fact I'm the third editor in this area to be taken to AE in last the couple months, the previous one still on this page. And [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]: "a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". This is most ironic as you (and several of the admins below) accuse me of this and other things, without any diffs or quotes, which would be helpful. Your entire post is absent any diffs or quotes of me. And then thirdly, not only am I to be sentenced by credulously accepting complaints of editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy, that sentence is to be made all the more harsh because I have colleagues who can see some merit in my contributions. Both editors you quote praise me as a defender of our core policies, and [[WP:MEDRS]] in particular. Neither of them have said anyone should aspire to my writing approach, and Sandy is harshly critical of that. As for whether this or that admin action encourages others towards continuing or worsening behaviour, have you not considered the the admins could close this with very much such a warning to other editors in prose. Why on earth does everything need to be done with the tools? I am an adult human being, Aquillion, not a child to be made an example of in front of the class. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I would like to repeat Sandy's request that I be given quotes and diffs to respond to by admins minded to give or log a warning. Barkeep, the "baseless accusations of bad faith" you mention is hard for me to deal with without specifics. I suspect there is a misunderstanding about who I'm accusing of bad faith (e.g. sources that promote disinformation and conspiracy theories). Similarly with the aspersions that SFN mentions without specific quotes. That would help me a lot. I completely get it about the tone and the temperature raising and the saying things that shouldn't have been said. Sandy's comments have been the most helpful so far and I'm committed to fixing this writing approach/style, no matter where I end up editing from now on. Finding oneself here is not easy, folks, particularly when the opening request contains claims I said things I didn't say (which remains unstruck), describes all the diffs in "the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light" and which generally "misrepresent" what occurred... and today I find an editor saying that because I have friends, who admire at least some aspect of my contributions, my head should be stuck on a spike as a warning to everyone else. Sigh. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by berchanhimez====
This isn't the first AE request that's been made against editors trying to follow MEDRS, and it's unlikely to be the last. There is a campaign by users for whom the ideas in the Cass Review don't support their political views, and so they are trying to get it removed from other articles (even though it's the strongest type of MEDRS - an independent systematic review) and to disparage it in its own article. Has Colin been less than ideal in his demeanor? Yes, but this is yet another example of users trying to get "first mover advantage" and remove him from this topic area so they can continue their [[WP:CIVILPOV|"civil" POV pushing]]. The points Colin make about other editors [[WP:RGW|ignoring the actual words of the document]] and cherrypicking sources/words to support their view are completely accurate, even if not worded ideally. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 23:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:At this point, I think the evidence provided by starship.paint and others has come to the point that this should be punted to ArbCom as well. It's obvious that the primary problem here isn't Colin's speech, but those he is speaking to, who are trying to push a POV on Wikipedia. I'd point out the behavior of those Colin was "rude" to here in the Telegraph RfC and the following discussions.. but I'm sure any admin curious can go review those if they aren't already up to speed on that situation. This is a clear situation (just like Israel-Palestine) where the topic area as a whole has editors trying to push POVs civilly, and AE is not equipped to handle cases like this where someone was, admittedly, a little rude, but the behavior they were responding to is extremely damaging to Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 02:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:Vanamonde, as to {{tq|There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this.}} - why would this be a logged warning? If you believe that there's {{tq|[so] much misrepresentation in this report}} that {{tq|[a] good faith [editor] could not produce this}}, why should a warning suffice? Warnings are for good faith editors that may stray from the desired path (like Colin), not for editors that are acting in bad faith. Someone acting in bad faith should be removed from the topic area, as they've shown they cannot act in good faith in the topic area (or beyond the topic area, but this is AE, not a place that can issue site bans). To be clear, I am very happy that at least Vanamonde is seeing that the root problem is other bad faith editors, not Colin. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 03:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
==== Statement by SandyGeorgia ====
I consider myself a friend of Colin, and consider him our finest medical editor; I saw the AE notice on his talk page. {{pb}} Considering Barkeep49's comment about the length of the original post, I looked only at the most recent diff ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245146596 this one, from 11 September 2024, today], noting the others are many months old), and find nothing amiss. It takes a ''lot'' of time and effort to type up something that comprehensive to explain the confusion that results in the misuse of language used to describe the cohort, and that misuse appears to have substantial consequences. Some editors have a hard time with Colin's typical command of the facts and the literature, and that diff seems to indicate that and is mischaracterized. The problem with referring to the entire cohort as 'trans kids' is well explained by Colin. Perhaps I should look further, but I agree with Barkeep49 that the original poster should narrow their list down to the more meaningful (assuming there are others that are problematic). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:I am on a plane all day; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49&diff=prev&oldid=1245345305 request at BK49 talk] for OP to better refine post using non-mobile diffs. {{pb}} {{ping|Barkeep49|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, I also request that admins on this page strictly enforce the need for diffs; the post by Licks-rocks is replete with undiffed assertions amounting to a diffless personal attack. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
: Recognizing Barkeep49's desire for the target not to sprawl, I want to at least say before I head for the airport that [[#Statement by starship.paint (3)]] regarding the denigration of highly reliable British sources (and I don't mean ''The Telegraph'') throughout trans-related discussions in favor of less reliably sourced content is also something I have seen at other articles than those raised here; if admins decide they want to explore that aspect further here, then I'll provide diffs, but if this poor sourcing continues to disrupt talk discussions, it would likely be the subject of a separate AE. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I have caught up on the diffs only somewhat; the amount of misrepresentation and misquoting of Colin is concerning and even more concerning is that there are still undiffed personal attacks on the page (editors seem to think that because someone said Colin said X, or they think Colin said X, or they took Colin to task for allegedly saying X, that is the same as a diff to Colin said X), but what is troubling me more at this point is the realization that behaviors I have seen on other articles are so prevalent throughout the articles mentioned in this AE, which I don't edit-- and that underlying problem is fueling these recent bouts. There seems to be quite an unaddressed problem still in the GENSEX area, and the amount of effort that editors who understand good sourcing are having to expend on basics may be leading to some exhaustion and frustration. I'm concerned that we could end up with no qualified editors to take on the amount of POV pushing that is occurring, as I'm aware we are already missing since July one very good editor in this content area; something broader may be needed to address an underlying sourcing problem, and on that topic, Colin is one of the best, and his absence from ''any'' content area would not be a good thing. WAID may be on to something in saying that some RFCs might be in order, and the editors who are disrupting talk pages and frustrating sound editing practices need to be called out to take some pressure off of those editors who understand the literature and good sourcing. It may be easier for the community or admins to sanction those who adhere to good sourcing but lose patience, but avoid taking on civil POV pushing by those who advocate for poor sourcing that supports a POV, but something must be done to address the underlying problem so we don't exhaust our best editors.{{pb}} It also strikes me that if the "trans kids" misrepresentation or misunderstanding from 11 September is what re-ignited all of this (most other diffs are months old), that suggests this AE wasn't exactly helpful, as WAID says. The April-published [[Cass Review]] led to some heated discussions, concerns, and hyperbole which have hopefully subsided somewhat; the 11 September "trans kids" situation was not a valid example to kick that back up.{{pb}} After striking out when trying to glean anything of substance by reading the diffs in the order presented, I instead reverted again to examining the next more recent diff from the OP—[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1236274587 this one from 23 July]. I know Colin well enough to know that he can probably see that the point he made in the 20:32 23 July post could have been equally well made without two sentences: "This is political game playing" and "This is some new invented nonsense by activists who can't accept a middle ground as that is giving an inch to US politicians." Having seen some of the POV pushing via poor sourcing, I can understand how frustrating it must be to try to edit in that area (I don't even try), but my advice for Colin going forward is: Colin, you are rarely wrong in your analysis on Wikipedia, but in real life and on Wikipedia, one isn't always applauded for being right—even less so when you have the intellect, knowledge, and writing ability to show incisively how often and sometimes how badly others are wrong. To make progress in this area, it may be helpful to review your posts to be sure you leave some face-saving room for other editors. That may be the faster route for moving this fraught content area to where it needs to go; saying less is more, particularly when some of the bad sourcing speaks for itself and doesn't require your incisive illumination. That is, I might sum up the commentary by the three admins below (BK, SFR and VM93) as "even when you are taxed by explaining things over and over, try to tame your cleverness, rub it in less, and edit the frustration about having to repetitively address poor sourcing out of your comments before you hit send ... just the facts will get the job done". {{pb}} BK49, I know you are aware of this, but others may not be: at [[WP:ARBMED]], the statement you referenced about Colin "degrading discussion" ''barely'' passed. Compared to other findings of fact in that case passing at 8 to 0, or 6 to 0, that statement about Colin passed at 4 to 1, so there wasn't a very strong consensus among the arbs about that statement. I hope you will all factor that as to whether a logged warning for Colin would be helpful here; my view is that more concrete and valid examples of what Colin might do differently would be more useful at this point. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Aquillion}}, I acknowledge not having gotten through all of the diffs, but I have yet to see an example of an aspersion, much less an extended history of one. I have pointed out above one example of two unhelpful sentences describing poor sources-- that are nothing like some of the aspersions cast at Colin on this very page with diffs that don't support them. It would be helpful if ''anyone'' participating in this thread could give a concrete example of Colin casting an aspersion on any editor so that could be addressed and responded directly to, if there is one. It would at least benefit to understand the standard that Colin is being held to, so that the same standard can be upheld at other articles in the GENSEX realm. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 04:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Colin}}, I think you could strike "what a bizarre post"; viewed logically, you make valid points explaining why you see the post as bizarre, but the statement only adds heat, and your points are understood without it.{{pb}} Having looked at the alleged "aspersion" diff, now working back by date, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1233659733 to the next example listed in the original complaint as a "personal attack"], I'm not seeing that either. Since this is what I find on every diff I view, I would appreciate someone/anyone claiming a personal attack or aspersion posting a diff that actually shows one of those. We already have Colin acknowledging on this page a post to another editor's talk that was "inappropriate in tone and language"; the continued allegations of personal attacks and aspersions, sans diffs, are aspersions. Aquillion, I'm not defending aspersions; I haven't seen a diff where they have actually occurred. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 08:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
==== Statement by WhatamIdoing ====
I don't think that this is helpful. The subject is difficult. There is the expected amount of POV pushing. This AE report feels to me like an effort to "win" a content dispute by banning people who disagree with you.
Consider the complaint described as "Calling the use of the term “trans kids” fringe activist-language and attributing its use to American trans activism."
"Trans kids" was a term I used [[Talk:Cass Review#Downplaying facts|a current discussion]] about whether we need [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution for a statement that {{xt|"children with comorbidities did not receive adequate psychological support"}}. "Children with comorbidities" means kids on [[NHS England]] who have been referred for gender services and who also have [[autism]], [[anxiety]], [[depression]], [[eating disorder]]s, and other complex needs that are ''not'' about being trans. Some editors want this statement to be labeled as merely something [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1244764273 "The report claimed"]. (I disagree; I consider it a violation of [[MOS:CLAIM]] and [[WP:INTEXT]].)
This content background is necessary to understand why Colin objected to me using "trans kids" to describe these kids: "getting a referral" isn't the same as "being trans", just like "''not'' getting a referral" isn't the same as "''not'' being trans". I conflated the comorbid population with the trans population. We have sources saying that at the start of the multi-year Cass Review, trans advocates agreed that not every kid who was referred was actually trans, and that this shifted during the last months so that a small portion (that'd be "Fringe", right?) of the trans advocates (otherwise known as "activists", right?) started saying that every single kid who got a referral needed medical transition (e.g., puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) and should be expected to have a lifelong trans identity.[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/gender-identity-services-for-children-and-young-people-navigating-uncertainty-through-communication-collaboration-and-care/D0F6B23F37C3D82B38C2470DF65854C9] Colin asked all of us to be careful and precise, which IMO is fair. However, when you pull Colin's comment out of context, or just glance over the discussion, it can be unfairly twisted to sound transphobic.
Snokalok's contribution to this discussion is to say that the Cass Review is so controversial that INTEXT attribution is appropriate even when it's saying something undisputed,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review#c-Snokalok-20240910111400-Berchanhimez-20240910031100] and to say that psychological support may be a code word for [[conversion therapy]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review#c-Snokalok-20240910163400-WhatamIdoing-20240910162600]
Overall, I do feel like there are a lot of Americans (including me) involved in an article about [[NHS England]], and I do occasionally feel like one "side" sees it in terms of American politics. There seems to be a fear that if this report isn't criticized as heavily as possible on as many grounds as possible – we even talked about whether to mention a typo in a source that was cited in the final report[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_7#c-WhatamIdoing-20240622233200-VintageVernacular-20240622221100] – then bad things will happen ''outside'' of England. This is IMO just to be expected. I believe this article will be a lot easier to write in five years. In the meantime, we have to muddle through as best we can. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:Meta comment: Given the propensity to re-litigate content disputes (e.g., is a given person properly described as "an expert on transgender healthcare"? Is this or that source actually suitable for claiming that a different source is wrong or transphobic?), I wonder whether AE has ever inflicted a series of specified RFCs as a sanction.
:In the meantime, perhaps you all would try to confine your comments to the [[I-message]] format: "I felt ____ when he ____. Instead, I think he should _____" – and if the words you want to put in the second blank sounds anything remotely close to "disagreed with my POV/a source that supports my POV", then don't post it here, because that's not actually what AE is for. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]], it has indeed been difficult to get editors who are familiar with MEDRS to work on these pages for any length of time. I think this will get better over time, when we will have a greater number, and hopefully better quality, of academic sources to work with. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by LokiTheLiar====
As a participant in many of these discussions, and as someone who otherwise greatly respects Colin, I'm posting here mainly to say that I agree with Snokalok's complaint. Colin especially has a bad habit of casting weird nationalistic aspersions when anyone argues that the British government or media may not be a reliable source, regardless of their evidence for this. I should also point out he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235697107 does] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235701797 this] on non-MEDRS pages as well (those diffs are both from a dispute on [[LGB Alliance]], and they're not the only two diffs like it from that discussion), so it's definitely not just "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS". [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that to say [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conversion_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=1227469546 this] {{tq|repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis}} is pretty obviously the sort of ridiculous and inflammatory accusation that we're here about. What YFNS actually said is that SEGM and Genspect, two anti-trans hate groups (very well sourced on their pages), consulted on the Cass Review (and that therefore the Cass Review's conclusions are suspect for bias). And they did, YFNS gives [https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/06/05/genspect-segm-designated-anti-lgbtq-hate-groups-by-splc/ a source] for that too. The Los Angeles Blade is a subsidiary of the [[Washington Blade]], who our article describes as {{tq|often referred to as America's gay newspaper of record}}, and so there's every reason to think they're reliable for this information. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] I stand by my characterization of that source, and in fact knew that from the beginning. We don't usually question our source's sources here. If a newspaper is willing to republish a blog post, it's endorsing the factual content of the post. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 15:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
==== Statement by starship.paint (3) ====
I just read the diffs above by Loki on supposed {{red|weird nationalistic aspersions}} by Colin, as well as some of the context. It seems that there was a discussion where five British sources were brought in to back up a certain point. The British sources, [[BBC]], [[The Daily Telegraph]], [[The Guardian]], [[The Independent]], [[The Times]], cover a substantial spectrum of British views, and are quite well-rated on [[WP:RSP]] (though the Telegraph was temporarily downgraded to marginally on trans issues at the time of the discussion, the rest are generally reliable). Some editors responded by seemingly rejecting British sources altogether and directly comparing them to other countries such as Russia and Hungary, and that pretty much explains Colin's responses for Loki's diffs. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|1=Quotes of rejection of British sources and comparison to other countries. Bolding by me. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])'''}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235648988 Amanda A. Brant,] July 2024: {{tq|We are not going by how pretty much the entire press in "the country in question" treats various Russia-related topics. '''That the sources are British is not an argument in their favor.''' The UK in general[https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/01/25/council-of-europe-uk-lgbt-trans-rights-russ-apoland/] and the UK media have an abysmal reputation regarding LBGT+ issues, commented on by many observers and experts, so their media should be treated with the same caution we treat Russian newspapers as sources for the LGBT+ rights situation in Russia … The radicalization and virulent transphobia of British media doesn't change that. The only thing it changes is the reliability of British media, especially regarding LGBT+ issues, in the same way that we treat Russian media with a fair degree of skepticism, especially regarding contentious topics.}}<br><br>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235653187 Snokalok,] July 2024: {{tq|The Council of Europe has long held the '''UK’s institutional transphobia''' as being on par with that of Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. We would not uncritically trust Hungarian news sources to determine our description of gensex topics, we shouldn’t be doing so here either.}}
{{cob}}
{{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} - it seems that your {{tq|good example of the unnecessarily inflammatory interactions I am concerned about}} (and some others of Colin's comments) was prompted by assertions made by other editors in the topic area who are involved in this complaint. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|1=Quotes of characterization of the Cass Review and the UK}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227614032 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist,] June 2024: {{tq|a lot easier to take the Cass Review seriously if SEGM and Genspect weren't involved at almost every step of the process}}<br><br>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&diff=prev&oldid=1223078435 Snokalok,] May 2024: {{tq|This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence}}, then an analogy: {{tq|source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org}}<br><br>Same link as above, Snokalok then discusses the UK: {{tq|which country is more transphobic … In media it's also the BBC, the Guardian, the New Statesman, every outlet big or small across the entire political spectrum regularly runs pieces on how "trans women are here to replace biological women" or "should seeing a trans person in the bathroom be considered rape" or something like that, in government it's also Keir Starmer, it's also Wes Streeting, it's both major political parties, like half the SNP, half the Green party … not just the elected politicians either, it's the}} [[Equality and Human Rights Commission]], {{tq|it's the courts … it's the Queen of England … Why would we give page-reshaping weight to something}} the [[National Health Service]] {{tq|put out on the matter as though any semblance of objectivity or epistemic good faith can reasonably be expected? That’s not to say to exclude the NHS, just don’t treat its word as the gospel … an organization’s track record and position on a topic should inform how exactly we deploy the source … how much weight would we give that? It just happens that the UK government and most of its subsections, have a terrible record on the topic.}}
{{cob}}
{{re|LokiTheLiar}} - you highlighted YNFS' [https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/06/05/genspect-segm-designated-anti-lgbtq-hate-groups-by-splc/ source] and stated that {{red|there's every reason to think they're reliable for this information}}, but this source literally {{tq|republished}} a [https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/splc-designates-genspect-segm-as?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=994764&post_id=145346203 Substack] blog as a news article on [https://www.losangelesblade.com/category/news/political-news/religious-extremism-anti-lgbtq-activism/ Religious Extremism/Anti-LGBTQ+ Activism]. The Substack author is a self-described [https://www.erinreedwrites.com/ activist] whose tagline is {{tq|Advocacy For LGBTQ+ Justice}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
* Right, so no need to {{red|question}} the Los Angeles Blade in this case, with its relation to the generally reliable Washington Blade. Never mind that editors have questioned the Cass Review, questioned British sources (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Times, New Statesman)… '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
{{re|Raladic}} - I am quite surprised that you consider {{u|Void if removed}} as {{red|hounding}} you when they looked at your contributions to an WP:AE complaint '''you literally started against them.''' I would expect every ‘defendant’ at AE to meticulously scrutinise the AE complaint against them, this is not cause for sanctions at all. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Licks-rocks====
I don't much like AE discussions, and I don't tune in to the discussion at issue much anymore either, but I will say that I've grown quite annoyed at Colin's attitude towards the topic. Whenever I get involved with him in a discussion, the first thing I have to do is wade through a veritable river of small and larger misrepresentations about both what his conversational partners have said, and what the sources say. He has a bad habit of assuming the worst in other editors, and thus attacking the worst possible interpretation of their position, rather than the position those editors actually hold. I and others have called him out on this several times already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=next&oldid=1245322173] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1232596099]. In addition, as visible in the diffs snokalok already provided, he is consistently extremely dismissive of anything that writes negatively about the cass review, whether that be statements from WPATH, peer reviewed papers of any kind, or anything else, and will accuse other editors of bias when they argue back. Just in this last discussion he dismissively referred to a peer reviewed analysis of language used in the cass revieuw as an "activist's opinion piece" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245332239][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245322173][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1245311531] and berated me for referring to it as anything else, in doing so again repeatedly insinuating that I and YFNS don't understand how peer review works. The paper in question ''is'' peer reviewed, not in the opinion section, and consists of a literature analysis. That's just not conductive to productive discussion! And yes, he did indeed berate YFNS for colloquially using the words "trans kids" in a discussion, calling it "fringe activist language", though he later walked it back a bit. This agressive, uncompromising, and accusatory attitude is extremely tiring and grinds discussions to a complete halt.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 11:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Void if removed====
Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be. Methodical, precise and absolutely focused on the best possible sources - and we disagree hugely on much of GENSEX, having butted heads many, many times, but always scrupulously fairly. [[Cass review]] needs more editors like this, not fewer. After being subjected to AE myself just days ago, I find it very hard to [[WP:AGF]] at this attempt to remove an editor of Colin’s calibre. This looks like an attempt to bully and "win" content disputes.
I agree completely with whatamidoing’s assessment of "trans kids" - in this specific context, it is unhelpful language, and its better to stick to the Cass Review's phrasing. There is a [https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/gender-dysphoria-in-young-people-is-rising-and-so-is-professional-disagreement/ dispute in healthcare in this area] and sticking precisely to what sources say and how they say it helps navigate, even if editors don’t personally like it.
The descriptions of the other diffs are disingenuous and misrepresented, eg. the "activist rage" comment is directed not at editors, but the authors of terrible sources.
The "Council of Europe" responses also I think need to be seen in the context of protracted cases of [[WP:IDHT]], with several editors on GENSEX UK topics repeatedly attempting to use a partisan political statement from a subcommittee of the Council of Europe as a trump card against UK [[WP:RS]], even MEDRS. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1235653187&diffonly=1 this]
from Snokalok as part of the chain on July 20th. In the AE request against me, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1243869439 Raladic used it to attack another editor, and disparage the UK legal system]. It comes up [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_7#c-Raladic-20240619152600-Colin-20240619110100 time] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism/Archive_4#c-Amanda_A._Brant-20231105192000-Colin-20231105175100 again], in all sorts of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#c-Amanda_A._Brant-20240703225900-Chess-20240603215200 contexts], from the same handful of editors trying to use it to exclude or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_7#c-Hist9600-20240624211400-Anywikiuser-20240624163800 question] [[WP:RS]] from the UK. Bringing it up ''again'' in this AE report is somewhere between [[WP:IDHT]] and [[WP:RGW]], and if Colin is fed up with it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_7#c-Void_if_removed-20240621090400-Raladic-20240619152600 he isn’t alone]. I'd be glad to see a page ban for any editor repeatedly flogging this dead horse.[[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 13:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:I notice the LA Blade article Colin described as an internet conspiracy theory is the same reposted substack article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1244072270 that came up in my AE last week].
:This is not a quality source. [https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/04/10/transphobic-report-by-uk-pediatrician-hilary-cass-released/ Both the author and this outlet consistently publish misinformation about the Cass Review].
:{{tq | the review '''dismissed over 100 studies''' on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality, applying standards that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric medicine}}
:This claim is [https://fullfact.org/health/cass-butler-stonewall-100-studies/ completely false], and MP Dawn Butler had to apologise for [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/22/labour-mp-may-misled-parliament-stonewall-cass-review/ repeating this myth in Parliament]. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:We've now had two back-to-back reports involving the same editors, in the same articles, with much the same arguments and diffs that are presented with {{tq | the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light}}. After taking mine on board I was hoping things would settle, but clearly not. Nobody wants another of these, so I would please ask that any decision consider seriously whether it will cool down or further inflame this contentious topic. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 09:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist====
I'll preface this with I don't believe Colin should be banned from GENSEX, and I find it funny that multiple editors have called it a POV-pushing attempt to TBAN someone when nobody has said they should be TBANNED...
That being said, I think a logged civility warning and/or bludgeoning restriction are probably for the best. Perhaps also a cool off block from the topic of the [[Cass Review]], but I'd hope that can be avoided.
The tirades on my talk page were particularly tiring -
# Colin came in to argue I'm heading for a TBAN because I noted a [[WP:RS]] reported that the Cass Review denied a FOI about the authors and arguing "if I see the Council of Europe mentioned one more time in a talk page discussion trying to dismiss a source from the UK, and a top-tier source like this, I will take whoever said it to the relevant forum for a topic ban" and accusing me of xenophobia against the British (funny considering I'm half British...). He accused me of trying to put it in a Criticism section (which I never did) and trying to defend PB's bc of my opinion (funny considering I think PB's are a regressive treatment and youth should be offered hormones instead in nearly every case) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#UK]
# Colin came in to say I'll be TBANNED and was pushing "conspiracy theory bullshit". When I back the claim I made with multiple RS (saying that [[Genspect]]/[[SEGM]] were involved), he argues my statement is somehow "typical of the misogynistic nonsense" towards Cass...[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#UK]
Colin also threatened Snokalok with a TBAN for noting the Cass Review's FAQ on their website is hardly [[WP:INDEPENDENT]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review/Archive_5#The_view_that_%22Cass_is_not_a_reliable_RS_on_biomedical_facts_and_claims%22:_a_snapshot_of_the_For_and_Against_from_Talk_so_far] He has then accused Loki of being in "moon landing conspiracy territory" and threatened them with a TBAN for saying the Cass review is fallible.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LokiTheLiar#Be_careful]
Colin has been responding to any and all criticism of the Cass review by handwaving them away as "activists" and etc, repeatedly argued to exclude criticisms of the Cass Review from its article, and generally seems to be treating it like holy writ which cannot be criticized on any basis. The Cass Review is not universally well accepted by the medical community, and in fact has been quite criticized on multiple fronts (by human rights orgs and medical orgs and LGBT RS and etc). I'd like to see a warning to treat other editors civilly and not continue insisting everywhere that the Cass Review is somehow infallible.
I hope this is a wake-up call for Colin, because I think he's overall a valuable contributor to GENSEX, but am frankly sick and tired of his knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review from any and all criticism and his incivility doing so. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 18:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:I'll note 3 things from Colin's reply:
:# he says I repeat internet misinformation by saying the Cass Review explicitly excluded trans people from the Assurance Group, linking to himself[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1230376397&oldid=1230211708&title=Talk:Cass_Review]. In that comment, he repeatedly mocks and denigrates Cal Horton, handwaving their peer reviewed criticism as "opinions someone's mum" <small> for the record Colin, that bordered on misogynistic</small>. His comment is 2 paragraphs of insults in response to a quote saying {{tq|The original published Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Cass Review’s assurance group explicitly excluded trans expertise, stating that it “deliberately does not contain subject matter experts or people with lived experience of gender services”}}
:# He links to me noting the Cass Review denied a FOI (a very uncommon practice) as evidence of supposed xenophobia, and he continues insisting "they denied a FOI" requires [[WP:MEDRS]] (obviously not per [[WP:MEDPOP]]) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1214254720]
:# The note on my talk page speaks for itself. Multiple RS say these organizations had some levels of involvement. Colin apparently considers that "misinformation".
:[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Colin|Colin]] you keep using "disinformation" and "conspiracy theory". The [[Cass Review]] was criticized by [[WPATH]] and all of their regional organizations and the [[British Medical Association]]. The [[American Medical Association]] and [[Endocrine Society]] stood by their policies when Cass criticized them. [[Amnesty International]] has said the report's been weaponized. More criticisms are in [[Cass Review]]. Is there a single criticism from any org or scholar you'd not describe as "disinformation"? [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 18:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Colin|Colin]], you can't accuse everybody who disagrees with you of being {{tq|single purpose activist accounts, who are finding WP:MEDRS inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause}} (<small>btw, what exactly is the "ideological cause"?</small>) and {{tq|editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy}}. Nobody has called for your ban because even those who disagree with you find you a generally valuable editor, but are sick of being accused of stuff like this by you if we consider the [[Cass Review]] anything short of infallible. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Raladic====
I wasn't going to comment on this, but incidentally, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1245486133 Colin's own latest statement in the AE report] here now forced me to. This repeated attacks on Dr. Horton are reaching [[WP:DEFAMATION]] levels and may actually require [[WP:OVERSIGHT]]. Dr. Horton has several years of research experience and is an expert on transgender healthcare. You're welcome to read the draft [[User:Raladic/Cal Horton]] of their experienced and published research on the topic. It also seriously puts into question if Colin is acting in good faith on following MEDRS if he himself isn't actually able to leave his emotions in check and realize that this isn't just a random "activist" as he puts it, but an expert on transgender care who has dedicated several years of their career to it. To show how systemic this repeated denigration from Colin on this has been, admins can refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cal_Horton&diff=prev&oldid=1241210385] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cal_Horton&diff=prev&oldid=1241409538] where another user (who appeared to have been an SPA to advance anti-trans points and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive339#Peckedagain|was recently TBANNED from GENSEX]]) tried to repeat Colins earlier defamatory comments about Dr. Horton and those were revdeleted due to the defamatory nature by another admin.
One a separate note as it appears Void if removed is still hounding my edits as they are posting a diff to a comment that is not actually in the live comment that I made to another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#c-Raladic-20240903211700-Request_concerning_Void_if_removed as I reworded it a few minutes after the diff they linked], as you can see in the archived section, so the only reason they would have this diff is if they are somehow hounding my edits. I request they remove/strike their baseless accusation of me "attacking another editor" (with a diff that's not even live as I pointed out) as I simply linked to an article on Wikipedia, which summarizes the RS view, so calling what reliable sources report an attack is baseless. Since I did point out VIR may be hounding me in the original AE report and this appears to be another case to support this, may an admin advise on this? [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 15:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] - are your or another admin going to address the report I made above in my statement to tell Colin to stop his continued BLP violations/defamation of his misrepresentations of Dr Horton? [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 17:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Aquillion====
While I know that a single AE case cannot solve the problems of an entire topic area, one thing I would like administrators to keep in mind is the number of responses, above, that describe Colin's behavior as something to be emulated. This report is imperfect but the diffs above still document an extented history of [[WP:ASPERSION]]s and a willingness to approach the topic area as a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] - an approach some some of the ''comments'' by others above also reflect, in a way that shows how that sort of incivility metastasizes and spreads. Colin is experienced enough to know that that isn't how editors are supposed to interact with each other. When that sort of thing isn't met with some form of formal sanction, especially when coupled with a lack of contrition or any recognition that they've done something wrong, it is taken by everyone involved as permission to raise the temperature further, which is part of how the topic area has reached its current unpleasant state. If it's necessary to create reports for other people in the topic area then ''do'' it, but in terms of purely preventative measures that might help the topic area become more bearable, statements like {{tq|Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be}} and describing him as {{tq|our finest medical editor}} are arguments for being ''more'' strict with him, not less. Experienced editors whom others emulate should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Tryptofish====
I've been quietly watching this AE thread, and did not particularly want to involve myself. I want to say right off that I have long disagreed with Colin, and I'm sure that he and his friends would regard me as someone biased against him.
That said, I want to strongly endorse what Aquillion has said in his statement just above. Whatever else may or may not be going on here, and whether or not anyone else has unclean hands in making accusations against Colin, those comments are important for AE admins to consider seriously.
As some have already noted, in the Medicine case, ArbCom made a finding of fact about Colin: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Colin]. Ultimately, it doesn't mean any less because of how the Arbs voted, because it is still part of the final decision, and Colin should know about it. And look at the first diff of the three diffs listed there by the Arbs, and what he said about me, and most importantly, the way he said it. Based on that experience, here is what I said then on the case request page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=948413268]. I was near to quitting Wikipedia over how it made me feel (so my reluctance to comment now isn't new). And here is the evidence I provided in that case: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Tryptofish]. If you go to the second heading of March 30, and the paragraph starting "But Colin then entered the discussion, saying... ", and follow the diffs there, you'll see that the issues raised in the current AE thread have been going on a long time, with Colin issued an FoF back then, and a similar attitude continuing here, with little sign of repentance. Even if he is right on the content issues, ArbCom has correctly determined that [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]], and that principle should guide AE admins now. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Colin===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* Snokalok this is already a very comprehensive report. I'd ask you to consider what you feel the biggest issues are and the strongest diffs are and use that rather than going much longer. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I am completely uninterested in letting this report sprawl. If people have concerns about anyone other than Colin (and for me this includes Snokalok given that the diffs here are not about a 2-party dispute but if another admin feels that's too far, fair enough), they should file their own AE report. @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] the original report was with-in word and diff parameters (technically I count 22 diffs but the extension is granted retroactively) and so I will not be asking them to limit it further. But to your point the exception I'd be willing to make about sprawl are people who don't follow behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs - Lim-rocks your statement could have waited until you had time to support it with diffs) during this discussion. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
* I want to hear from Colin (and am prepared to grant a word extension if necessary because successful defense takes many more words than successful accusation) but I will note that some of the diffs I've looked at concern me as I think parts go beyond "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS" (though I definitely did see some examples of editors failing to understand MEDRS as well). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I feel like we're seeing, in miniature, the disputes I've now read about in this report and Void's, play out in in this AE report. It starts with a quote ({{tqq|You, personally, are American, so you don’t get to criticize British government sources}} that isn't actually a quote of Colin's. This absolutely sets the wrong tone for a discussion. Of course supporting that quote that isn't words Colin ever wrote are diffs which show that Colin does indeed have concerns about Americans criticizing British government sources. Why put words in Colin's mouth then? It then continues with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light, to characterize 20 more diffs of Colin's. In the full context of the quotes it becomes clear that Colin is responding to perceived shortfalls of others when it comes to using [[WP:MEDRS]]; I won't claim Colin's perception is always right but I would suggest on the totality of diffs at play here that those he's replying to should really think on the fact that many editors who've worked with Colin on medical articles outside this topic speak so highly of his understanding of that guideline.{{pb}}But none of that changes that Colin's over the top language - with one example in evidence by SFR below - creates conditions that perpetuate a battleground rather than collaborative atmosphere. The 2020 ArbCom's description of Colin as someone who {{tqq|has degraded discussions by baseless accusations of bad faith and needless antagonism}} seems to be true here as well. While I'm not necessarily opposed to Vanamonde's suggestion that no formal sanction is needed, my first choice at this time is a logged warning. Admittedly part of my reason for this conclusion is that the most recent GENSEX AE (Void's) closed with an informal warning and so passing equivalent sanctions would understate, for me, the severity of harm to the editing atmosphere in evidence with Colin. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*While some of what I see in the diffs looks to have been misinterpreted, there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions that don't technically refer to other editors need to stop, as does policing the use of terms like "trans kids"on the talk page. I, too, would like to see Colin's response. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it}} is a good example of the unnecessarily inflammatory interactions I am concerned about. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*I would like to see a more substantive response from Colin. What I am seeing so far is a mixed bag. I am seeing many instances of nuanced explanation by Colin that is being misrepresented. There is some strong language, but not generally beyond the bounds of what I would consider acceptable. I am also seeing allegations of xenophobia from Colin, and conversely some negative references to national character from those he is arguing with. Such language raises the temperature to no purpose. I'm not sure if sanctions are justified, but multiple participants here, including Colin, need to take a look at their own behavior. Editing a contentious topic requires patience and a willingness to examine nuance - treating it as a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]] is a problem, and us-vs-them language is a good reason to remove someone from a topic. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 19:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*:It bothers me that Colin's reply does not in any way acknowledge that his language was inappropriate, and as such I would support a logged warning, per Barkeep49 <small>(FTR, I use "sanctions" as shorthand for things that materially restrict an editor, rather than a rap on the knuckles).</small> I don't know why a Wikipedian of two decades tenure needs to be told this, but if an editor is bringing sub-par conspiracist sources to a contentious topic, the appropriate response is to bring them to administrator attention, not to post [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227530607 lengthy screeds] on their talk page. I'm also seeing that sort of inflammatory language from other editors though. Making over-the-top analogies to other countries isn't appropriate: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty_blocker&diff=prev&oldid=1214254720 this] is inflammatory. If editors cannot conceive of a position between "X is transphobic" and "X is the gold standard of medical knowledge", this topic is going to remain a disaster and the editors in it are likely to find themselves unable to edit it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I'm much less likely to support sanctions against editors who recognize that they lost their cool and commit to being patient, than ones who insist they did no wrong; and your first post, Colin, contained much deflection and little reflection. I ask you in the future to bring problematic editors to admin attention not because we are wiser - I certainly wouldn't claim to be - but because the community has empowered us to remove disruptive editors from contentious topics. If you believe admin intervention isn't necessary and that you can persuade an editor to see the error of their ways re: sourcing, then you need to do so with temperate language or step away. And like it or not, we're here because someone brought your conduct to admin attention: if you aren't going to discuss your conduct here, where do you intend to discuss it? And as to diffs; we aren't providing evidence, we're assessing evidence other people provided, and by your own admission those assessments are fair. If you disagree, you are free to try to persuade us, or appeal any outcome of this discussion to ARBCOM. {{pb}} Having thought on this further, I'm inclined to additionally support a logged warning for Snokalok. There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this. There's other editors whose language I'm not happy with, but many of the diffs I'm looking at are a little old to action. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 02:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Raladic, if you're talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1245486133 this diff], I don't see how it is defamatory, and I don't believe it rises to the level of revision deletion either; questioning the credentials of a source is a necessary part of content discussion. Colin's language is too harsh, but that is something I've already alluded to. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::I will note that I did look at this claim of possible OS when it was first made and found it lacking. I can find no evidence (including on the draft bio page) that what Colin wrote is wrong: Horton appears to have done no '''clinical''' or '''medical''' research (emphasis added). They have done other kinds of research and have academic credentials in the topic that are pertinent. Dismissing them out of hand as someone who only has the perspective as a parent isn't helpful (which Colin did) but neither is pretending what Colin wrote is defamation requiring Oversight. One disconnect that this does raise is just how much of the Cass Report is biomedical information requiring MEDRS sources and how much are other kinds of science/research. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|Barkeep49|ScottishFinnishRadish}} It's been a few days since an admin commented, and in my view the additional discussion here is not helping resolve anything. I still believe a logged warning is in order for Colin (for inflammatory language) and for Snokalok (for misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith). How do you feel? [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Is there more of a misrepresentation than just the quote? If not I'm not in favor of warning Snokalok. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)' |
