Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With previous consensus[1] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [2] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [3] [4] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [5] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [6] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [7]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [8] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

• This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[9] - WP:POV violation.
• This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
• This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [10] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
• Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [11] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [12] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [13] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [14] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [15] and previous discussions which you have ignored [16] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[17]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [18] and previous discussions which you have ignored [19] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[20]

you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [21] and previous discussions which you have ignored [22] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes [27] [28] [29] even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this [30] he needs to understand that his opinions are not factsHawkers994 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: It would be more constructive to refute my explanation above. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This user is saying as if he is writing an article based on "presence (of country)", but I find it hard to believe. For example, the town of Bo'ame, which he mentions immediately above, is the town that Somaliland acquired in 2022, as noted in the current article. By his logic, that would mean that prior to 2022, it was not Somaliland. However, this user rewrote the town's country of ownership from Somalia to Somaliland prior to 2022.[31] In other words, he does not believe that "the country that occupies a town is the owner of that town." In his mind, he had concluded earlier that this town is a Somaliland territory, and he is just bringing logic to it. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

numerous times the sources on the article pages make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing ignores this and you reverts all sources and edit according to your opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: The article Bo'ame had 3,442 bytes in July 2021 before I started posting.[32] All that was written was the location with neighboring districts and the economic relationship with neighboring cities where there were no sources of information. I have added over 9000 bytes to this article. When we read the current article, we will see how this small town has dealt with its larger counterparts in Somaliland and Puntland. In short, I wrote most of this article. I am also the one who searched for sources of information. What exactly are you trying to say to me that I am ignoring the source? In contrast, what contribution have you made to the article in this town? You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland. You are just replacing the word Somalia with Somaliland. That Somaliland is a superior country is evidenced by the fact that the Puntland and Federal Republic of Somalia governments have adopted the system conceived by the country's leaders. If you want to tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland, I think you should tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland as it is in your articles, instead of doing nonsense like replacing one word with another. If you are not capable of doing so, then you should not be adding to Wikipedia. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your false claim that I have not added any articles to Wikipedia is untrue, [33] and many other contributions you chose to ignore in your emotional rant were created by myself, similar to how you choose to ignore the sources on article pages. As for the boame article the sources [34] [35] show that it’s under Somaliland government control and cannot be ignored and that info boxes should show that. As explained before there is already a dispute article which highlights this [36] which are linked to these articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

Comment Both users, Hawkers994 and Freetrashbox seem to be locked in de facto edit wars on pages I have reviewed. Even if they do appear to avoid 3RR. In general, the wall of text and back-and-forth arguing makes this difficult to follow. Hawkers994 is editing in a strongly partisan fashion on pages like Bo'ame as an example. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your third edit? You should comment with your main account. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, this is my main account however. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not. You don't get to pretend to be new and file an ANI complaint with your third edit. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell This is not respectful to IP editors who want to make an account. Why would IP editors want to register an account if they could not use their new account just like people with Wikipedia accounts who have been here the same amount of time as them? Maine 🦞 16:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Okay, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that you did not contribute at all in the Somaliland article. However, I checked your entire contribution history and found that, with the exception of the revert, you added more than 1,000 bytes only to the first edition of the 2,366 bytes article you listed immediately above. No doubt you have contributed little to Wikipedia. Also, as you can see from my explanation above, I am not talking about whether Bo'ame is in Somalia or Somaliland. Are you trying to deflect the conversation? I'm just asking you to write without arbitrarily choosing the sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Once again you’re trying to change to the subject when i have debunked your lies, info boxes on these mentioned articles will relate to the sources [37] and changing the subject to a users contributions will not change the fact that these articles have previously been edited and also changed by many other previous uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: If you are saying that I told lies, please show the edited difference. The garoweonline article you showed exactly reveals that Somaliland has effective control over Tukaraq, however Puntland is objecting to it. I wrote about it in the article Tukaraq.[38] But you removed it.[39] Can you explain the reasons for your edits? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As the source states there is no somalia presence this region, why did you ignore the source and change the info box [40] when there is already a dispute article as previously mentioned. [41] You also changed the source of the article to confuse readers [42] which i had to change back again. [WP:POV] states that opinions and not facts so you cannot just change them to your own accord.

Administrators and others: The conversation is going in circles. First, please give me your opinion on whether the copy-paste edit ("On the beginning of..."[43]) that Hawkers994 mentions immediately above is a violation of Wikipedia's rules or not. If this is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules, please your opinion on whether my rewrite ("Somaliland's Minister of Interior..."(the same link)) constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You lied about me of not adding adding any articles to wikipedia then when i debunked your lies [44] you said “Maybe its an exaggeration” and when confronted your changed the topic to Individual user contributions while trying to confuse users that info boxes should relate to sources. It seems you are the one going around in circles.Hawkers994 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Then, I will talk about this one first. I have reviewed your history for the past 500 edits or so (about 2 years) and concluded that "You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland." But you had an edit in the past that was over 1000 bytes. You made the edit 5 years ago and it is only 1 of your 900 previous edits. Given this situation, can we say that I told a lie? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Both of you need to quit making contested edits for a minute and read Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent Sennalen (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I was not cool with the editorial with Hawkers994. For this reason, I have now stopped editing the article disputed with him regarding the nationality of the town. I have called for dialogue with him on Talk:Tukaraq, Talk:Wadamago, Talk:Bo'ame, Talk:Yagori, Talk:Sool, and Talk:Hudun, but he has not responded. Currently, these articles are written to his liking (except for the articles that have been further edited by another person). Dialogue is effective only when the other party responds, and is meaningless if the other party does not respond. I think just editing without responding to dialogue is a sufficient violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's a step forward. Now, isn't ownership of these areas part of the Puntland–Somaliland dispute? If so, the articles should just say that, instead of the two of you trying to fight the war on Wikipedia. Sennalen (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve mentioned that there is a dispute article [45] many times on here for this region which these towns come under, yet this user ignored this as well as the sources which show control of these towns. Its pretty straight forward that info boxes should relate to that. User Freetrashbox does not need to change and deflect the topic.Hawkers994 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Haven't you also pursued a campaign of assigning ownership of disputed territory to just one side? Sennalen (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, i mentioned that there is a dispute article for all these pages, and that the info boxes should relate to the sources that show control of the towns and are present on the ground since all these articles already mention that its disputed.Hawkers994 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Please thread your comments.
2. If I'm reading the diffs right, Freetrashbox wants to claim things for Puntland, and Hawkers994 wants to claim things for Somaliland. You both recognize that there is a dispute when it comes to adding claims, but you both have also removed claims.

Add sourced claims, removed unsourced claims, and quit being partisans for a side. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to say to Hawkers994 is to write based on sources, and don't erase it just because it is a bad source for him. Hawkers994 also claims that "the town is Somaliland because it is under the control of Somaliland", therefore, I have given examples where Hawkers994 edited that it is Somaliland even though it is not under Somaliland's control. I am not claiming that these towns are Somalia (or Puntland); I am pointing out that Hawkers994's editorial stance is wrong as an earlier matter. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What i would tell Freetrashbox is to let the sources speak for these articles and infoboxes, as these articles already mention them being disputed in the article info section and the local governments that run these towns. Your editing attitude should also be straight forward without being indirect about users editing contributions.Hawkers994 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: I think such a topic could be resolved on the article's talk page (of cource when you join the discussion.) However, your attitude of editing without sources, deleting sources you don't like, and your double standard by the article is unacceptable to me. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You have made multiple violations including WP:POV on these articles as well as lying about user’s contributions as your previous replies show. Choosing and ignoring sources to your liking and stating your opinion as fact goes against wikipedia rulesHawkers994 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I always explain with evidence, your opinion is always just some impressions... I don't need to tell you which is more contrary to WP:POV, describing one or both in a description of where there is a disputed. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide some comments on whether Hawkers994's behavior is problematic, or totally acceptable, or problematic but within acceptable limits? Freetrashbox (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox avoiding sources and deletion of articles must be stopped, he has been warned many times in talk pages and doesn’t seem to care of the consequences. Wikipedia is not a place were you can do as you wish. His earlier replies indicate his behaviour wont change will be continue to ruin sourced articles Hawkers994 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Af420

Af420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [46] [47] [48] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [49], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA to me;

• Just because u are from Iran doesn’t mean everything belongs to Iran! (this was very their very first comment towards me)

• Dear HistoryofIran please use some sources before adding your personal opinion!

• what’s your problem, why do u think everything on Wikipedia should work the way you want it to work? Furthermore, instead of just writing your feelings, please add some good sources!

After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; BTW, not everybody has so much free time, so I’ll not be able to discuss this situation with you anymore, you can absolutely do as you wish

And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that No sources were provided!. May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STONEWALLING and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your WP:Stonewalling and not assuming good faith. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong indeed. The first diff [50], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [51]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear @1AmNobody24:, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:))

Af420 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I agree that User:Af420 has probably violated a few policies. But you called the UN a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Request closure

As demonstrated in this report, Af420 is amongst many things blatantly WP:STONEWALLING the dispute, openly saying that he won't take part anymore and that I can do what I want, whilst contradictory still reverting me. And now he has just resorted to taunting me, not even bothering just address one bit of this report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420 does appear to be taunting HistoryofIran at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear, @HandThatFeeds: the reason I didn’t bother to answer is because Mr. HistoryofIran basically thinks everything belongs to Persian history, and he puts Persian above everything, here are some of his logs:

• he thinks Backgammon a Persian game:
  • Just wanted to add what it's called in Persian, it is a Persian game.

————————————————————

• He took the the Azari language from the top and and then put it under Persian
  • here is the source

————————————————————

• He took away the text that says Azerbaijani people are Turkic people, instead he wrote that Azerbaijani people are Persian people.

• • I putted sources on, the Azerbaijanis people once spoke a Northwestern Iranian language called Old Azeri language. But the Turks forced the Azerbaijanis to speak Turkish. The genetics of the Azerbaijanis are very close to the Persians.

And much more!!! Af420 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that evidence and have anything to do with this? This dispute still has nothing to do with Iran, unless you think Tajikistan is located there. Those are literally random diffs from 10 years ago (yes, I am not even kidding, he seriously went all the way back to 2013). And I also highly doubt you even knew of these diffs before now, which shouldn't justify your violation of multiple rules anyways. This is just more WP:ASPERSIONS by this user, if not also lack of WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is a long-term user with a good record of edits. None of what you posted is egregious, and seems to reinforce that you're here to push an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The UN and The New Yorker appear reliable to me. Either or both parties should seek input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard instead of edit warring. I see some low-grade incivility from Af420, but he seems prepared to follow NPOV recommendation of presenting all views found in RS. Sennalen (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No need, as they're not reliable per WP:SPS as mentioned up above. I fail to see how constant insults and taunts is only "low-grade incivility" and demonstrates that he is ready to "NPOV recommendation", even though he was also removing sourced information as mentioned above. Can an admin please address this? This is frankly getting ridiculous, is this how we now treat fellow users and engage in disputes? Is instant WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, edit warring, WP:STONEWALLING, taunting, the way to go in a dispute? Since it seems to be working. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no clean hands here. One of the three sources was SPS. The appropriate resposne would have been to remove that one citation and WP:PRESERVE the claim and its other two citations. Sennalen (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Kindly don't put me at his level, in no way did I behave even as remotely as him. Despite his persistent attacks and taunting (including in this very report), I have tried to maintain a calm and nice tone, only to get comments like "There are no clean hands here." This is what SPS says; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". In other words, two news articles written by non-academic, non-historians are not WP:RS. Either way, sitting here and discussing what is WP:RS and what isnt is pointless, since Af420 didn't even bother to do that himself, instead resorting to well.. I rather not keep repeating myself. The report here has more than enough evidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, discussing it here is pointless. Discuss it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not helping. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn’t get archived. HistoryofIran (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support indeffing user:Af420. Said "user" is displaying some serious WP:CIR-ish behavior. And I don't think any of it should be WP:AGF'd. The fact that he digged to HistoryofIran's edits dating back to 2013 (!), i.e. a decade ago, i.e. years prior to him even registering on Wikipedia, and tried to use it against him when confronted with a bunch of awful edits made by himself, is quite telling and reveals the intent of said "user". The fact that the says he doesn't want to take part in further discussion is the cherry on top of the cake. I don't think the community benefits in any way by having such a user. Much less so when taking an actual look at the edits he made that resulted him in being brought to ANI. Said user has barely made 600 edits over 6 years[52] and is now trying to convince us that his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Were the edits correct? Sennalen (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support. Editors who are here to "win" need to go. Maine 🦞 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support as the one who created this report. If Af420 had been more active throughout these 6 years, they wouldn't even have been on Wikipedia for that long, cause they would have already been indeffed. This is not how you act on this website, or in general for that matter. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support per LouisAragon. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, this is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. I will point out that in the version HistoryofIran reverted to, you can see that in one of the sources used to support Vakhsh as place of birth, the author writes, quoting a book by another scholar, "[h]e further states: "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh, but at least between June 1204 and 1210 (Shavvâl 600 and 607), during which time Rumi was born, Bahâ al-Din resided in a house in Vakhsh (Bah 2:143 [= Bahâ' uddîn Walad's] book, "Ma`ârif."). Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old (mei 16–35) [= from a book in German by the scholar Fritz Meier—note inserted here]" (see here). This, coupled with the article on the UN website leads me to believe this situation is not as clear-cut as described, which in turn dissuades me from indeffing Af420. Yes, he is primarily to blame for inflaming this dispute, but, for my money, HistoryofIran is not entirely blameless either. He should have followed WP:DR and taken the issue to WP:RSN. The rest of the disruption coming from Af420 is insufficient to support an indefinite block, in my opinion, once we rule out that his edits violated WP:TEND. Yes, he cast aspersions and, from the very first interaction, he was confrontational and personalised the dispute, and for that I can support closing this with a stern warning that continuing to engage in that sort of conduct will lead to sanctions, but I feel that the best course of action is to concentrate on the underlying content dispute. Salvio ^giuliano 09:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Advocacy editing by User:TheTranarchist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have become increasingly concerned about the editing of TheTranarchist since I first noticed a report about an article on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. That article is about Chloe Cole, a young woman who has detransitioned. The report expressed concerns about impartially. One editor stated that it "reads like an attack page". It is excessively detailed and relies mainly on sources which are antagonistic to Cole. Although discussions on the talk page don't seem to be getting very far, the content problems with this one article could, theoretically, be worked out, but this is only one of several problematic articles created by TheTranarchist.

By their own admission, TheTranarchist is using Wikipedia as a platform to attack people and groups with whom they disagree. They link to their Mastadon account on their user page. There, they have said about Genspect (bolding mine):

These fuckers hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy.

@healthliberationnow and @tsn have done some of the best reporting on them hands down.

I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer. Their main strategy is appearing in right wing and far right publications often enough that liberal news organizations start uncritically treating them as merely concerned experts (don't we love the New York Times...).All hope is not lost though, as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one. The truth of their positions and actions is on prominent display and they can't lie their way out of it.

Other comments on Mastadon have already been noted on the talk page of another article created by TheTranarchist. Reading through The Tranarchist's Mastadon posts, it is clear that she views Wikipedia as a battleground and other editors as "transphobes" or "TERFS" if they disagree with her. TheTranarchist seems to be a tendentious editor and has does not seem to have heeded the advice about neutral editing that she has already been given.

Although I suspect TheTranarchist and I share similar views, Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy and attack pages. If she is unable to show that she can edit in a neutral way, TheTranarchist should be topic banned from gender and politics topics. Round and rounder (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Round and rounder, you seem to have a history of trying to bring in information about other people from outside Wikipedia, including trying to directly out them, as you rather flippantly responded to here. It's somewhat strange, coming from an account that started editing a month ago right away on the COI noticeboard and has been actively involved in noticeboard discussions since then. Silverseren^C 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren Loksmythe brought up TheTranarchist's Mastadon account in this talk page discussion. That's where I saw it for the first time, today. My "flippant" response to that other user came after a bizarre and completely false claim that I had asked them to create an account. I think I was being nice, considering.

Any thoughts on TheTranarchist's editing? Round and rounder (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts on their editing? They seem to actively focus on using proper reliable sourcing and call out sources with biased claims, especially claims that conflict with medical and scientific sources and therefore shouldn't be used as a source. There a lot of MEDRS violations in this topic area and TheTranarchist is good at calling that out and other reference problems.

As for Loksmythe, they should also have to respond to bringing up outside Wikipedia info in that discussion over there in order to attack TheTranarchist's editing. Silverseren^C 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren What did Loksmythe and I do that was wrong? If TheTranarchist has her Mastadon account on her user page aren't we allowed to read her postings? Are we not allowed to quote them here? Round and rounder (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Loksmythe failed to actually discuss any specific concerns or improvements on the page and used my post about the article (published after the article itself) as evidence the page should be deleted. If your argument that the page is not neutral doesn't address any specifics and relies solely on linking to criticisms off the organization off wikipedia, that's not a productive comment at all. In short, they did not actually point out any NPOV concerns, they just claimed my own opinion on FAIR made the article inherently POV. Notably, the contents of that post heavily differed from the content of the article - as while I see no need to restrain my criticism of an organization off Wikipedia, on Wikipedia I stick to reliable sources, even if I feel they aren't explicit enough. If anything my posts show beyond a shadow of a doubt that I stick to reliable sources when writing articles instead of my own opinion. I called FAIR "racist" and "transphobic" on Mastodon. On Wikipedia, I objectively referred to the specific things they are known for campaigning against and not once in the article called them "racist" or "transphobic" as sources failed to specifically use those descriptors. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@round and rounder: Got a bit confused about the sequence of events there, so for clarity's sake: I did some digging and you appear to be misremembering. You asked that user if they were the same person as/were related to a small time tennis player whose article they created. The conversation you linked to only happened afterwards. Licks-rocks (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks That's correct. I asked them if they were that person and advised them to read WP:COI if they were. Later, they made their strange claim after an IP editor accused us both of being sock puppets. That's when I wrote them off and deleted their message. Round and rounder (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've no comments yet, but @Round and rounder: are you sure that you've linked the correct discussion and diffs here? The "in this talk page discussion" is a circular link back to this discussion, to which Loksmythe hasn't contributed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. This is the right link. Round and rounder (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is rich.

In regards to Chloe Cole's article, your claim relies mainly on sources which are antagonistic to Cole is patently untrue, as most sources simply mention her notable actions. The fact that reliable sources that provide WP:SIRS coverage of her tend to be critical is not my fault.

Genspect is widely known for publishing misinformation and supporting forced detransition and conversion therapy, and multiple reliable sources have said so. I have no ethical qualms about being glad that when you search them you get a well-balanced article detailing what they're known for instead of their PR campaign. Notice I never used the word "attack", just "expose". Their is a very large difference between an attack and an objective and neutral accounting of their actions and reception in the medical community. Per WP:FRINGE, an organization with fringe viewpoints is objectively described by noting their fringe positions and how it deviates from the norm. If you can find problems with the article, go ahead and discuss them on the talk page, claiming the article or my editing is a problem because I wanted to accurately cover them is laughable.

Your linked post to support me calling editors as "TERFs" for disagreeing is ridiculous. For a start, Keen has repeatedly referred to herself as a TERF, and even then it is a neutral term not a perjorative. The bout of edits the screenshot is from came directly after Keen publicly complained about her article and it was met with a wave of vandalism, which resulted in the page being protected due to multiple editors having to try and stop it. For the first comment in that screenshot, they were arguing that her activities did not constitute harassment, a POV that only makes sense if you disregard how it's covered in reliable sources and consider activities such as 1) telling trans women they should not be allowed in women's spaces, 2) deadnaming a trans woman and accusing them of hating lesbians, and 3) publicly deadnaming and misgendering a trans child, as not constituting harassment. Ie, their position was very clearly in defense of harassing trans people.

The accusation of "tendentious editing" was viewed by other editors as a personal attack that had nothing to do with the page's content, as it boiled down to just claiming my political position inherently makes the page unobjective. The editor who made that comment has made no effort whatsoever to productively discuss things on talk. The one who echoed the claim of "tendentious editing" has a huge undisclosed COI and a demonstrated pattern of tendentious editing on that article and others, which I have already notified arb-com about.

In short, you have failed to bring up any issues with my actual editing and are just attacking my political positions without evidence they have made articles non-NPOV or that I have failed to seek consensus and work with others to improve articles when serious POV concerns are brought up in good faith.

Echoing @Silver seren's note, at a first glance your account history had seemed woefully suspicious, but I tried to assume good faith. Given the large amount of key-presses you've seemed to devote solely to attacking my editing, I think a check-user should look into your account and activity. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist Just for the record, I haven't attacked your political positions at all. I don't have a problem with them. Round and rounder (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Round and rounder You have raised no evidence that my editing is problematic, just linked to people attacking me for my political positions.

A recap of your argument

• The concerns raised about Chloe Cole on the BLPN were not actually related to edits I'd made, and were criticizing edit's I'd also spoken out against. You said this is only one of several problematic articles created by TheTranarchist, but the problems raised had literally nothing to do with my edits. As I noted there, the person who filed that seemed to do so in retaliation for my work on the FAIR article. A quick look at that section and Cole's talk page will show I have worked to productively discuss any concerns there.
• You claimed I create the article on Genspect to "attack" them. Per WP:FRINGE, neutrally describing what they've done and how fringe their positions are isn't an issue. I take pride in making sure FRINGE ideas and organizations are presented as such, entirely in line with WP policy. Notably, you didn't bother to provide any examples of issues with the article, merely criticized me for describing them as fringe off-wikipedia and saying I wanted to make sure people got an accurate history of their actions and advocacy.
• You cited people calling me a "tendentious editor". The person in question raised no issues with the actual content, refused to discuss anything on the talk page, and and called for the articles deletion solely on the basis of me being critical of FAIR off-wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, the only one to echo that claim has a large COI and their edits are truly tendentious. @CaptainEek, you're the only arbitrator I can remember off the top of my head, can you check the arb-com email and confirm that statement?
• You used a post about laughing about vandals as a supposed gotcha, when the screen-shotted comment in question had questioned whether harassment of trans people really counts as harassment. It is undeniably funny when vandals attempting to edit a page en-masse results in it being locked down. Poetic justice and all that. Keen's far-right ties have been commented on by numerous reliable sources, and per lead-follows-body they should probably be in the lead already.

If she is unable to show that she can edit in a neutral way, TheTranarchist should be topic banned from gender and politics topics - You have given absolutely no evidence that my edits aren't neutral and your main argument seems to be because I've criticized transphobia and transphobic organizations off wikipedia my edits are inherently not neutral. My largest good-faith criticism I've received, which I'm trying to work on, is that my articles contain too many details and should be trimmed. Not that they're not neutral, but that I may be overly thorough. That's hardly worthy of ANI. Your recommendation reads less like a good faith recommendation based on substantive arguments and more a blatant attempt to try and stop me editing because you disagree with my political positions based on spurious grounds. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a boomerang per @Silver seren's mention of Round and rounder's tendencies with outing and general uncivil behavior. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of boomerang, GeneralNotability just blocked Round and rounder for being a sock of World's Lamest Critic. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Question @TheTranarchist: I haven't read through everything above, so apologies if this is already discussed, but there are a couple of things I'd like clarity on. 1: Your userpage appears to acknowledge that the linked Mastadon account is yours. Can you confirm that? 2: Were the quotes mentioned above genuinely written by you? I don't really know how Mastadon works, so it would be helpful if you were to either stand by them, or refute that they were yours. I think that clarifying these points would help us move forwards. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 23:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit I can confirm that's my account - I just object to the notion my posts there should be used instead of clear evidence of problematic editing. Like I mentioned above, while I don't hold back on criticisms there, my wikipedia edits have a very different tone and are based solely on reliable sources. Even when I want to say something about an organization, I have never inserted my own opinions into an article. Just what reliable sources say in language supported by them. Hope that clarifies things! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for confirming that. Just for the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that these words are yours: I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer? Girth Summit _(blether) 00:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I can confirm that. Genspect is a fringe organization known in multiple reliable sources for publishing misinformation and presenting as impartial doctors while working with religious conversion therapy organizations. Is it problematic to desire to use Wikipedia to make sure WP:FRINGE organizations and positions are accurately represented?

  Preceding that quoted comment, I'd said they hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy. This is factually supported in reliable sources on every count. Nobody writes a WP article they don't want people to read or without reasons for doing so. If their are problems in the article, please note them, but otherwise I don't see how saying I tried to accurately represent a FRINGE organization as such is particularly noteworthy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  We are writing an encyclopedia, we aren't investigative journalists. If a subject has already been exposed as a crock of shit, then it's fair enough to describe it as such (with appropriate attribution to the people who did the work of exposing it). Your goal here should not be to expose anything, it should be to summarise what authoratitive sources already say about it. Don't crow online about exposing stuff, that isn't what we do. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am very well aware. There's a bunch of data on Genspect I have not included in the article as they are not reliably sourced or would be OR. I have only used RS in articles, and this seems to be a linguistic miscommunication since to my ear "exposing" does include the act of compiling what disparate reliable sources have said to create a full picture. One could say that while disparate sources may expose certain activities of an organization, exposing said organization includes the act of compiling them.

  Your goal here should not be to expose anything, it should be to summarise what authoratitive sources already say about it. - a summary of what reliable sources say about them still "exposes" them, as the definitions of "expose" include "To reveal the guilt or wrongdoing of", "To make known", and "To make visible". I fully agree with your take on what wikipedia is and is not, and as I said this seems to be a miscommunication. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would suggest, however, that you, in your social media posts, make it clear that they have "been exposed", and you're going to make sure Wikipedia readers know that, rather than saying you're the one doing the exposing. The difference is that you're not engaging in original research: your Mastodon quote implies that you are, and casts doubt (incorrectly) on your contributions here, thus, indirectly, harming Wikipedia's reputation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Rsjaffe Fair enough, I shall! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this should play out. On one hand, it's a problem when we find information off Wikipedia and then use it for discussions about editors on wikipedia. We should largely judge editors by what they do here, not elsewhere (absent things like doxing etc off site). On the other hand, TheTranarchist has shown poor judgement when creating new articles and several editors have tried to raise awareness on their talk page and on article talk pages[53] and they were given a formal warning recently [54]. The originally published versions of Chloe Cole and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism showed clear bias in source choice, failure to use IMPARTIAL phrasing etc. The off wiki comments strongly suggest the intent was to make these, in effect, attack articles to warn others and that reflected their POV. The on wikipedia product supports that view. Honestly, this is one of the few times I've observed an editor and felt CIR applies. That said, I don't have time to dig up all the diffs needed at this time. I would oppose any boomerang since that ignores the issues with the original works. If the pattern of poor editing continues or a longer history is shown (I haven't interacted with this editor that much) then I would suggest a topic ban so they can prove competency in other areas. Springee (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fully digging out of the bottom of the barrel here - it's funny your first two sources are in regards to other editors with a COI.

Your first link is to a comment made by an editor with a large COI. Them saying "tendentious editing" is not proof I have done so. Others have pointed out how that whole section was a personal attack by an editor who thought that rather than raising any concerns about the content itself, they should say my description of FAIR off-wikipedia (which was very notably not mirrored en-wiki as sources did not consistently use that language) invalidates the whole thing.

Your second link was to an honest mistake on my part. An editor at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull had said another editor had a COI. Since that's a heavy accusation, I double checked to confirm whether it was true, and found it indeed was. I posted a link corroborating the statement as a comment. Wrong venue to do so, and very pointedly I reported the FAIR COI via the appropriate channels. @AmandaNP, was that incident in question proof I have shown poor judgement when creating new articles or merely poor judgement reporting COIs?

If we look at the initial version of the Chloe Cole article and compare it to the current version, where is the clear bias in source choice and failure to use impartial phrasing? Besides, there have been productive discussions on improving the content at the talk page. The only notable changes made have been 1) moving "far-right media" to "right-wing media", which I did myself in accordance with sources, and 2) removing the statement about how medical and human rights organizations have opposed legislation she's supported from the lead, which I did not contest. I initially included that per WP:FRINGE, and have not said should go back into the lead but worked into the body, since it's factually verifiable and true that trans-healthcare bans she's supported have been protested by such groups.

At FAIR, I have attempted to work to discuss and improve the article in the talk page, including in terms of the NPOV concerns. Nobody can seriously claim I haven't. Notably, the first criticism was from an account with an undeclared COI and the second was from a SPA. The questionable sources were 3/41, which I discussed there then took to RSN, which has proved one generally reliable, one questionably reliable (I gave examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS since that was concern raised but have not heard back), and one unreliable (which, given a clear policy reason, I accepted was true). Currently, the article reads like an advert (thanks to the COI editor) - not featuring any of the well sourced statements about their general activities in favor of thinking the lead should just have their mission statement...

WP:CIR is particularly rich coming from someone who spent about a dozen comments on the FAIR article trying to argue that the right to not be misgendered in schools does not actually count as "transgender rights"... Per CIR: It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop and It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor

We should largely judge editors why what they do here, not elsewhere - Then do so. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really having the time nor energy to read this whole thing, I've only read the paragraph I've been mentioned in, and haven't reviewed any contribs other than what I have already commented on. I feel that the oversighted content issue was an oversight in judgement, and from my discussions, I doubt it will reoccur from TheTranarchist. I don't think this rises to "poor judgement" as that would require reckless disregard (aka an intent to disregard), where as I see this as being unaware of the rules in a sensitive topic area. That is why I issued the formal warning and direction to be clearly aware of policies, and didn't go direct to block, AE sanction or similar action. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: Springee appears to have been specifically called here by Round and rounder after starting this ANI section and Springee also appears to be currently arguing on Talk:Chloe Cole that LGBT news sources like LGBTQ Nation are "clearly biased sources" for defining whether someone is anti-trans or not. Silverseren^C 00:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

While I can understand the concerns about TheTranarchist having somewhat of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I do not believe it is in any way severe enough to warrant a topic ban. Also, it is very suspicious that Round and rounder's editing history is dedicated almost entirely to opposing this user. If someone else wants to raise issue with TheTranarchist's edits in good faith then I do not object. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is coverage of TheTranarchist and other editors in The Culture Wars Look Different on Wikipedia (Noam Cohen, The Atlantic, January 22, 2023) e.g. "The main advocate for moving the page from Gregory to Gloria was an editor named TheTranarchist, and the main opponent was an editor named StAnselm, a self-described Calvinist who has created more than 50 articles about biblical characters and scenes. Yet the discussion on the Talk page was about facts and Wikipedia policies and guidance, not politics. “It didn’t seem culture warrior–ish,” [Joseph Reagle, a Wikipedia expert at Northeastern University] said." Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Weighing in as an un-involved non-admin: this really doesn't look good for anyone involved. Round and rounder seems to be approaching WP:BOOMERANG, while TheTranarchist is likewise approaching WP:NOTHERE. To Loksmythe, I don't know if there are any rules against citing someone's off-wiki activity, but I think conventionally there's a very high bar for it to be considered relevant. There may be merit to the suggestion that Round and rounder is a sock unless they have a good explanation for why their edit history begins with fairly involved challenging of user conduct. And I suppose only time will tell if TheTranarchist can beat the odds and become a rare WP:SPA that's a net positive for the project. For what it's worth, I don't support sanctions against anyone at this time beyond perhaps a warning about WP:CANVASSING, but would invite closer scrutiny on these editors and the application of WP:CTOP restrictions as necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Even ignoring the issues with the actual articles TheTranarchist has created for a second, can anyone explain to me how admitting to writing articles on organisations in order to "expose... these fuckers", or adding polemic diatribes to her user page calling a living person which she created the Wikipedia article of a "nazi", "liar", and "bigot", is not admission of WP:ADVOCACY editing? The last time I remember an instance of an editor admitting they created articles to disparage subjects they have a disagreement with, they received a topic ban from BLP articles. Can someone explain to me how this is different? Endwise (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a proper use of a userpage and that sort of addition should be removed completely. But, outside of that, the main difference is that TheTransarchist does write good articles following what the sources say. You bring up Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull which, if you compare your initial edit link to the current article, has not had much of the original text changed or removed at all, just added to. Because the original article was written perfectly fine (if needing proper sectioning and organizing), following what the news coverage said about the BLP subject. So you can't separate the actual articles from the discussion here. The other editor you're comparing to did actually make blatant attack articles against what the sources said or misusing the sources. That isn't comparable here. Silverseren^C 01:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See my above comments on the finer linguistic points of the word "expose". The "polemic" is a funny example. She publicly attacked the article and called me an "incel" and "trancel" and I listed that as an honorable mention. I amended "AKA Nazi barbie" after concerns were raised, but it should be heavily noted that the phrase linked to evidence of her literally using a nazi barbie as a profile pic, which was later covered in reliable sources, and as your profile picture is on online representation of how you want to be known, "AKA" fits. It's purely factual that she has said called the article full of lies, I didn't call her a "liar", I noted the irony that she called the article full of lies, while verifiably "lying" about her past comments. Which brings me to the next point, is "you can't call someone who's said all trans men should be sterilized, worked with the far-right on multiple occasions, and has no notability outside of her bigoted campaigning a 'bigot'" really a hill you want to die on? Bigotry includes transphobia, a transphobe is by definition a bigot towards trans people, so unless you want to argue that Keen isn't known solely for her transphobia I don't see how bigot is not a neutral description.

Per WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Is their evidence I have compromised verifiability or neutrality? I make no secret of who I am - a trans person. I make no secret of the fact I usually write articles documenting the anti-trans movement. Every editor has a niche, but there is no evidence that my articles are not neutral or verifiable solely because of the topic I tend to edit on. As I have provided ample evidence above, I have not promoted "personal beliefs", I have stuck to the sources even when my personal beliefs are far more critical. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Silverseren here: Tranarchist's articles about anti-trans organizations are pretty good actually. Wikipedia policy doesn't prohibit having a POV or nobody would be allowed to edit Wikipedia. It prohibits letting that POV interfere with your editing, and I don't really see that here. Loki (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I feel at a minimum, TheTranarchist should be banned from editing the GenSpect article directly. Even if we can't identify specific problems with their editing, their acknowledged comments say that the are editing the article for the wrong reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would find it difficult to believe that there's really any editor in such a topic area that isn't editing for POV reasons. Which is why we only care about actual editing and not personal POVs, unless their POV is actively making them edit non-neutrally. Editor Animalparty just below being another example of that. Silverseren^C 03:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Editors are allowed to think an organisation is a disgusting piece of shit. I think that of Genspect myself. However I do not edit "to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer". That's an completely unacceptable reason to edit per WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. You are supposed to be here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles. In cases where you feel you cannot do so, you need to refrain from editing yourself or you will be forced out of the area. It may be that you believe that a well balanced encyclopaedia article is likely to reveal that they are a terrible organisation. I believe that on Genspect. However they key thing is I do not edit to 'expose them and help undermine that thin veneer'. I edit to ensure we have a well balance encyclopaedia article. If the sources disagree with my view, then I accept that and help get that into the article. This is impossible when by your own admission you are editing to "expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" since by your own admission you aren't here to ensure a well balanced encyclopaedia article but instead a different reason that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. We have always blocked and banned editors who have admitted they are not here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles but instead for other reasons no matter if anyone can identify specific problems with their editing. Frankly my suggestion we only block them from directly editing that specific article is being generous especially given some of the other things they have said. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You are supposed to be here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles. Have you considered that a well balanced and sourced article on organisations like Genspect will by its very nature expose them and help undermine that thin veneer?

Genspect, like many related anti-trans organisations, are well known for promoting fringe ideas and misinformation about trans and non-binary healthcare. Because our articles are based on the reliable sources that those organisations either ignore or try to discredit, any well sourced and balanced article about will have the effect of exposing and undermining them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing you're not acknowledging. The articles that TheTransarchist has written are well balanced and following what the reliable sources say. There are tons of long-standing editors who purposefully created articles on notable topics precisely because it would showcase the negative aspects of them, all while following what the reliable sources say and being neutral even when "exposing" their negative aspects in the process. I wrote Mugged to "expose" the insane far right conspiracy claims pushed by Coulter. And I did so by just accurately writing what the reliable sources said about her book, including ones that praised it. I wrote Questioning Collapse specifically to have coverage on Wikipedia covering the pseudoscience nonsense made by Jared Diamond and his negative actions as an editor of the journal Nature. I also wrote GPS Air to ensure we had ongoing coverage of the company that had harmed so many with their fake products and defrauded schools and businesses in the process. I still covered it neutrally, including info on their origins, products, and awards. So, yes, you can purposefully create articles on subjects whereby their very existence will have a POV outcome on the world, while still covering notable subjects and writing the articles neutrally and completely by what the reliable sourcing says on the subjects. Silverseren^C 03:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren and Sideswipe9th: I feel I already explained this but I guess it wasn't understood. It's one thing to try and write an unbiased encyclopaedic article on a subject which you believe because of the subject will reflect negatively on the subject. If you have the right mindset then it's generally fine if that ends up being the case since you will recognise when it turns out you're wrong. But perhaps more importantly are significantly less likely to go further than you should. It's another to write an article which the express purpose of "expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" because you're unlikely to recognise when you're wrong and very likely to go further than you should. It's somewhat similar to an editor with a CoI, they may be great editors but once the CoI comes into play human nature means they often will not recognise when they're wrong, they'll downplay negative material and overplay positive material. The difference between wrong motivations and right motivations with an existing PoV, may be subtle but it's something all editors here need to understand. Their purpose here always needs to be to write balanced encyclopaedic articles. They may suspect that the end result will be an exposé on a terrible subject but they should never set out with the purpose of exposing something. They should always set out with the purpose of writing balanced encyclopaedic articles. Repeating since it's important, no editor should ever set out with the purpose of exposing anything, especially not a living person. The moment exposing something becomes an editor's purpose they need to stop editing in that area or be forced to stop. I already mentioned that I believe that balanced articles on GenSpect, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and the largely unrelated Sanctioned Suicide and especially its founders will reflect extremely negatively on these subjects. While this is something that I probably won't be able to completely put out of my mind when editing, I hope I'll never edit with the express purpose of exposing them and especially not where we mention living persons. The moment I do so, I hope I have the fortitude of stopping myself. If I don't, I hope the community stops me since my behaviour has crossed way beyond the lines of acceptable behaviour here. It does not matter what editors can and cannot find with my edits, I'm editing for unacceptable reasons. P.S. I actually think Wikipedia would be a better place if editors with such strong PoVs on a subject that frankly motivations fall by the wayside refrain from editing especially directly. But for various reasons it's never likely to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) BTW, while Genspect itself is not a BLP (albeit it is likely an article will name several living persons), TheTranarchist frequent editing in BLPs is an added reason why we should not tolerate any nonsense.

To give an unrelated example (albeit one which the sock seems to have involved themselves in) on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sanctioned Suicide we have a discussion about naming living persons. I first saw this thread IIRC with only 2 comments. I looked into it, and my first thought was "holy hell, those 2 people are absolutely disgusting individuals (from my PoV) and I'd really like to name them". However when I looked into it more my conclusion (which I didn't post since I was waiting to see what others had to say) was as much as I feel that way, I'm not convinced we should be naming them. Since removing their names does not seem to significantly reduce context etc. I was able to do so because I recognised I was not and should not be editing to "expose" anyone or help undermine anything.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is a related example currently on BLPN as well. It's not the first time it came up, the first time I saw it my thoughts were as Black Kite, she seems to be an individual who's views are so out of mainstream that even people who share some of her views on trans issues often don't want anything to do with her. So it's likely that an article on her will be fairly critical. However again I was able to recognise we still have to ensure the article is fair with proper sourcing and wording, and without violating WP:UNDUE etc etc.

IIRC I never got involved in that article in any significant way. And I admit part of the reason is because of my personal views of the subject. Not because I felt I couldn't be sufficiently unbiased but because of how bad her views are I couldn't convince myself to spend the effort. That isn't ideal, but editors aren't required to edit so it's something we accept will happen even with BLPs.

However at a minimum all editors need to be able to try and put aside their PoV be here to help write balanced encyclopaedic articles when they are editing. They should never be editing "to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" since when they are doing so they're not doing that. And so will want to name people even when we potentially should not. And won't care about getting the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull right if it reflects their PoV. Etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

all editors need to be able to try and put aside their PoV be here to help write balanced encyclopaedic articles is there any actual evidence I haven't apart from speculation that I might have or might do in future? As others have commented, to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer is encyclopedic when that organization is solely known for advancing WP:FRINGE medical theories and practices under the guise of impartial science. Are there any flaws with the article itself or evidence that I did not write it from a NPOV? won't care about getting the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull right if it reflects their PoV - as other's pointed out, the article was well-written and sourced from the start - is there evidence I did not get it right to reflect my own POV? The linked BLPN discussion was started by the sockpuppet who filed this complaint, other editors did not support their claim it was an "attack page" and merely commented it was overly detailed, and a 5 second look will show that I endeavored to work with other editors to work on that.

Take the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism for example: I included the Mendoza case even though I personally agree with their position on it, and it makes the article reflect better on them (marginally, considering most of their activities are in other fields, but still). I am not in the habit of disregarding what reliable sources have to say on a topic, even when it is flattering.

Sidenote though, thank you for striking Round and Rounder's comments from various talk pages and noticeboards. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Pretty good? By what metric? I'm not here to comment on behavior, but I (and other editors) see excessively intricate detail, WP:PROSELINE, WP:RECENTISM, and subtle introduction of of POV by framing and placement, in multiple articles. Facts and citations are dumped in by the truckload, making it hard to discern the appropriate weight and relevance of any given aspect, contra WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:PROPORTION, WP:VNOTSUFF, etc. A laundry list of virtually everything done or said by or about a subject is neither encyclopedic nor good writing. My eyes glaze over just trying to find the relevant aspects to trim or emphasize. I will say the articles are thoroughly researched, and articles are always a work in progress. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The various uppercase shortcuts you've linked are not generally issues that we block or TBAN editors over. If anything I'd say that they're a sign of perhaps an overeager but inexperienced article creator, which is a skill that can be developed over time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, those are criticisms valid for pretty much all articles in this topic domain. Their comments off-wiki aside, it seems this editor is being held to standards for the content of articles that is higher than the standard of articles written by other editors here who are eagerly seeking their topic ban. Their mistake on wiki would seem to be to write articles, you know, growing the encyclopaedia, and editors here thinking that on a "collaborative editing project" that the output of one editor's initial draft has to be perfect. A better approach would be to see if they work collaboratively with other editors towards a consensus. There are plenty editors here calling for a topic ban who are incapable of doing that. But they haven't made the mistake of creating articles and writing pages of article text. -- Colin°^Talk 20:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it would be one thing if the editor was hostile to discussion or criticism, but that is obviously not the case here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Colin: If shoddy BLP-violating sourcing, undue weight and tendentious editing is a persistent problem for the entire topic area, then that's probably a larger area that needs to be looked at and cleaned up. First by the community, and maybe eventually by Arbcom. It isn't an excuse to do nothing about an especially clear example that's been brought here, we can begin cleanup after that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Em, I haven't seen anyone demonstrate with diffs any "tendentious editing". Someone said those words at some point, that's all. This is the problem I have. They've written a fair bit of content for a newish editor and it isn't perfect but it is frankly no worse than any other article in this topic domain. That includes articles that have been argued over and edit warred over by editors on this page. All the "OMG BAN THEM NOW" reaction seems to be a mix of genuinely naive shock at how bad this topic area is, or feigned shock by activists on the other side. What they wrote on mastodon was stupid and I get how editors struggle to see how expressing those views isn't just an admission of being an WP:ACTIVIST. But as that essay says "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" What that sentence doesn't require is that such editors make 100% perfect edits and have encyclopaedic knowledge of SYNTH.

Why are you being ask to look at this one editor to remove them from the project (which is what a topic ban will do)? You aren't being asked to look at all those articles and all the editors. You are being asked by a banned sock. That should give you some concern. Go read some of the other articles in this topic area. I think you'll be surprised. I don't think they will be improved simply by banning an editor who said foolish things on mastodon. Indeed, a topic ban here will likely embolden the idea that we can push editors off the chess board. -- Colin°^Talk 21:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's time to close this discussion. Most of the accusation is based on out-of wiki material that is only not WP:OUTING because the accused linked to their social media on their userpage, and having gone through their edits for a bit, I don't see many edits to article main-space that are actually objectionable, a conclusion that is reinforced by the fact that anyone has yet to actually link to an objectionable edit in this discussion. There's about four or five of links to edits from other editors accusing TheTranarchist of things, but none that link to the actual supposed problem behaviour. As a case study, several of those accusations are about TheTranarchist creating an article about a WP:FRINGE organisation to make them look bad. As several editors here have pointed out, you can't always avoid making an organisation look bad if you want to be FRINGE compliant. Having looked at that article, I did not get the impression any material there was noncompliant or excessive. More importantly, every claim made was well sourced even in the first version of the article in question. The only example of someone linking directly to an edit by TheTranarchist is the now blocked Round an Rounder/World's Lamest Critic, who just links to a fairly short example of... What looks a lot like TheTranarchist complying perfectly to WP:BRD and taking a challenged edit to the talk page for discussion. I do not think there is anything here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I was under the impression that the link to the off site material was not something TheTranarchist posted themselves. If they provided the link themselves and the link was/is on their user page then I think it's is completely acceptable to consider it when reviewing this topic. It's only one step removed form posting it to their user page. Combine that with the use of SYNTH to apply contentious labels to BLP subjects (see many of the proposed sources here "Anti-transgender_activism"? and I think it would be best if they voluntarily step away from this subject area for a bit and edit unrelated topics to show they understand Wikipedia's standards for IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you see the WP:SYNTH there, considering the first source contains the phrase "anti-trans activism" to describe the BLP verbatim. _{I also think it's a bit nauseating that every phrase in this topic space has to be fought over tooth and nail even when it's as blatantly obvious as it is here, but hey, that's probably just me.} Licks-rocks (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per your earlier comments about how WP:CIR, you have spent an inordinate amount of time in the past few days arguing that 1) transgender students do not have a right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools and it's just "trans advocates" who say otherwise, completely ignoring the heaps of linked evidence in favor of pushing your own POV at FAIR and 2) arguing that Chloe Cole, who reliable sources call an "anti-trans activist", who is noted in reliable sources to support "anti-trans legislation" (including banning transition even for adults), is not an "anti-trans activist"...

  Also, for context for all those watching, the largest reason I listed my Mastodon on my user page was I saw (off-wikipedia) people accusing others with the same username of being me, and directing harassment towards them. I originally put a disclaimer on my page that I do not use the username anywhere else - I felt it would be dishonest once I created my Mastodon account to not explicitly say it was mine. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is not WP:OUTING when a person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Arguing that linking to the posts from the very same social media account that they posted on their user page is constitutes a violation of the outing policy is incoherent. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please re-read my comment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so it doesn't get lost in the middle: Round and rounder was blocked for being a sock of World's Lamest Critic. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

...welp. I guess that explains a fair bit. Silverseren^C 03:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, support restriction on creating BLPs in mainspace without AfC or an EC in good-standing moving it from draft for them. I intially came here to outright oppose any sanction because they have been open to criticism and collaboration on-wiki. However, there off-wiki comments do raise concerns that their motivation and source selection is biased and that protection of BLPs is needed until they show they can operate within our guardrails. Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is probably a good compromise. I would suggest extending it to any GENSEX or BLP topic but otherwise it would seem to address the biggest issues. Springee (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  The expanded universe makes sense given previous community issues and sanctions, support additional restriction. Slywriter (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  There has yet to be any evidence given that there's anything wrong with the articles they've been making. The sockpuppet OP was the one who brought the articles to BLPN and other editors there didn't agree that there was anything wrong with them. So your restriction here of "until they show they can operate within our guardrails" is meaningless, as you haven't shown they aren't already doing that. Silverseren^C 17:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Edits like this illustrate part of the issue.[55] The section heading "Undoing the whitewashing and advertification" totally fails to be impartial (a requirement even for talk page headings). The long list has good sources and questionable ones. How it is meant to be used isn't clear but the simple implication that editors are whitewashing is a problem given the contentious topic. That they would do that while this ANI is open is hard to understand. Springee (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be the one with biased editing in general on these talk pages. Having just the group's mission statement in the lede and not a proper summary of the article is an example of advertification and seemingly whitewashing of the descriptive content. The section title is accurate and the discussion given by TheTransarchist in that section also seems like a good editor trying to make a proper neutral lede summary based on available sources. Some of the sources in their list are certainly stronger and more relevant than others, but those stronger sources still say the same thing as the others, which is criticism of the group. Silverseren^C 22:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Which edit of mine are you referencing? I've made 3 edits total to the article. Which one was the issue? Conversely, are you saying it's OK to accuse editors of whitewashing on an article talk page? Are you suggesting that is a neutral topic heading? Springee (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to have a major issue with LGBT news sources across various articles on topics in the LGBT topic area. And whitewashing can also be an issue of omission than explicit addition of improper information. Not having a proper lede for a group that sources refer to negatively is whitewashing those referenced facts from the opening of the article. Which can appear deliberate and quite possibly is on someone in the editing history's part, but could also just be a long-term editing issue with the article that TheTransarchist is trying to now rectify. Silverseren^C 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any action re: Tranarchist Yes, Tranarchist has very strong feelings about a subject that would inevitably color her contributions no matter how hard she tries to follow WP:NPOV. However, so do many other contributors. It's always an issue with Wikipedia, and you can find subtle biases in even the best contributions. That's why we have multiple editors. This mechanism works well in highly-viewed articles and not so well in rarely-viewed articles, since the scrutiny by other editors is less. Wikipedia is not perfect, and putting restrictions on Tranarchist and other editors with strong opinions (as long as they edit reasonably close to a neutral view) in an attempt to perfect Wikipedia is a fool's errand, as we'll just harm Wikipedia by banning some of its best contributors. The best we can do is recognize that many editors have strong opinions, and, as editors, always think about WP:NPOV when we're editing an article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• All I can say is, it's a good job my Mastodon account isn't linked from my talk page.  Tewdar  18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I see an all Cornwall topics ban in your future. ^{[just kidding]} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  You mean an 'all topics ban', surely...  Tewdar  18:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any action against TheTranarchist. The person who started this topic has been banned as a sockpuppet, so hopefully WP:Assume good faith doesn't apply when I say this was a gross attempt at intimidating a trans editor. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support some kind of sanction for creating non-NPOV pages intended to discredit their subjects. I do not edit in this topic area, but came across the discussion as an uninvolved editor. The Tranarchist clearly has a problem creating NPOV articles on subjects related to gender. Their original published versions of Chloe Cole, Genspect, and Foundation against Intolerance and Racism are written from a clearly non-neutral perspective. Given The Tranarchist's honesty about their goals and actions, I believe they are here in good faith, but I believe they should either voluntarily agree to stop creating articles in this topic area or be appropriately sanctioned/warned. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Thank you for the assumption of good faith! Rare these days lol. I do want to make a notes however. The Cole article has barely changed from that original version and there is no evidence of being non-NPOV. The only notable change is far-right media to right-wing media, which I myself corrected upon reviewing the sources and realizing I'd improperly summarized them. The Genspect article doesn't prove a non-neutral perspective, and the majority of the edits there have been mine and made it more succinct and neutral. That diff version says how they describe themselves, how others have described them, and their notable actions, all cited to reliable sources. I'll also note that was one of my first articles, made while I was still getting the hang of formatting properly from the get-go (explaining the appearance as a chunk rather than a lead and well-sectioned body). The FAIR article has also barely changed, and other editors have agreed the article was whitewashed and advertified. The only notably differences are 1) the removal of attributed statements to Idavox, which I supported when presented with clear policy, and 2) the "right" of students to misgender their schoolmates in the lead, which was based off reliable sources and my inability to come up with a more neutral description at the time (coupled with the fact FAIR frequently uses the language of rights to free speech and religious expression to justify those policies), which I myself changed on reflection to the more neutral opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It is simply incorrect to say that the "only notable change is far-right media to right-wing media" when half the lead has been removed and large chunks of content have been added/removed to the body, as well as many adjustments to word choice and sourcing (here's the diff for your version to the current version). Many instances of non-neutral language have been removed by other editors. Frankly, it actually makes me feel worse about your level of good faith when you say it has "barely changed"; that is a seriously misleading statement. The same applies to FAIR (diff between your original and the current version). I agree with others who argue you have the potential to be an excellent editor, but I remain concerned that you lack the ability to be neutral in this topic area. Support topic ban until the editor has proven their abilities in other areas of the encyclopedia. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for not referencing the half removed, however, I'd already referenced it earlier in a response to another editor, the repetition has made it hard to keep up and make sure all points are noted in each reply. Please don't let that effect your perception of my good faith, I'm not trying to omit or distort anything I'm just getting exhausted from having to repeatedly respond to points already raised. The text apart from the removed half has indeed barely changed, and the part removed was verifiable and I included it for WP:FRINGE reasons, the question is more if it's due in the lead or just in reception. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

We clearly have very different definitions of "barely changed". You have been involved in repeated discussions of the neutrality of the article on Chloe Cole's talk page (and in edit summaries) since soon after you created it, so this is obviously no surprise to you. I think you really need to step back and take a moment to honestly reflect on whether you can be neutral in this subject area. It's clearly an issue which you care about a great deal (and that's good!), but perhaps you should take a break and edit in other areas for a few months. Wikipedia is not a good place for a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Even though this issue is currently a cultural battleground, it's better for everyone if we can turn down the heat on Wiki. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is spiraling out of control below. I urge everyone to drop the stick and back away. Let newcomers contribute to the discussion without bludgeoning them, give it some time, and let an uninvolved admin close this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Cannot follow my own advice, so striking for hypocrisy. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811, I'll try to give more thorough breakdown of the articles and associated discussions so you can see what I mean. Please read with an open mind and feel free to verify and check what I've said.

• For Chloe Cole, the text of the original lead and article as a whole has not changed much. I said "barely changed", not mentioning the paragraph removed since I'd mentioned it before and am getting exhausted by this. That paragraph was removed as a question of WP:DUE, not WP:OR or WP:VERIFIABILITY, and I'd included it since I'd seen it be standard practice with WP:PROFRINGE to, if someone is known for their fringe position on a medical issues, highlighting what WP:MEDRS have to say about it instead. Below are the initial and current versions of the page if not focusing on that second paragraph, which I agreed wasn't due in the lead and discussed integrating into Reception/Activities, which I can hope you realize, has actually barely changed, the biggest things being far-right -> right-wing, which I switched, and the term "American", which is not WP:NPOV related.

Original Text: Chloe Cole is an anti-transgender activist and detransitioner known for appearing on far-right media and with politicians before state legislatures to oppose gender-affirming care for minors and support bans on such care. After telling her parents she was a trans boy at 12, she started puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, and received a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16. At 17, she detransitioned.

Current Version: Chloe Cole is an American anti-transgender activist and detransitioner known for appearing on right-wing media and with politicians before state legislatures to oppose gender-affirming care for minors and support bans on such care. According to her testimony, after telling her parents she was a trans boy at 12, she started puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, received a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16, and detransitioned at 17.

Additionally, at the talk page, you see me putting my personal feelings aside to make sure we stick to sources and not introduce skepticism of her story into wikivoice. Another discussion is whether the attendance of proud boys at one of her events should be covered, which I argued with sources and context it was. Another is whether "anti-trans activist" applies, which was proposed by the sock who started this and taken up by Springee, which I defended with reliable sources and other editors do not find overly objectionable. The final discussion on that page is from a SPA that has been trying to remove WP:RS content.

For Genspect, which was one of my first articles, it has changed a great deal. But the initial sourcing was not based on WP:OR and wholly on WP:RS. If you look at the current version, you can see that 1) I have been the largest contributor to the article and 2) sources have been added and the formatting cleaned up so as much as possible is more detailed and specific. The article has been stable and well-regarded for a while now. If we look at the talk page, we see extensive discussion on improving the article, and me sticking to what WP:RS have to say about them. (I will note, the second editor on the page Swannieriv, had an undisclosed COI that I discovered only after they dropped the stick and stopped editing after rage-quitting because their OR didn't fly here). If you can see problems with the article as-is, please point them out, but otherwise I maintain that it's a well-written article formed by productive collaboration.

Finally, for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, the article body itself has barely changed (with the exception of some removal of RS by a COI editor). But looking at the lead, which was the most heavily disputed, here are the original and new versions.

• Initial version The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a conservative national nonprofit organization in the United States. FAIR is known for campaigning what they call Critical Race Theory (CRT), though critics have said they use it as a catch-all term for mentions of white privilege, and for the "right" of students to misgender their schoolmates. / FAIR describes itself as a nonpartisan group dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all, but critics have noted the board is made up of conservatives who've variously been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia. Notable members include former Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Christopher Rufo, Abigail Shrier, Steven Pinker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ian Rowe, and Bari Weiss. FAIR was launched in March 2021 by Bion Bartning, after learning Riverdale Country School, where his children attended, has developed anti-racist initiatives. / The Guardian describes it as having "sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide." The Colorado Times Recorder listed it as a "conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group". Media Matters for America described the group as "deceptively named" and the San Antonio Current described it as "horribly misnamed".
• Please note, for the line about the "right" to misgender students, that was based on a source and on my own reflection I updated it to the more neutral opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students.
• There was a brief intermediary period where the lead contained only their mission statement, and a look at JWeiss11's contributions to the page, talk, and the COI I've raised to arb-com showed blatant targeted advertification.
• Current version The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is an American nonprofit organization, founded in 2021, that campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls Critical Race Theory (CRT); it also opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students. / FAIR describes itself as a "nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding, and humanity." FAIR's board of advisers has included human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, musician and activist Daryl Davis, conservative activist Christopher Rufo, former Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly, journalist Bari Weiss, and academics Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, and Steven Pinker.

The SACurrent and Media Matters for America parts were recognizably undue, I'd initially felt it important to highlight that multiple RS had specifically pointed out how deceptive it's name was, but realized that was best saved for reception. The Colorado Times Recorder is recognized as WP:GREL, provided WP:SIRS coverage, and it was used for noting the board is made up of conservatives who've variously been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia., along with other sources who specifically pointed out how stacked it's board is with conservatives. Generally, there is current discussion on the talk page about how to properly include their criticisms in the lead.

If we look at the Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, I have done everything I can to stick to reliable sources. I was wrong about Idavox, and recognized that was so when given a better reason it was not up-to-snuff than "it's left-wing". Various aspects are under discussion, but as you can see I took disputed sources to RSN, and more recently compiled what every RS had to say about them to propose a lead (which the current version is mostly based off of) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't confuse things that haven't changed because they are good with things that haven't changed because editors are getting consensus, being cautious or are only beginning aware of the issues. Springee (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response, but I am unconvinced. It is more than possible to write an article made up of completely factual statements, sourced to reliable sources, and still demonstrate bias. For instance, I could write: "Joe Biden, whose election as President was highly controversial, visited Kyiv recently, even though he has never visited Americans who suffered from a disaster on his watch in East Palestine, Ohio. Some Republicans say he has been "absent on the job" and "the worst President in US history." Biden, long known for his gaffes and controversial statements, said more money taken from American taxpayers would be sent to foreigners to fight a war that is thousands of miles from US shores." Every part of this is true, but due to cherry-picking, lack of context, and snide asides, it is entirely non-neutral.

In a similar way, you added little asides and pieces of "context" to the Chloe Cole article that have since been removed, such as (among others): "reportedly being unable to answer some questions coherently but responding with apparently rehearsed answers to questions posed by Republican lawmakers", "none of whom were from Florida", "leading a transgender nonbinary person who signed up to testify but wasn't able to do so to state the event was 'obviously staged' ", "Many have speculated that her travel has been paid for anti-LGBTQ activists. Cole denied that and said her trips are self-funded with crowdfunding via Twitter tips. Others have questioned if she is being coached," etc etc.

Similar issues crop up in the other articles you have started. To be clear, incidentally (and I think we're already on the same page here), I was not referring to the lead only but to the entirety of the articles you began. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem! If there's one thing I'm known for, for better or for worse, it's detailed responses lol.

I just want to say, I recognize that the articles had some bias, but the cores remained unchanged. No editor can write a truly unbiased article, I just want to highlight that my articles are mostly unbiased.

For example, with the Cole pieces mentioned, which I haven't contested, those are details explicitly noted in relevant sources that I thought relevant and due. Many were from the Blade interview, which was one of the most WP:SIRS sources there that went in depth into her actions, story, and reception. The fact all people speaking against the bill were flown in was commented on by multiple sources and seemed noteworthy, but I may have been wrong. Same goes for the comment about the event being obviously staged, since that was a clear attributed comment noted from a RS saying a hearing she participated in was "staged", I thought it seemed due and noteworthy. But I was wrong. (A side note, I recently saw a reliable source confirming an anti-LGBT group paid for travel in one case that I've been meaning to add)

Am I always right and unbiased? Of course not, as a general rule I distrust anyone who says they are. But my articles are written with an intention of sticking to WP:RS and WP:NPOV, even when I don't like an organization/person (as evidenced by me arguing that skepticism of her name and story in wikivoice was wholly uncalled for on talk) I endeavor to improve articles and their NPOV collaboratively, for example see discussions on my talk page on Gays Against Groomers and the talk page for GAG itself, where @Ppt91 has been supportively critical of my work and we've been working together to improve the article.

Should I put my articles through a stricter review process before publishing? If there's one take-away from this whole thing it's that I absolutely should, to improve it and help ensure my unconscious biases don't make it in despite my best efforts. I have no issue with a sanction to that effect. A full on topic ban disregards just how much good work I do in this area and just how much of it is regarded as good and uncontroversial, when a more tailored sanction would be much more apt and deal with the specific issues raised. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from biographies of living persons who are related to the topic area of WP:GENSEX, broadly construed. Much of this discussion has been ill-informed attempts by a sock of a prolific sockmaster to troll all of us. That being said, the user's behavior in this area has been a source of significant disruption and BLP issues, and I was extremely close to bringing them to AE relating to this behavior anyway, so here we are. They were given a logged warning in this area by AmandaNP no less than ten days ago, and the user has, even since then, continued to engage in disruptive editing that pertains to living persons whom they find to be unsympathetic.
  I will remind us of BLP issues on British politics articles, where a user has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute with a particular BLP, while simultaneously making significant content edits to that same article over an extended period of time. This sort of behavior is not acceptable, and can potentially demonstrate a conflict of interest with respect to particular topics. The writings of TheTranarchist, as posted on the very mastodon voluntarily linked on the user's talk page, reveals a great deal of the same sort of mentality that led to the problems that got Philip Cross the British Politics TBAN. And some of these edits include an absolute, premeditated, and egregious attempt to use Wikipedia for black-hat SEO gaming to attack particular organizations and people or to otherwise engage in activism rather than trying to build a neutral encyclopedia. These include:
  1. Nov 30, 2022, 22:13 (archive) Indicates an intent not to edit neutrally, but to instead specifically spite people. With respect to comments on Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, TheTranarchist wrote TERFs are crying again, do you think they'll cry more when I mention Posie Parker's far right ties in the lead?. TheTranarchist then proceeded to sysstematically edit the article of Posie Parker (an alternative name of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull), including adding Wikivoice statements to the lead of the BLP that was dubiously sourced to Unicorn Riot and Media Matters for America (see: WP:RSP#Media Matters for America, which notes that it is marginally reliable and attribution should be used). This was not the last of their editing to the BLP using dubious sources that portray them negatively, however; they would add material to the article sourced to a podcast from anarchist group blog It's going down and Trotskyist blog Worker's Liberty to portray Keen-Minshull in a negative light, despite neither of these having the sort of strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that is demanded of BLP sources. The user then continued to use fringy political websites to add contentious materials to the BLP, adding contentious material sourced to libertarian communist blog libcom. The user then moved to add the poorly sourced contentious materials to the lead, and later added contentious factual material about the BLP that is extremely clearly an opinion piece from anarchosocialist blog Freedom News, the blog of a different anarchist group called "Anarchist Federation", and the self-published blog Trans Safety Network. (With respect to the lattermost source, they had already brought it to RSN and were told by multiple editors that it was not a good source to use in BLPs as it's self-published, but they decided to use it here anyway, so it's particularly egregious that they've decided to willfully ignore that.)
  2. Dec 01, 2022, 16:15 (archive) Reveals an absolute and premeditated attempt to create articles with the intent of covering organizations negatively, using Wikipedia as a tool to simply rank negative coverage of them high on Google. With respect to Genspect and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, TheTranarchist wrote that I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and that as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one.
  3. Dec 01, 2022, 16:39 (archive) describes TheTranarchist's belief they are in the group that uses Wikipedia as a tool for combatting the anti-trans movement.
  4. Dec 01, 2022, 18:01 (archive) appears to be a post in which TheTranarchist is seeking to have some newspaper publish screenshots of discord messages that they took from Genspect's discord. check these out and try and get them viral as possible, TheTranarchist wrote. extra kudos if they get picked up by a newspaper or something.
  5. Dec 18, 2022, 23:48 (archive) is a self-description of their methodology to write articles, which is to say that systematically search through every source mentioning the topic and take extensive notes then draft and publish an article. That's fine, but absent competent understanding of reliability of sources, this methodology leads to the exact sorts of issues with fringe blogs being included for contentious BLP content, and the user's compilation of fringe blogs to add to articles in order to make them more negative contributes to the problem of the user's repeated creating non-neutral articles in the WP:GENSEX area. A more recent example of this includes attempts to use an obviously self-published activist blog run by a single dude for factual claims about the political contributions of a living person, even when the source itself declared itself to be purely speculating and even when Jweiss11 had reverted their insertions. (Frankly, if one cannot tell that this wesite is not the source we should be citing for BLP info, I would have strong competence concerns.)
  6. Jan 19, 2023, 15:55 (archive) TheTranarchist seems to be openly taunting the BLP whose article they are editing, saying, I can't stop fucking cackling at the moment when describing the BLP complaining about the article.
  7. Jan 31, 2023, 14:44 (archive) TheTranarchist describing the article they have written about the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism as being an article about the "enemy" and indicating a battleground mentality that proceeds from the belief in sort of real battle existing the editor and this group, writing that Either way, the details don't lie and people need to know their enemy to fight them. Same people, same tactics, same fight.

Taken together, yes, there is a battleground mentality here, and there's plenty of evidence here that we're approaching the level of having an editor who has personalized a conflict with Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull being the same editor who is adding poorly sourced contentious statements to her article. The warning received for general conduct in the area given by AmandaNP seems insufficient given that the above is clearly able to demonstrate an unabashed battleground mentality that has included repeated and intentional violations of the biographies of living persons policy in this area that continue through the present. I would kindly ask AmandaNP to apply this topic ban as a simple arbitration enforcement action, as the warning has not worked, and a topic ban is the only way to prevent future damage in this area from this editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A response to each point raised

1) In regards to the KJK article Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and WP:RS, her notability is incredibly tied to her affiliations to the far-right. Multiple reliable sources have commented heavily on such ties, and even people who advocate for exactly what she does have criticized her for such ties, so that by every means belongs in the lead, and I was planning to include it before the wave of vandalism. The diff linked is a ridiculous example, as Keen opposes laws and policies that allow transgender women to legally identify as women, use public facilities for women, and compete in sports is neutral and fully follows the sources and body, since what she campaigns for should be mentioned there. As does Keen has appeared on a podcast with white nationalist Jean-François Gariépy, and repeatedly praised far-right activist Tommy Robinson. are also all supported by the body and other sources used in the article. Robinson is also mentioned in the Byline Times, and Gariépy in the Progressive. Per WP:LEAD: As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead. Regardless, when another editor raised notability issues, I found there explanation clear and didn't protest. It's Going Down has not been discussed much at RSN, but they have been noted to have published editorial standards and was re-publishing there was treated as reliable in the discussion. Workers Liberty has not been discussed, but they have clear info about their editorial guidelines/policy. Libcom has also been discussed and considered either unreliable or reliable on a case-by-case basis. Notably, that was used to add that Keen had denied knowing who Lysglimt was, so that served to make the article more accurate and neutral. Freedom news is not an anarchosocialist blog. They are the oldest UK anarchist press, which also publishes books, and is attributed in the article. That being said, upon reviewing the source I now see it was marked as commentary (in small print) which I'd missed the first time since they also publish news and the article was well-written and sourced. The Anarchist Federation source is used for an attributed quote. In regards to TSN, I'd misremembered as sometimes due with attribution forgetting the caveat about BLPs, but they link to statements Keen has made and are attributed as having reported those statements. Huck Mag uses that particular article to cite the cross-over between transphobes and fascists. However, I do apologize for misusing the source in that regard, I'll be a lot more careful about citing TSN in future. And in regards to AmandaNP's warning, they actually contributed to this discussion (see above), clarifying their warning had absolutely nothing to do with my editing, merely me having confirmed a COI concern in the wrong place, so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. 2) They are fringe organizations. It is a purely factual statement, whether one acknowledges it or not, that the first result when searching anything will be the WP page if one exists. Fringe organizations known for promoting pseudoscience while masquerading as a scientific organization will be characterized as such by a well-written wikipedia article, no matter who writes it. Very notably, you haven't pointed out any issues with the articles themselves, merely my comment that a good wikipedia article on a fringe organization has the BLUESKY side effect of revealing they are fringe and countering their marketing as otherwise. 3) I also literally state this on my talk page so no need to go trawling through my Mastodon. If not taking out all the context from that post, you see my comment on how the Detransition article heavily relies on non-WP:MEDRS sources written by prominent anti-trans activists, and made absolutely no mention that detransition can be legally forced. I've cleaned up that article in other ways to ensure it is WP:MEDRS compliant. In fact, you already link to a post of mine where I say (emphases added) Wikipedia is a very important tool in combating the misinformation of the anti-trans movement more broadly. However, that depends on reliable sources (by wikipedia's guides) reporting on it themselves. 4) Is ridiculous. After I write the article, I check out their discord, where they openly admit to wanting to ban transition for everyone and focusing on those under 25 to spread their message, in addition to discussing putting adult children through conversion therapy and threatening them with homelessness. Please note, I have never put that information in the article, as it is not reliably sourced, true and verifiable as it may be. That is absolutely noteworthy and I do not see how recommending news organizations report on it and look deeper into them has anything to do with the discussion at hand. 5) Once again, no need to trawl through my Mastodon when my user page will do. There, I have a section extensively detailing my algorithm in depth, where I explicitly state I reference WP:RS. You seem to forget that when you brought up actual policy concerns with Idavox (whose statements I attributed in the article without using factually), I recognized you were right. Previously, every single comment by other editors had just referenced its political position as a gotcha. Notably, the other two contested sources were attacked on spurious grounds, one was considered generally reliable on every level, the other is still in discussion and does not lean towards wholly excluding it. If one checks the talk page for FAIR, we see all three were contested solely on their political positions. In fact, in that diff you linked, I'd undone JWeiss11's removal all 3 contested sources. If they had just removed Idavox, I probably would have kept the discussion on talk, at that moment I was trying to undo the removal of reliable content. And for the love of god can an arbitrator get back to me on how JWeiss11's massive undeclared COI has led to them whitewashing and advertifying the article? 6) Taunting is an absolute stretch, I was referring to how funny the situation was and selective quoting and misinterpretation can't change that. I write an article, someone calls me an "incel" and says its full of lies, and I can't laugh about the fact they can't point a single "lie" out and the article was locked due to the huge wave of vandalism removing reliable sources that ensued? Or the fact an editor who was known for making editing a PITA for everyone else by repeatedly edit-warring and leaving transphobic comments was blocked (after multiple editors told them to respond to their AE case they were ignoring to edit-war more)? The editor was topic banned and tried to add a tweet to the article as a source FFS, shooting themselves in the foot that badly (practically with a blunderbuss) is humorous. 7) My characterization of an organization off-wiki as an enemy has nothing at all to do with the article in question. The organization fights to remove protections from transgender students in schools, so unless you're living under a rock, your average trans person is not going to support that organization. It's like saying an editor called NARTH an enemy of gay people, all their contributions on that article are invalid...

In short, you've only raised two actual pieces of evidence of me editing even semi-impartially.

• First, the KJK article, where I exercised some poor judgement in sources while mostly sticking to undeniably reliable ones, and even then their inclusion did not especially depart from what reliable sources had covered and were attributed. Had anyone raised concerns at the talk page about the sources in question, I would have responded and weighed the merits - I have no issue with being proven wrong about the reliability of a source. We all have biases, and I welcome editors to in good faith point out where they may have slipped into an article despite my attempts for them not to. There have been numerous occasions where, while compiling sources, I did not include some despite my personal support of them or the opinion on the quality of their reporting and I have strived to only use reliable sources on every occasion.
• Second, the FAIR article, where only one source raised was actually objectionable, and once given clear policy reasoning I realized you were right and concurred. If someone had raised actual policy concerns earlier, I would have concurred then, but the previous objections were solely its political position. Absent from that is the context that the article has been advertified and whitewashed (particularly by a COI editor) and editors there were trying to cast multiple sources as inherently unreliable due to their political position. Idavox had not been discussed at RSN, so I brought it there, as Daryl Lamont Jenkins is a Subject Matter Expert on far-right and right-wing organizing.

I will exercise even greater caution in my sourcing in future, but there's no evidence my editing is a particularly large problem. A topic ban is the only way to prevent future damage in this area from this editor is extreme and damage is unsubstantiated. I have written 14 articles and edited countless dozen more. Cherry-picking poor sourcing judgement (even with the fact those sources were clearly attributed and no means the basis of the article or substantially effecting it) on only 2 is hardly evidence of a persistent problem. Particularly given that on most articles I edit I tend to ensure WP:MEDRS sources are used instead of unreliable ones. I freely admit I did use poor judgement in those situations, sincerely apologize, and will do better (which you should by all means hold me to and consider in future sanctions should I slip), but a topic ban is an extreme over-reaction on many levels. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's deeply concerning that you would ever consider an anarchist blog/press site reliable for any contentious claim about a BLP subject. Here [56] you added "he Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation described Keen as a "known transphobe, islamaphobe, and all round bigot"." citing the Anarchist Federation itself. Can you offer any reasonable explanation why you would consider that to be a BLP compatible edit? If not, why did you use that source? Springee (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The press site being anarchist does not inherently mean "can't be used", as you seem to think it does.

The Anarchist Federation (Britain), which you linked to, is located at http://afed.org.uk/. The Online Anarchist Federation, which the content was sourced to, is independent of them and republished a statement from them, which was not used for any factual claims. The content added is an attributed statement to them. Did they not factually and verifiably protest her and describe Keen as a "known transphobe, islamaphobe, and all round bigot"? An attributed statement as to why a group protested her seemed due, though I now recognize it wasn't.

Regardless, since RTH objected, as you can see above I concurred and realized that was poor sourcing. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The use of controversial sources for BLPs is the issue being called out here, but doubly so when they're used in a highly targeted manner, as you've already admitted. While I firmly believe in your right to edit on Wikipedia, I suspect you may have too strong of a COI to continue editing in this space. I'd encourage you to continue editing on Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this discussion, regardless. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Where have I admitted I use sources in a highly targeted manner? Where is the COI? Trust me, I'm not notable outside of Wikipedia, I take great pains to stay out of public attention to keep me and my family safe, given how fucking scary it is to be publicly trans. I'd be happy to verify who I am, outside of countering misinformation on Wikipedia and occasional trans history (ex: Angela Lynn Douglas), I mainly focus on work, finishing my under-grad, helping out my local community, and spending time with loved ones and I've had no interactions with any of the organizations or people I write about - the only connection to them is that I'm trans and I write about anti-trans organizations and activists. I only have a COI if gay editors have a COI about NARTH and Black editors have a COI about the KKK.

In terms of continue editing on Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this discussion - a topic ban would for all intents and purposes bar me from editing wikipedia. It is no secret that my editing focus and educational experience are in the GENSEX area. As others have noted, this usually takes the form of 1) ensuring misinformation doesn't spread and that WP:MEDRS are used and 2) writing articles about notable anti-trans organizations (which I must note, the majority of which have raised no objection and been praised). See my user and talk page and even the above discussion for evidence that my contributions in the area have generally been regarded well and level-headed, regardless of sourcing slip-ups in two sources, which I've freely admitted were mistakes on my part (and in one case, had recognized and concurred before this discussion was even started). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

To paraphrase a previous statement of mine, we don't cite She's A Homerecker for the information it says and then slap on attribution (according to a post on "She's a Homewrecker"...) as if it's some sort of band-aid. The same goes for other deeply unreliable or self-published sources. You're fully aware of this, and you participated in this June 2022 RSN thread where multiple editors told you not to use a different self-published source in a BLP. As I told you then, and as I repeat now, Source X is always reliable for the claim "Source X says Y", where Y is a direct quote. But WP:SPS says to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.". You were told about this exact sort of situation before, and that this sort of "attribution-as-a-band-aid" was not compliant with our sourcing policies, yet have chosen to ignore this advice thus far. And so we are here, because you have intentionally continued to add negative and contentious statements to BLPs that were sourced to SPS and low-quality sources, even after being told not to do so by multiple editors. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not chosen to ignore this advice, I know the consequences and don't want to get banned, I can assure you I have no intention of deliberately shooting myself in the foot. There is ample evidence I am almost entirely by book and a collaborative productive editor - I have made statistically very rare errors in judgement and memory and ask you to assume good faith, give me WP:ENOUGHROPE, and sanction me so I need to get my articles reviewed before publishing to mainspace to fully ensure that the content is neutral. I have never been opposed to good faith reviews of articles I write or when people point I've made an error in judgement. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt and in response to some !votes below, I will clarify that my proposed remedy of a topic ban is better represented by the Intersection of GENSEX and BLP than Union thereof. Should additional issues come up, this can be expanded, to be more broad in either scope, but I think that this restriction is both sufficiently narrow and preventative in nature. I think that the precedent in BLP issues on British politics articles informs a more narrow TBAN here than "all of BLP and also all of GENSEX". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Support either ban authoring new GENSEX articles or outright Tban. This is based in part on the evidence presented by Red-tailed hawk as well as my comment above and the general lack of awareness when it comes to IMPARTIAL writing and the standards of sourcing needed to make value laden claims about subjects, especially BLP subjects. Springee (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions there is no evidence that @TheTranarchist has been editing in a disruptive way or using anything but RS, or letting their beliefs actually impact the factual content of articles. This, coupled with the fact that OP was a sockpuppet, makes it ridiculous to actually consider sanctioning this user. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban. The editor in question has accused other editors of "cherry-picking" their edits, despite that's the entire reason why Red-tailed hawk went to the trouble to aggregate several examples. Why this is surprising or controversial is probably a good indication that this editor is doing precisely what they're accused of, which is advocacy editing. There is no shortage of evidence to support this claim, and while the sock puppet is concerning, it doesn't make this issue any less relevant. I understand that we're all human and we have bias, but there is a clear pattern of abuse here which is why I support the ban as to all the reasons pointed out above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have the right to defend myself and plead my case. RTH did not aggregate several examples of my edits, they primarily aggregated comments I've made off-wikipedia without evidence they impacted the articles themselves. There is a shortage of evidence to support this claim, as all serious complaints have boiled down to the inclusion of sources in only 2 articles out of the 14 I've written and the dozens more I've edited. While they have indeed proven unreliable, they were attributed even then, and I have not contested their reliability given evidence they aren't. A proper audit should take my general conduct into consideration, not just take two slip-ups as representative of my editing as a whole and evidence of a clear pattern of abuse TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick look at the first bullet shows a good number of examples with that very same BLP article where you have chosen to use self-published and other WP:QUESTIONABLE sources to assert contentious facts and introduce negative statements about a living person into an article. The sixth bullet is a "appreciation post" written to that very same BLP, where you described yourself as fucking cackling at the moment when you saw that the BLP was upset with Wikipedia's coverage of her. These are related, and say a lot about your BLP editing in this topic area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

To the 1st: those were from a while ago, and please keep in mind that content is a quote from an organization that protested her as to why, which seemed relevant and contextually justified but I now realize should have been more strictly sourced. I have stayed off the KJK article for a over two weeks because I wanted to step away from the page and let others editors improve it and see/fix what I couldn't, even though multiple RS have been published with details I could include and feel I should, since even I'd realized it's gotten to personal and I have better things to do. And to the 6th, let's please keep in mind the context that someone who is known solely for campaigning against the rights of trans people got mad about an article about her, calling it full of lies when it wasn't and she could provide no evidence it was, and personally insulting me. I only learned about the tweet because because @Paddykumar tried to insert it into the article and it preceded a huge wave of vandalism, which resulted in the page being protected, there having seemed to be a consensus among editors that the article contained no lies and everything was verifiable.

I don't want to WP:OWN any articles, though I want them to be well written and containing all relevant information to date from the start. I've written 2/14 articles that were not fully properly sourced, and even then only marginally when keeping in mind how little weight they had and how the article was overwhelming reliably sourced. Not to mention the dozens of other articles I've edited wholly uncontroversially to ensure WP:RS and WP:MEDRS were used.

Please, I'm asking you to assume good faith, to give me the opportunity to be even more exacting with my sources, and to hold me accountable if I fuck up again - enough rope to hang myself and all that. I even thing it's a good idea for me to have to put BLPs through the AFC process to make sure I didn't screw up and to help fix up my articles and ensure they're as good as they could be, since that's what collaborative editing is all about and I have a history of, even when disagreeing, collaboratively discussing based on RS and wiki-policy (to such an extent even the Atlantic, who are among the last people I expect for unbiased reporting on trans issues speaking to my personal opinion, noted that). These may have been these major SNAFUs on my part, but can you at least acknowledge that I provide a lot to the encyclopedia and the GENSEX area and a topic ban would be extreme given the circumstances and a waste of valuable contributions? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban, per Red-tailed hawk's list and replies above. DoubleCross (‡) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any action, this was started by a banned sock and many of the editors supporting it are only doing so because they are on the other side of the debate. The last thing we want to do is to remove one of the few editors from this area who are opposed to the worrying influx of "gender critical" editors. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Aside from baseless ad hominem attacks, do you have any substantial comment as to the issues I've brought up? Anything at all? I'm not a banned sock, and these are real issues that the user has previously been told to correct multiple times in the past. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  As a clarification, I believe Black Kite's comment about only doing so because they are on the other side of the debate was not directed at you but rather editors such as Springee, who has in the last few day

  On Talk:Chloe Cole, compared LGBT magazines to car magazines and said they're too biased to use as a source to label someone an "anti-trans" activist, the person in question having no notability outside of mostly campaigning to criminalize transgender healthcare for minors, and also for adults under 21 or adults on Medicaid as well, which they ignored to repeatedly insist that Cole only campaigns against transition for minors, and therefor it's supposedly therefor not "anti-trans"

  On Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism repeatedly insisted that trans students don't have a right to not be misgendered in schools, that campaigning against that right doesn't make an organization opposed to transgender rights, said only "trans advocates" thought so, and continued to deny denied there was evidence otherwise when presented with US Laws, and UN / human rights organizations statements

  Who has, as shown below, mainly not brought up any actual reasons I should be banned apart from disagreeing with their WP:FRINGE positions on trans topics, until referencing their own disagreements with me once again but saying they were in addition to your note, which has been practically the only one to bring up any real wrong-doing. Not to mention that they were blatantly canvassed beforehand, apparently the only one to have been summoned like that.

  Reviewing their reasons for why I should be banned in chronological order}}

  1. tries to prove tendentious editing by linking to an editor with a COI affecting the article saying I did so, who didn't provide any evidence.
  2. Links to a warning about improperly giving evidence of a COI as evidence of a problem with my editing, which the editor who left the warning stated it wasn't
  3. Provide the initial versions of Chloe Cole and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism as evidence they were biased, despite the text remaining mostly unchanged after consensus has found they weren't, Springee notably being one of the most vocal opponents in those places.
  4. Notably, argued against an investigation/boomerang for the highly suspicious account who started the discussion and notified them immediately after, who's now been banned as a sockpuppet
  5. Supports a restriction on publishing articles directly to mainspace
  6. Using a section compiling all reliable sources titled "Undoing the whitewashing and advertification", which other editors have noted was an apt and neutral description, as evidence of my misconduct
  7. Rehashes your point about the anarchistfederation source at KJK, their own politics clearly coloring how they view source reliability by notably asking how an "anarchist" source can be reliable.
  8. Supports a full topic ban or the article publishing restriction, referencing they're earlier unsubstantial points but also citing your argument

  TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If I had to put my thoughts into a !vote, which seems to be the direction the discussion is taking: Oppose any sanctions. I should again stress that the only reason we're here is because some bad looking informal posts were dug up in bad faith by a repeat WP:OUTING violator that has been banned since 2018. I think that's called poisoning the well, and I don't think we should be rewarding that. Regarding on-wiki behaviour: I've seen worse behaviour in this topic area from much more experienced editors, and this is not a very experienced editor. Because I felt like I was going a little bit insane with how some of the editors in this thread talk about her behaviour, I've decided to put some effort into quantifying it: She has a total edit count of roughly a 1200. of which only about 4% have had to be reverted or otherwise deleted, a number that is lower than red tailed hawk's at 5.5% for example, who has had an order of magnitude more edits to learn the craft at over twenty one thousand edits total. considering she's operating in a topic area where getting reverted is almost the norm these days, I think that's actually a quite decent score. Another point I want to adres is that even in the main mastadon post at isssue here, (the one where the "these fuckers"quote comes from), TheTranarchist shows a clear understanding and awareness of wikipolicy regarding these matters, stating explicitly that reliable sources are needed to get anything included on wikipedia, which is correct. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I don't edit in this area, but as an admin I used to patrol some gender-related topic areas that experienced significant disruption. The diffs shared above by Red-tailed hawk and others, especially the use of a highly inappropriate source to support contentious negative statements and the fact that this editor's userpage openly calls the subject of a BLP they've edited a liar and bigot, are extremely troubling. Collectively they have convinced me that TheTranarchist is fundamentally unable to edit this topic area (especially BLPs) in a manner consistent with our policies. I'll also note that this topic area is under WP:CTOP for multiple areas, WP:ARBGENDER and WP:NEWBLPBAN so any uninvolved administrator may take appropriate action, or a consensus at this noticeboard also has the option of a community ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  The raised questionable sources have been 3/4 out of the 100's I've cited in 2 of the 14 articles I've written and dozens more edited. With Idavox I took it through the appropriate channels and I'd recognized it as unreliable after being a clear policy reason before this whole thing even began. The BLP subject in question publicly insulted me and accused me of lying, has no notability outside of their bigoted actions and campaigning against the rights of people like me, and I didn't call them a liar, I said they were lying, which I provided a source to verify. That context matters. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I do understand what you're saying. Granted I'm somewhat of a BLP hardliner and have been for over a decade, but 3-4 out of hundreds on 2 out of 14 articles, when they're that egregious and especially when coupled with an open declaration of a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, is simple not good enough. The attempt to manipulate search engine rankings is also something that has been noted as "an extremely serious abuse of Wikipedia" according to the Arbitration Committee. Editors with strong feelings about a BLP subject, especially negative ones, need to be extremely careful about editing those articles and should often choose not to edit them at all. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I can respect being a BLP hardliner, but I think a full topic ban is disproportionate given the circumstances. I've already stated I think WP:ENOUGHROPE and a sanction on publishing BLP's to mainspace would be a good solution that would prevent this sort of problem arising again without throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

  In terms of my choices for BLP subjects, I want to note that people whose only notability is campaigning against transgender rights will most likely have their article written by either 1) someone who supports such views, and is likely to embellish sources, whitewash them, and use the article as an advert, or 2) someone who is trans and is directly effected by such policies, which we can't really help.

  In terms of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, on my user page, I have a subsection Choosing an article topic where I state, Difficult at the best of times, and up to you. I find my time on Wikipedia is best suited to 1) documenting anti-trans groups and activists and 2) documenting trans rights groups and activists. Generally, Wikipedia can be a wonderful tool for shedding light on both those who fight to make the world better and those who fight to make it worse. We need to know about both. This is not contrary to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as both tend to be covered in reliable sources. WP:RGW states If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. - the policy applies to WP:OR, not summarizing reliable sources as I overwhelmingly do and revealing well-sourced/documented wrongdoings.

  Regarding the edits, I'd like to say in my defense in context they are not especially egregious:

  Idavox was used for a attributed statement to them. I initially thought them reliable as recognized experts and gave sources to support that belief, but I recognized I was wrong about their reliability and concurred before this discussion started when RTH raised wiki-policy to answer the question.

  The Anarchist Federation (Britain) protested one of Keen's rally, the content removed was an attributed statement to them. Other editors at the talk page considered it possibly due. I realized it wasn't when RTH brought up concerns here and did not contest it.

  The Freedom News source would be reliable generally, and I wouldn't mind supporting that at RSN. The issue was it was a commentary, which I'd missed since it was in small print and read like a news article, and even then it was attributed. I still accept I fucked up there (for the fact it was a commentary I'd thought was a news piece, not for the source itself)

  The Trans Safety Network source is a fully admitted fuck-up on my part and the most egregious of the bunch, as I'd previously discussed it at RSN but misremembered the caveat about BLPs. The content in question was an attributed statement to them on the overlap between Keen and Tommy Robinson, which they provided evidence of and links to her videos supporting the claim, and as I showed earlier (somewhere in this novel of a discussion lol) that article had been used in a reliable source to cite the overlap between the far-right and transphobes. Even then, when I RTH pointed out I'd fucked up by including it, I didn't contest it and realized I had.

  None of these sources have been used majorly in the articles, they showcase errors in judgement which I addressed through the appropriate channels and in one case had already realized was wrong before this whole thing started. The articles themselves are primarily compromised of WP:RS and fully in line with wiki-policy apart from these minor SNAFU's. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I see this as similar to the Stuartyeates case from last year; intent matters, particularily for BLP's, and editors are expected to edit with the intent of improving the coverage of the topic and the articles compliance with policy. Sometimes, improved coverage and compliance with policy will expose wrongdoing by an individual or group, but exposing that wrongdoing should be the side effect of the goal to improve coverage not the goal itself. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:FRINGE, setting out to right a good article on the group will necessarily expose their wrong-doing. Is there any rule that explicitly or approximately says exposing that wrongdoing should be the side effect of the goal to improve coverage not the goal itself? They aren't mutually exclusive. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  setting out to right a good article on the group will necessarily expose their wrong-doing It will, but your intent was to expose them, not to write a good article. This is likely to result in articles that violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and did here as proven by Red-tailed hawk, as well as violate the policies underpinning WP:NOTHERE and WP:TE. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal Are exposing them and writing a good article mutually exclusive though? My intent was to expose them, or more accurately summarize how they've already been exposed by WP:RS by writing a good article. Is there evidence that at Genspect or Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine I've violated WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, engaged in WP:OR, excluded WP:RS or otherwise improperly weighed them, or that they are not good articles? Why should the intent matter if the article content itself does not have issues? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  The intent to expose an individual or group is incompatable with writing a good article, because this is likely to result in articles that violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Evidence for such violations, including at specific articles, has been provided by Red-tailed hawk. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  RTH provided evidence of this at only one article, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull notably not either of the ones my "exposed" comment were referring to. The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article had only one questionable source, Idavox, which I argued was due based on it's use by others via wiki-policy and the appropriate channels, which I'd already realized and concurred was an incorrect position before this whole thing started. Reviewing KJK: one source was an attributed official statement from a group who'd protested one of her events, one was included since "commentary" was in small print, but I maintain the source is otherwise reliable for its news pieces, and even then it was attributed, and one was the only actually clear sourcing fuck-up, since I should've remembered the BLP caveat from a previous discussion, which is a mistake I freely admit I made.

  In short, only one source in one article was used in an especially problematic way (Trans Safety Network at KJK) - that is hardly evidence that the my articles as a whole generally violate WP:NPOV. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with that simplification of Red-tailed hawks evidence but I don't think we are going to agree here.

  However, I would support the topic ban even if Red-tailed hawk had not provided that evidence; I fully agree with Nil Einne's comments on motive being a significant issue. I sympathize with your motive, but unfortunately your motive is not compatable with editing in this topic area; an editor who sets out to expose an individual or group is no longer capable of writing a neutral article on the topic, even when a neutral article would expose them, because they no longer have the intent of writing a neutral article. They are leaning into their bias, not attempting to control their bias. BilledMammal (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weakly oppose TBANs at this time, support warning. I realize that there's already a recent logged warning, and I don't like back-to-back warnings in general, but also most or all of this conduct predates that warning, so a community warning here would really just be driving the point home. For all of the concerns about off-wiki comments, I do not see compelling evidence that there are systemic issues with TheTranarchist's articles. I'm open to being convinced otherwise there, but everything people have pointed to fails to sway me. At Special:Permalink/1136773071 (Chloe Cole), for instance, there's some content that seems a bit anti-Cole, but also content that seems pro-Cole (At 12, Cole began seeing a therapist, who warned her parents against discouraging her from transitioning. ... Cole says a year after the surgery she realized for the first time she may want to breastfeed someday, which she now couldn't.). That is, to an extent, a failure in article-writing—neutrality does not mean simply presenting both sides' narratives uncritically—but it's not a hit piece like some are characterizing it. Maybe I'm missing something? Some egregious pervasive bias in their articles? I welcome responses spelling it out. But what I see right now is someone who needs some advice on good article-writing, and who as a practical matter should probably step away from more controversial articles for a bit—and who, it should go without saying, should stop fucking making Mastodon posts that make themself and the project look bad. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to greater scrutiny/sanctions of my Mastodon posts. I can't help but fully agree that I should stop fucking making Mastodon posts that make [myself] and the project look bad, which is a wonderfully direct and honest way of putting it. While I'd prefer to be given WP:ENOUGHROPE to post more tactfully in the future, as most of my posts there are a meta-commentary on Wikipedia and my edits here, if I have to stop posting totally so be it. While I'll be more a helluva lot more tactful regardless of how this goes, if consensus finds sanctions on my posting there are to be applied, I'd appreciate clear lines on what I can and can't post about to ensure I stick to them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe that anyone is calling for banning you from making Mastodon toots about Wikipedia without oversight. We don't have that kind of authority. The general idea is that if you're going to be editing material about living people on Wikipedia, using social media (especially that is publicly linked to your Wikipedia username) to engage with and talk about the people you're writing about in anything but a polite or neutral manner isn't good. It can definitely lead to increased scrutiny and sanctions, even if you're right about them. You're a newer editor so you may not realize, but there have been many cases before where editors, even highly respected content contributors and administrators, have been sanctioned for combinations of BLP-violating edits and off-wiki engagements with the BLP subject. The first one I can think of off the top of my head is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Additionally, if there is consensus then it could be possible to tailor a topic ban in a more precise manner other than all articles containing gender-related controversies/activism or all BLPs. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a tighter restriction, or a broad one that was limited in duration. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Their off-wiki conduct absolutely can be used against them when they themselves are linking it to themselves, and beyond that it's clear there's a tendentious editing pattern here as discussed above. I don't know Tranarchist for their non-GENSEX contributions, but I'm willing to see they can be a productive editor outside of this topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• 6 month TBAN on GENSEX - In the last few months the user has been using unreliable sources to propagate her publicly disclosed agenda to combat the "anti-trans movement." They appear to be an advocate. However, I would like it to be acknowledged that they are a new-ish user (been here about a year). I think once they get some more experience in other areas they could possibly garner a greater appreciation for Wikipedia's neutrality policies and guidelines and could successfully drop their advocacy problem. I see potential for TheTranarchist, but she needs to understand that this behavior is not acceptable. This temporary topic ban will facilitate that growth. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to note, as I've done somewhere in this novel above, my precise quote on that was the "misinformation" of the anti-trans movement. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban This is honestly a topic area I try to stay out of. I don't want to deal with the blatant anti-trans editors and their attempts to prop up pseudoscience about the topic of being transgender, such as editors who try to spread FRINGE nonsense like Blanchard's transsexualism typology as legitimate through that and many other articles. Many of the editors in this topic area directly try to push just outright bigoted claims about LGBT people. Meanwhile, TheTransarchist actually follows what the sources say about these topics, which is frequently not complimentary and not surprising in being as such. You wouldn't expect editors working on articles about notable neo-nazis to not follow what the sources say about them being neo-nazis and their beliefs, would you? And having a personal view outside Wikipedia that bigots are...bigots is not an exceptional stance either. The articles presented, including the biographies, are written properly following what the reliable sources say about them. The sources are not complimentary, therefore the articles will not be complimentary either. If anything, TheTransarchist tries to focus instead directly on what the BLP subjects say and what their beliefs are according to said sources. The simple fact that those beliefs reflect negatively on the subjects is down to them themselves. I don't think removing an editor from a topic area who has been directly using the sources properly is appropriate, particularly not when pushed by a sockpuppet actively trying to go after said editor. Silverseren^C 00:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I would expect editors who present themselves as working on neo-Nazis to comply with WP:BLPSPS and WP:RS, rather than regularly cite far-left blogs and engage in other problematic behavior. I would also be quite skeptical such an editor could distinguish between the center-right and fascists, especially if they are citing communist blogs that consider all conservatism or capitalism to be fascism or suchlike to support their labeling. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, by regularly cite far-left blogs you mean 1) Idavox, which I realized I was wrong on before all this started when presented with a clear policy reason that wasn't "I don't like its politics" and 2) an official statement from the Anarchist Federation (Britain) on an event they attended, which I already recognized was a fuck-up when raised here regardless? I'm not sure exactly where 2 citations out of 100s is regular - but apparently math works differently in Crossroads-land. I had a feeling I knew what your vote would be if you caught wind of this discussion but I expected you to be somewhat original..., but hey, padding your comment with a bunch of unfounded speculation on my political takes in a way completely irrelevant to the case was a nice touch! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, by regularly cite far-left blogs you mean 1) Idavox, which I realized I was wrong on before all this started when presented with a clear policy reason that wasn't "I don't like its politics" and 2) an official statement from the Anarchist Federation (Britain) on an event they attended, which I already recognized was a fuck-up when raised here regardless? I'm not sure exactly where 2 citations out of 100s is regular - but apparently math works differently in Crossroads-land. I had a feeling I knew what your vote would be if you caught wind of this discussion but I expected you to be somewhat original..., but hey, padding your comment with a bunch of unfounded speculation on my political takes in a way completely irrelevant to the case was a nice touch! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of unnecessary personalization I refer to in another thread below at #Stern talking to. I have never before encountered Transarchist, but this response, along with Red talked Hawk's point, indicate that the GENSEX editing area will be better off without this person. Personalizing and belitting another editor while you are under scrutiny is not a good idea. You could have made the same point without all the comments I struck. Support topic ban and BLP ban, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur, I've been watching this thread from afar and outside of weighing in as to whether or not this person can be productive I think you've illustrated how this person will likely be the source of malaise in the future for fellow editors regardless of the outcome. I honestly don't know what can be gained by keeping this ANI open any further, I don't see the conversation going anywhere but Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND (if it's not there already). Admins should really consider closing this discussion and making a decision before it gets worse. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, @Kcmastrpc, my first interactions with Crossroads were at Conversion Therapy about whether it included trans people, which they stopped me putting in the lead even after I had already updated the body (which was filled with decade+ old definitions that didn't include gender, which I'd replaced with more recent statements from the organizations). The fact I have since always been able to tell what their position on any GENSEX discussion they step into will be is somewhat telling.

Personalizing and belitting another editor while you are under scrutiny is not a good idea. - So what do you make of this accusation: I would also be quite skeptical such an editor could distinguish between the center-right and fascists, especially if they are citing communist blogs that consider all conservatism or capitalism to be fascism or suchlike to support their labeling.? Is that not, as I referred to it: padding your comment with a bunch of unfounded speculation on my political takes in a way completely irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, is 2 sources out of 100's regularly cite far-left blogs? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a source-based observation, not a personal one like "math works differently in Crossroads land" ... extending to "I knew what your vote would be", etc. Further failure to get the point will only push me towards where I really think this thread should be going having seen responses so far -- I'd be fine at this stage with an outright indef for WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY, since I don't see what value you are going to add to Wikipedia after a warranted GENSEX and a BLP t-ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with a little personalisation, when done in a sensitive manner and transparent manner. For example there are editors who I know when I'm working with them that I need to present proposals for text rewrites or additions in the exact context of the content surrounding it, while others I can just say I want to insert [this sentence] in [this section]. And when you're working with a smaller subset of editors, like in the GENSEX content area, you will start to get a general feel for the sorts of arguments that certain editors are likely to make in response to your contributions, and can use that to pre-emptively tailor proposals to account for that to try and address their arguments in advance.

And in any sort of social or parasocial environment it's also human nature I think to form and hold opinions on people. But there is a difference between thinking "I knew User:Example would say this" or "I knew User:Example would revert this without discussion", and actually saying it on an article talk page. There's a time and place for raising and discussing editorial conduct issues, and it is never on the article talk pages.

And that's the problem here. Thinking "math works differently in Crossroads land" and the rest of the text that Sandy has quoted and struck, is on a different level to actually saying it. Sandy's right, you didn't need to say it, it doesn't add anything to your argument, as it's basically just attacking another editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This is probably the rudest thing I have ever seen someone write on Wikipedia. Are you saying this user, a trans women, cannot add any value to other topics except to those on gender? It seems at this point that you are attacking another editor who has made MOSTLY constructive contributions to Wikipedia. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian: That's obviously not what she's saying, and suggesting as much is not cool. You should find somewhere to participate other than ANI, at least until your account is extended-confirmed. Levivich (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate you explaining what she meant then, and I will not be heeding your suggestion on that. Is there a WP policy stating you cannot participate in ANI until being extended confirmed? If so, please direct me to it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't speak for another editor, but in this case, it's pretty obvious that Sandy's comment had abso-f'ing-nothing to do with anybody's gender identity, and was instead expressing the belief that disruption in one topic area would only continue in other topic areas post-TBAN, and thus a TBAN wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. The policy stating you cannot participate in ANI until being extended confirmed is WP:Don't participate in discussions about sanctioning members of a community if you only joined the community three weeks ago. Levivich (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandy produced no evidence that the user would be disruptive in other areas, hence I do not think your reading is correct. And while I have only started regularly editing Wikipedia three weeks ago to a level where I thought I should make an account, I have made minor edits for many years. So be willing to listen to all voices. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in during my absence, Levivich. What I meant, LegalSmeagolian, is that since most of this editor's contributions are in the GENSEX/BLP area, I did not see what their value would be if they were banned from those areas (which is the direction this thread is trending). You are free to read too much into that statement if that helps you. And you're free to come up with contributions outside of those areas I may have missed, but that's not going to change my overall impression of a combative, personalizing, RGW, Advocacy editor who isn't getting the point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You barely researched then... see the editors contribution to slave codes as well as Mastodon, both of which are well written and suggestive that the editor can contribute productively outside of BLP and GENSEX. A full ban is simply unwarranted, and obviously from your statements and rush for an indef ban that your opinion of her will not change. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact I have since always been able to tell what their position on any GENSEX discussion they step into will be is somewhat telling.

Could it not be said that if the roles were reversed other editors could make the same claim? (this is a rhetorical question, btw). I'm of the same opinion as @SandyGeorgia with regards to how this discussion has evolved. My observations is that you've sought to undermine the credibility of Wiki through WP:ADVOCACY, and all throughout this discussion you've put in a herculean effort to defend your actions while taking as little ownership as possible to many of the issues that have been identified with your articles and edits. I'm not opposed to reversing my !vote, but I've yet to see a clear reason why I should. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc At multiple times throughout this discussion I've admitted to my fuck-ups and how I plan to do better when actual fuck-ups were raised. Poor sourcing choices (statistically rare and by accident, not intention) -> I will be even more thorough with them and ask for WP:ENOUGHROPE to hang me if I use improper sourcing ever again, as I normally take extreme pains to stick to only WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. My mastodon posts -> bloody stupid, and I'll make them less frequently and more tactfully or not at all. My user page -> similarly stupid, and I'm going to clean it up. My unconscious biases slipping into articles I write -> I should put articles through AFC for review.

The most herculean of my efforts have been in response to criticisms that aren't actually based on my edits. Like Genspect, where people have quoted my Mastodon post repeatedly without anyone raising any evidence the article has issues. Or people quoting WP:RGW or WP:ADVOCACY, which are very specific about there being a difference between what WP:RS have to say on a topic and WP:OR, which nobody has shown any evidence I do. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Per @Sideswipe9th's comment below, I apologize for the over-personalization in that comment, as my personal opinion or not it was bloody stupid to say. I'm letting this ANI case get to me too much... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Advocacy editing is advocacy editing even when the cause is righteous. RTH's evidence shows TheTranarchist targets certain subjects with the foremost intent of damaging their reputation, and predictably the articles on these subjects often suffer from problematic sourcing choices and excessive negative detail. That's what happens when you write on a topic you have strong feelings about: you unconsciously rely on the same biased sources you used to form your opinion in the first place because you're already familiar with them, while you're much less likely to be aware of RS with more neutral or opposite perspectives. You can be editing in good faith with the greatest intention of reporting content "neutrally", but when you have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic then of course you're going to believe the preponderance of all RS support that side. We naturally avoid cognitive dissonance and seek confirmation of our biases, and that makes it very difficult to even identify which aspects of the opposing views are DUE let alone write a thoughtful summary of them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:ADVOCACY states Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view.

  TheTranarchist targets certain subjects with the foremost intent of damaging their reputation is completely false. RTH's evidence, as broken down in my comment to The Wordsmith, amounts to problematic sourcing choices in 1 article, the other had already been resolved and I myself recognized it wasn't a RS when presented when a clear policy reason why before this whole thing started. To cherry pick at maximum 4 sources used for minor details and attributed statements out of the over-a-dozen articles I've written, hundreds of reliable sources they are based off, and general history of editing dozens more articles to make sure they are in line with WP:MEDRS and WP:RS, is not evidence that predictably the articles on these subjects often suffer from problematic sourcing choices and excessive negative detail. Excessive detail is not a topic-ban worthy offense on any level - if nearly all RS are critical of an organization or person then it being intricately detailed is not non-WP:NPOV, but a question of style and content editing.

  when you have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic then of course you're going to believe the preponderance of all RS support that side is ridiculous, you're hypothesizing that I have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic with no evidence, and no evidence that the WP:RS do not overwhelmingly support that side. There is no evidence I have ommited, ignored, contested, or otherwise not properly incorporated all WP:RS on any subject. I challenge anyone an article I wrote that is not comprised of RS and accurately reflective of them or even a single due RS I did not include. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  In what possible way is your avowed goal of promoting negative information on a subject--"a little SEO trick"--not an intent to damage the subject's reputation?

  From NPOV: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail.

  you're hypothesizing that I have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic with no evidence Are you claiming you formed your strong opinion on Keen etc. after you started writing articles on them? Forgive me for thinking the advocacy you announce on your linked Mastodon account reflects an informed opinion or relevant background on the subject!

  My comment was merely to explain why it is so incredibly difficult for anyone to edit neutrally--even when actively trying--on topics they have strong feelings on; the "you" in all those cases should be interpreted as the "royal you" not you specifically. JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Their whole MO is hijacking SEO to push misinformation about trans people, that is commented on by numerous reliable sources. as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one. - BLUESKY, that's just true. A well-written article on an organization known for pushing misinformation will refer to how reliable sources have described them, no matter their marketing.

  My opinions on Keen were formed by not especially partisan sources commenting on comments she's made and things she's advocated for. That includes trans publishers, left-wing publishers, centrist publishers, right-wing publishers, and even anti-trans publishers. Anti-trans publishers often give the best view of them, once you cut out the puffery. Your insinuation was my opinion was formed by literature on one side of a controversial topic. Compiling all the reliable sources merely strengthened how right criticisms of her are.

  While your comment may have been about the royal you, it was in support of a topic ban against me, so unless it was a royal topic ban responding to your points raised seemed relevant. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Being an advocate cannot be grounds for a ban. If that were the case, most sports editors here would be bannable, as most seem to be supporting specific teams or players. A ban has to be based upon continued disruptive behavior such as described in WP:ADVOCACY or other bannable behavior. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• If I wasn't clear enough with my previous comment here, I am currently opposed to a topic ban from WP:CT/GENSEX. Topic bans are generally reserved for cases when it is very obvious that a user is incapable of editing constructively in a given area, and this isn't one of those cases. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Whatever side of the argument is advocated, Wikipedia cannot be allowed to become a battleground for POV wars. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC).

• Do you feel that way about editors dedicated to upholding FRINGE and fighting against pseudoscience in every form? Since that's a "POV" stance. The issue here is that there isn't a "side of the argument" going on here, there is just what the sources cover, which is negatively about the topic area of bigoted people and groups. There's no way around that coverage, because that's what those notable subjects are about. Silverseren^C 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Reading through all of this, I'm not at all convinced this user is being objective, and it does seem to come across as slanted against the gender critical movement in the way they frame information. I don't think they should be banned, but a topic ban seems valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCanDoBetter (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - this section was opened by a (now-blocked) sock. Most of the !votes in favor of a topic ban come from editors who have disagreed with TheTranarchist about GENSEX topics in various fora, including some editors who hold perspectives hostile to the community consensus around MOS:GENDERID and the professional consensus around Gender identity. Editors hoping to remove an opponent from a topic area should not be rewarded for their efforts - a warning about the value the community places on high standards for BLP content is the most that this discussion calls for, in case some Admins feel that this message has not yet been received. Newimpartial (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the value the community places on high standards for BLP content and Newimpartial's rather unorthodox take on the subject, people might like to take a look at this discussion on WP:RSN. [57] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  An attributed comment by a notable group about a relevant event to the subject? The only thing that needs to be changed is "reported" to "claimed" in the sentence, since it is a claim by the group in question about what occurred. But so long as attribution is properly given to this being a statement by the group, that seems like fine commentary to include. Silverseren^C 03:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that gives a bit too much credence to the preceding comment. AndyTheGrump is just about some Whataboutism here, and saying something quite tangential to my !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  True, it's basically Andy attempting some whataboutism obfuscation with those who disagree with them in this section. And I would know, I'm the one that made the whataboutism article. :) Silverseren^C 03:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  How could I be attempting some whataboutism obfuscation with those who disagree with them in this section? I hadn't commented in this section at all prior to the above post. Nothing to disagree with. For what it's worth, I've yet to make my mind up on whether I think a topic ban for TheTranarchist is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Notating here that the editor had a second anarchist blog, a highly questionable source with no attribution inserted into one of these BLPs, and it ended up being referenced 3 times in the article. [58] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• You're referring to anarchist news site It's Going Down? Looks like the article in question is a Featured one done by the actual staff. You can use a primary source from Salem News if you want instead, though that isn't usually advised. Silverseren^C 04:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

And another one.[59] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Which is People's World, one of the longest running Marxist news publications in the world. Do...do you just have an issue with someone using far-left news sources? Silverseren^C 04:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to Unicorn Riot. I took a quick look at People's World and it at least seemed to have a history and reputation for editorial oversight. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Totally...get it. I personally would be...staggered, if Unicorn Riot had any sort of...reputation for editorial oversight. However, as despicable as they (or far-right blog reciprocals) may be...if they have editorial oversight...they get...to be included.YouCanDoBetter (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Unicorn Riot does seem to have a reputation for being a reliable source. Both The Guardian and The New Yorker have favourable articles on them, and their reporting. The Verge amplified The New Yorker's profile of the publication. Snopes has cited their content in a fact check, and used some of their other content in their reporting of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Wired extensively used their content in an article about Charlottesville. The Columbia Journalism Review states plainly that They are clear about their methods and their goals; they eschew traditional ideas of objectivity while striving for factual accuracy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That's...not much better. While Unicorn Riot is certainly not as high profile of an RS as People's World, it is still a news source. And the article in question used as a source was written by journalist Dan Feidt, one of the founding members. So it wasn't one of the random contributor articles they have in a different section. Silverseren^C 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I responded more in-depth there, but 1 claim was corroborated by an undeniably WP:RS, one is supported by Workers' Liberty and evidence (a link to a video), and 1 was her appearance on Salem News. The article was written by IGD staff and details of how IGD is used by other RS and their editorial policies are there as well. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• In case it wasn't clear from my previous comment, I oppose any sanctions against TheTranarchist. This whole debate was started by a blocked sock who fairly clearly was trying to harass Tranarchist. I don't see any problems with Tranarchist's actual output. So this whole case rides on what she said on an off-wiki site, which shouldn't even be WP:ANI's business at all, for one. For two, I don't find having a motivation to edit the wiki problematic at all. There's plenty of articles I've edited because I thought they were biased, and in several cases specifically because I thought they were biased against trans people. That's not a violation of WP:NPOV because WP:NPOV doesn't prevent editors from personally having opinions, even opinions about Wikipedia. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to say you think a topic area is biased, or that editors with a certain bias have taken over a topic area, or that you think the bias resulting from biased editors taking over a topic area needs to be fixed. Heck, we currently have an ArbCom case about to open because an academic said in public that a bunch of Wikipedia editors are biased regarding Polish culpability for the Holocaust. I don't think anyone would advocate for banning the authors of that article because of their opinions off-wiki, right? Loki (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions, warning at most The onwiki conduct, not offwiki, forms the grounds for the ban and in my opinion it has not reached that point. The onwiki evidence presented thus far can be boiled down to a content dispute on one article, and many voting here are involved in that dispute. Pinguinn 🐧 04:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban; TheTranarchist is a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY. From her mission statement on her user page, to her pattern of edits, to her painfully lengthy defenses when challenged, she seem constitutionally unable to decouple her own polar political perspectives from a true honoring of WP:NPOV. While in her own mind I'm sure she thinks she's doing the lord's work, she's subverting the integrity of this project. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• This editor above is the perfect example of the conspiracy and pseudoscience nonsense being dealt with on the right wing groups and anti-trans subject articles in question. Here's a talk page comment of theirs on FAIR after TheTransarchist suggested a lede change that actually summarized the body of the article, rather than just having the mission statement of the group as the lede:

While the lead in current state less then ideal, I certainly object to this proposal. FAIR is not a conservative group. It's an alliance of conservatives, centrists, and liberals. And the part about CRT is loaded POV pushing that advances a word game to whitewash far-left ideological excesses in education and academia and attempt to delegitimize anyone who complains about it.

Several above have stated that having a POV off-wiki from TheTransarchist is reason enough to topic ban them from this subject area. What about this sort of POV pushing done on-wiki? Silverseren^C 05:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, stepping back for a moment to offer some clarify and reset from a politically centrist perspective is surely harmful to Wikipedia! The spurious suggestions of "conspiracy and pseudoscience" are evidence that our WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY problems run deeper than TheTranarchist. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

To be candid, the most aggressive POV-pushing and ADVOCACY I have seen on Wikipedia has generally come from editors who see themselves as occupying an Archimedean politically centrist perspective. These editors frequently fail to recognize that they are acting out of a POV, even as they ignore the community's expectations around sourcing and neutrality in service of their own (unacknowledged) POV. Newimpartial (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: I just want to stress here, lest it go missed: Wikipedia articles are not written from a centrist perspective, any more than they're written from a leftist or rightist perspective. They're written from a perspective that is neutral with respect to the views of reliable sources. Often that coincides with centrist views. Often it doesn't. Perhaps you misspoke and conflated "centrist" with "neutral", but if you really are saying that you were trying to bring the article to a politically centrist perspective, that would POV-pushing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} :::(she|they|xe) 16:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I agree that a centrist perspective does not always align with a neutral POV. Imagine an article about a political election between three candidates, one right-wing, one left-wing, one centrist. If we wrote an article that cherry-picked positive coverage of the centrist candidate and negative coverage of the other two, we would have a pro-centrist and very biased article that violated the principle of NPOV. But when we have an article that has a strong left-wing or right-wing bias on a topic that tracks fairly well on a left/right spectrum, as was the case when the FAIR article was first published to the mainspace, efforts to make the article more neutral by removing the most politically biased content and/or adding more neutral content will axiomatically also it make the article more politically centrist, at least until a point where things change so much that the article tips toward bias in another direction. Any decent Wikipedia article will reflect what the reliable sources say on a topic. But the set of reliable sources on a topic will say a lot of different things, often things that are in conflict with one another. They will typically contain a mix of clear facts and opinions of the authors. When you're contributing to an article, how do you go about evaluating the relevance and relative reliability of the various sources in a way that you're sure is free of political bias? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeahhh, you have been engaged in blatant whitewashing of the FAIR article and have a massive undisclosed COI so... glass houses, stones. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist, would you care to expand on my alleged COI? I think everyone knows I was interviewed by John Stossel last year about Wikipedia bias. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get in trouble with WP:OUTING, but don't worry, I already disclosed it arb-com and they're discussing it! Thank you for your lead suggestion which is so blatantly whitewashing it will probably cinch the case. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

And your past edits, particularly talk page discussions, have been generally regarded as extreme POV-pushing. If we look at Race and Intelligence we see bludgeoning, pushing WP:FRINGE, trying to defend a source that consensus was incredibly obiously against, and general tendentious editing.

Frankly, I think polar political perspectives is so laughable considering you've made comments like No one is saying is "black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence". I do, however, believe that the mean and distribution of genetic drivers for intelligence is not identical for each every and ethnic group of humans. Basic logic demands me to believe that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Evidently you have a problem with basic logic. Your favorite psychologist, Steven Pinker, has plenty to say about "the fear of inequality" non-sequitur you're operating with, cf. The Blank Slate. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how right or wrong you are on these issues (I can see you're right on some based on the talk page), but this is an unwinnable argument. Just hope the consensus here goes your way, otherwise stay involved with these pages and fight for balance. But we've gone past the point of productiveness here.YouCanDoBetter (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best to stop engaging with Jweiss at this point. Further interaction won't be productive. Silverseren^C 06:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

_{how many more users will have been WP:BOOMERANG'd before this discussion is over, I wonder.} --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think TheTranarchist's cause is a worthwhile one, and it is one that she should continue to pursue. Attempting to pursue it here discredits both the cause and the encyclopedia, and I have very little patience for WP:ADVOCACY on Wikipedia in any form. While I previously expressed my reservation about sanctions, I have since seen continued WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior in several discussions related to this issue, I have learned that there was already an official warning in place from earlier this month, and (most concerningly in my opinion and not getting enough attention) I have seen an inability to discern reliable from unreliable sources in areas relating to GENSEX and anarchism. Finally, the collection of statements compiled by Red-tailed hawk brings it beyond a shadow of a doubt that TheTranarchist is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. As such:
  • I support a WP:GENSEX topic ban for TheTranarchist until she can demonstrate improvement in battleground behavior, an understanding of reliable vs unreliable sources, and the accurate use of sources without WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:CHERRYPICKING.
  • I support a warning for Jweiss11 for battleground behavior. Why they chose to come in here swinging and then leaned into the race issue is beyond me, but I also reccomend closer scrutiny of their conduct based on the comments above. If it is representative of how they discuss race on Wikipedia, then I will support anything ranging from a topic ban on race and ethnicity to a full indef for disruptive hate.
  • I support a warning for Newimpartial for the same battleground behavior and sourcing issues as TheTranarchist, as demonstrated in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard.
  • I reccomend looking more closely at how we address articles relating to transgender people and surrounding political issues. This situation is just a symptom of an underlying issue: we are clearly not doing enough to combat transphobia on Wikipedia, creating a vaccuum that encourages WP:SPAs.
  • I invite all involved editors to read WP:INSCRUTABLE. It's very short.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I leaned into the race thing? First, I was pinged here. Second, TheTranarchist, not I, introduced a comment of mine from two and years ago on another topic. I didn't bring that up. And describing a banal comment about the statistical complexity of our universe as "disruptive hate" is outrageous and Kafkaesque. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right, why go two and a half years ago when I could have just linked to your more recent clear POV pushing on trans topics and what you see as "left-wing activism" as examples of disruptive behavior. Like describing policies that prevent the misgendering of students as aggressive ideological authoritarianism and saying that stating an organization campaigning against such protections opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists. Or how on a discussion at RSN you deadnamed Brianna Ghey without any need, then continued to claim you were being censored because your public deadnaming/BLPPRIVACY violation was oversighted, as multiple editors explained on a human level and policy level why that was the wrong thing to do. Notably, you didn't apologize at all, you said How is it a privacy violation if it's public information as it was published by mainstream news sources, linking to an archived version of the Times article where it deadnamed her. You also led the charge against Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Recorder, the latter two of which you stated were non-notable left-wing opinion/essay sites. None of them should be cited as they are in the article. The trip to RSN concluded CRT was blatantly obviously GREL, and Passage is MREL/GREL and still in discussion.

Frankly, context for all, my own defense of Idavox was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to people on the page opposing it and the other two solely based on it's politics and not solid wiki-policy, lumping them all together. Had anyone at any point cited the relevant wiki-policy and in good faith shown it was unreliable, I would have realized I made a mistake much sooner. But instead I got stuck trying to defend the page from advertification from an editor with a COI who tried to cast as many sources as they could as left-wing and therefore overly biased, despite 2/3 in question being very reliable and WP:SIRS coverage... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

My "cause" is, if anything, combating misinformation on and through Wikipedia. I have done that almost entirely with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, apart from the few instances noted above, which are not representative of my editing as a whole.

Could you please provide examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT? Especially in regards to the latter, if a source is resolved as unreliable I don't use it (except for that one slip-up with TSN). For the former, others have noted that even when defending me, so I'd like to see some examples so I can do better.

In regards to the warning, which multiple people have brought up, please note that it was wholly unrelated to my editing, it was improperly reporting a COI, as AmandaNP, who left me the warning, testified above when asked for comment.

In regards to an inability to discern reliable from unreliable sources in areas relating to GENSEX and anarchism, other editors have commented on how I ensure RS are used in such areas. The only anarchist-related questionable sources have been 1) an attributed statement from the Anarchist Federation (Britain), who had directly protested an event of Keen's and 2) an attributed statement from Idavox, which I thought due given their WP:USEBYOTHERS. For the latter, I realized I was wrong when RTH brought up policy concerns before this whole case started. For the former, I realized my mistake and freely admitted to it.

RTH's compiled comments aren't evidence I'm WP:NOTHERE, but merely corroborate what I have always been open about, I strive to create encylopedic content on anti-trans groups/people, trans groups/people, and ensure that misinformation on either doesn't proliferate on WP.

I also strongly object to claims that I have engaged in WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:CHERRYPICKING. If I'm wrong, please provide diffs or example of any cases where I've done so. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel that I owe you at least a reply to this, but I have to say that this really doesn't inspire confidence. At its core, the issue is that throughout this discussion, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of why your approach isn't tenable. You've said multiple times that you consider Wikipedia to be a means to combat specific individuals and groups, potentially doing legitimate harm to them. But you now describe that as "combating misinformation". There is a huge difference between distributing free knowledge and using Wikipedia to gain some advantage over people you disagree with. I will not comment on whether these individuals and groups deserve to have attacks against them, but that's not relevant because either way it's damaging to Wikipedia. There's likely a WP:BLPCOI concern at this point. My advice right now would be to ask yourself why your edits are seen as problematic more so than other editors that edit in GENSEX topics. Are some of the editors opposing you just transphobic? I'd bet life's savings on it. But several well-respected editors have expressed legitimate concerns about issues related to advocacy, BLP, sourcing, and off-wiki activity that "brings the project into disrepute". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I led the charge against Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Recorder. Challenging questionable sources is supposed to be some sort of misbehavior on my part? It did not occur to me that stating Brianna Ghey's birth name on a discussion page, since it had been published publicly by a mainstream source, would be a policy violation of any sort, much less one that would that require oversighting, much less an act that could endanger anyone, like Ghey's surviving kin. My modus operandi here is always to assemble the clear-cut facts. In the mainspace, our articles for Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner, state each individuals birth name, in bold letters in the lead. If we have have rules in place here that prevent us from discussing verifiable facts about notable subjects, that's a subversion of the project's central mission. Brianna Ghey's killing was an atrocity. But discussing her name at birth is not going hurt someone like uttering Voldemort's name. I understand that this apparent murder is upsetting. But when we come here to build an encyclopedia, our feelings are less important than the quality of the documents we produce. Redacting or oversighting an editor's comment is indeed censorship. We do censor here on Wikipedia, most commonly when an IP or vandal posts something of no value to the advancement of the project. We indeed censor, and my comment was indeed censored, justifiably in the opinion of some. It was certainly a learning experience for me. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We have a consensus, based on many, many discussions on-wiki, about how we do and do not include the former names of trans people, in article and Talk space. BLP rules apply to Talk as well as article space, BLP-based protections still apply to the recently deceased, and deadnames by which people were never notable are not included anywhere (and are typically oversighted when introduced). And what is your reaction when you add the deadname to a Talk page, and all this is pointed out to you? You pretend it hasn't been, and whinge about censorship. And then you have the audacity to pursue your "opponents" to ANI. That must take a good deal of, err, self-confidence... Newimpartial (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, thank you for the reply! A few notes to clarify things

• In the quote that people are using to attribute attacking organizations/people to me, in full context, I explicitly do say their misinformation. It's like saying "combating the misinformation of the anti-vax movement on WP", they are a WP:FRINGE position that have been introduced to numerous articles. For example, I cleaned up the Detransition article to not repeat the misinformation that most trans kids desist, as such misinformation is incredibly damaging.
• In terms of why your edits are seen as problematic more so than other editors that edit in GENSEX topics., I have fully admitted my Mastodon posts were tactless and I'll do better or if it's best just avoid them in future. Also that I fucked up on sourcing and should've been a lot more strict. But, quoting Licks-rocks: I have a total edit count of roughly a 1200. of which only about 4% have had to be reverted or otherwise deleted, a number that is lower than red tailed hawk's at 5.5% for example, who has had an order of magnitude more edits to learn the craft at over twenty one thousand edits total. considering she's operating in a topic area where getting reverted is almost the norm these days, I think that's actually a quite decent score.

Most comments have been on the basis of my political positions, and how they influence who I choose to write about, without evidence it has effected how I choose to write about them. For example, while numerous have referenced my (admittedly tactless) comments on Genspect and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, nobody has raised evidence they are unencylopedic, rely on WP:OR, or don't accurately reflect what WP:RS have to say about them.

In total, the most objectionable edits referenced have 4 instances of improper sourcing for minor details, which I've broken down before, but which constitute less than a percent of the sources I've ever used and are in regards to only 1 article I've written (given I realized how wrong I was about Idavox before all this started when RTH gave me a policy based reason for why). I've even said I think it would be best to step away from that article given how personal it's gotten after the subject called me a liar and an "incel"/"trancel" (for writing the article) despite nearly everything in that article being impeccably sourced and verified. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from GENSEX preferably indefinite but I'm fine with a time limit if others feel that is better. I don't feel any minimum appeal period is needed.

  Although as often with these things, I think the community would probably reject anything coming sooner than 3-6 months. It's a pity it came to this. It's even more of a pity that this came from a thread started by an LTA. I hate this sort of thing and would much rather it was clean, but unfortunately when socking is only expose late in the day stopping discussion just to get someone clean to start can be even more unhelpful.

  I was hoping that we could settle this either with a lesser sanction. Or if we were lucky TheTranarchist would demonstrate an understanding that is is completely unacceptable for them to edit with the express purpose of exposing stuff especially living persons, rather than writing balanced encyclopaedic articles; and perhaps voluntarily refrain from directly editing in such areas until they better learn why they are here. But I haven't seen that in their replies. It may not help that other editors also seem confused about the difference between editing with the intention of writing balanced encyclopaedia articles which you believe will probably reflect negatively/expose/whatever a subject; and editing with the express purpose of exposing stuff. But TheTranarchist is ultimately responsible for their editing so it's on them an no one else.

  Note that while I rarely edit in this area, my views of the issues themselves are likely fairly close to TheTranarchist which you can probably find from stuff I've said well before TheTranarchist started editing. So any suggesting I'm trying to get rid of an opponent is highly flawed. It would be good to have editors like TheTranarchist but only if they're able to understand how and why they should be editing here. Some have mentioned that they're still relatively new and inexperienced. While there are understandable reasons why it happens, it's always risky when someone with very strong views starts their editing in a highly contentious area. Sometimes it goes okay. Often it does not, as here. If TheTranarchist is not willing to edit other areas that is unfortunate but by this stage it's looking like it's best way for them to learn why they're here and why it matters. And sanctions ultimately need to work for the community and Wikipedia, not the editor they're imposed upon.

  Note while this is clearly my preferred option, I'd support any lesser sanction e.g. an AFC/draft requirements for new BLPs or GENSEX.

  Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I explained why I felt their incorrect motivations for editing where enough for a tban and I didn't look much into their editing. I then visited their talk page and found a discussion over this notification/comment [60]. If you haven't seen that before, try and guess now what the basic dispute is about. There's a big clue in the wikilink to the discussion it's about whether Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism should be in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights. The fact it's not an RfC lessons canvassing concerns but it's still just a terrible notification or comment given most readers will probably have zero idea what the basic dispute is. When challenged over it their response was [61]. While I agree with them on the location point, there's no way thay is a neutral notification. Even the title cannot be considered neutral considering it doesn't reflect what the dispute is about. (To be clear, the issues they mentioned are only one aspect of whether FAIR should be in that category probably small ones at that.) I'm not surprised, this is why I didn't feel the need to explore their editing in great details. As I said, when you've here with the wrong motivations, we have good reason to expect poor editing Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne, for context, it should be noted that in order of objection raised on the initial talk page discussion at FAIR, the arguments were:

  JWeiss11: Compelling the speech of people who are not transgender is not protecting rights of those who are transgender. It's aggressive ideological authoritarianism. The idea that FAIR opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists.

  AnimalParty: you need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people, not that it is simply advocating for measurers that activists think might lead to rights erosion, or that you think are opposing rights

  Springee: Certainly saying the use of a deadname is a violation of a right is a claim that would need some strong evidence, evidence which you haven't provided.

  I provided numerous sources detailing their activities, and proving the fact that the right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in school is considered a right. Notably, Springee kept shifting the goalposts as I provided the evidence they asked proving it is generally indeed regarded as a right. To quote myself from that conversation if multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to [categorize them as opposing] LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right The opposition was clearly based off the POV that it isn't a right, rather than whether it is recognized as such by the US, UN, and various human rights groups. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  With User:TheTranarchist replies here and below, I no longer have any doubts about a topic ban. It's clear that they do not understand why their notice and framing of the situation is decidely unhelpful to resolving the dispute. This is similar to earlier when it seemed clear they had trouble understanding why people, even many who agree with their PoV, had trouble with their apparent motivations. I see no hope they will understand anytime soon. Unfortunately it's become clearer and clearer that this is one of the many examples of why someone editing here for the wrong motivations harm Wikipedia. If you're here to right great wrongs, no matter how noble the desired correction may be, you cannot set when you're actively harming Wikipedia. Be it by including material that shouldn't be included, framing disputes in ways that make it more difficult to resolve, and already heated discussions even more heated than they need to be; noting that often such actions end up harming your noble efforts since even editors who largely agree with your PoV think WTF? when they see your edits (as here). To be clear, I can understand why TheTransrchist was frustrated by many of the comments on that discussion, but this doesn't mean it was okay for them to make it worse by encouraging even more of a battleground. I encourage anyone whatever their views on categorisation and trans rights issues to look at the notification and consider carefully whether it was likely to help or harm efforts to resolve the dispute about whether FAIR should have be in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights category. If you agree it was likely harmful, does the fact TheTranarchist not understand this concern you? Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support GENSEX topic ban or similar - Red Tail Hawks' evidence is rather telling; Trananarchist is clearly editing in these areas for the wrong reasons. Yes, I understand everyone has their own private POV, but let's just say if User:FamilyValuesRepublican started using blogs to portray negative information about drag queen BLPs and then bragged about "exposing" them I don't think we'd take this long to come to the conclusion that their motives were testing WP:NOTHERE and that they were a liability to our BLP coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (with conditions) for TheTranarchist and others: I know there are certain areas on Wikipedia I should not edit; LGBT+ issues are at the top of the list. I think if I was working with other neutral and knowledgeable editors I could make a contribution, but the reality of Wikipedia is very different. Some editors need help defining these limits.

This brings me to what I think is the most important issue here: there are editors that have enabled and encouraged conflict in this situation rather than consensus building and collegial behavior. If Transanarchist is sanctioned with a t-ban, those that fanned the flames need a t-ban as well. If this is not possible, I reverse my !vote to oppose. Admins need to examine everyone's behavior in this situation. The fewer combat editors are involved in an area, the easier it is for others to work together.

I would also ask the t-ban not include talk pages, so that the editors have a chance to show they can productively contribute to discussions in this area, then when after a period of time (I think 1 year) they can appeal and have evidence to show they are able to productively edit in this area.

 // Timothy :: talk  10:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know this editor well enough to have an opinion on their edits. I think they recognise they posted some foolish stuff on Mastodon. But I'm not seeing editors post convincing links of behavioural issues on Wikipedia. The editor has posted opinions on talk pages about some organisations (e.g. Genspect) but that's not a whole lot different to medical editors moaning about Wakefield and autism or the Daily Mail and cancer and so on. Has their opinion reached a level where they are just using talk pages as a forum, or are they within the tolerance we all permit to talk about our subjects with more freedom on talk pages than we can on the article? Mostly though I'm very concerned that a sock account, now blocked, has created an AN/I section, which involved some degree of OUTING behaviour and focused mostly on what the user has written elsewhere, and which is now being voted on by editors with clear anti-trans editing history with arguments basically that they should be topic banned for being pro-trans and anti-gender-critical, and admiting such. I think for a topic ban, we'd need clearly demonstrated evidence that the editor is causing problems on Wikipedia. Like edit warring and consistently pushing unreliable sources, not listening to warnings on their talk page, etc, etc. I do recommend an admin consider some sort of procedural close. This is a dreadful way to go about reviewing a Wikipedian, and if a topic ban is enacted on the basis of sock puppets outing editors, well, that's a sorry situation to get ourselves into. -- Colin°^Talk 13:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the procedural issues here are genuinely problematic, but I wonder if you looked at my conversation with TheTranarchist above. Their initial published versions of at least three articles in this topic area were highly problematic. Even more egregiously, TheTranarchist misleadingly downplayed the changes made to the pages since to improve their NPOV, saying that the articles have "barely changed". I don't know if it's because she genuinely cannot grasp the degree of improvement needed (in which case a topic ban might give them time to gain perspective), or because she is not acting in as much good faith as I'd hope, but it convinced me that they are not capable of editing neutrally in this topic area right now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - Good, sourced editing CAN be advocacy or POV. This is certainly a contentious issue here on WP but ultimately I have to agree that this user's editing is at odds with our policies. Tranarchist has openly admitted and owned their stances and editing intent in this topic area and it's pretty refreshing to see, but it is ultimately advocacy as many users above have pointed out, and Tranarchist doesn't seem to see how it isn't a fit for Wikipedia. Its regrettable in many ways that this thread has come to this but in the interest of keeping WP a NPOV, balanced, encyclopedia, I think Tranarchist needs to put the pen down in these topic areas and reflect on their editing style. Regardless of outcome, I hope Tranarchist continues to fairly and productively contribute to WP and fight the good fight off-wiki, but not fight the good fight on-wiki. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• Oppose TBAN, Support Warning - Just another comment from a non-admin here. I guess this boils down to a fundamental philosophical difference with many of the people here. For me, being WP:HERE and WP:ADVOCACY are not binary propositions. Indeed. the latter policy nods to this when it says Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies (emphasis mine). The logical follow-on from that is advocacy is perfectly fine when it conforms to goals and policies. Indeed, who among us does not have political beliefs that influence their editing in both conscious and unconscious ways? Though I have great respect for Czello, I do not agree with WP:INSCRUTABLE. Wikipedia's neutrality is not a feature which inheres in individual editors, but is rather an emergent characteristic which results from editors of various backgrounds and beliefs engaging in a civil but sometimes adversarial process. I do not like the stance of "pretend you have no strong stances." To that end, I find the posts linked above not great, but nothing so bad that on their own they strike me as a big problem. The sourcing issues do strike me as a problem, but one that many people have gone through, and at first glance, it seems Tranarchist is willing to adapt to the community's expectations here. So for me, the question becomes: what sort of response do the on-wiki acts demand? And for me, it's a warning. I don't see a TBAN as necessary to prevent disruption unless the posts elsewhere are taken in the least charitable light. Combine that with the idea that WP:ROPE is cheap, and this one strikes me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot. That said, reasonable minds can certainly differ, and I may well be in the minority here. Cheers to everyone whatever the outcome. Dumuzid (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - User has made it clear they cannot edit the topic from a neutral point of view. By their own words, they are here to right great wrongs.Lulfas (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per many others above. I am sad to say it, but where it concerns gender politics there are certain number of "usual suspects" who are clearly not editing neutrally and are here to push a PoV. Disappointingly, it's often ideologically motivated. I do find it both funny and frustrating that when a discussion is taking place regarding these topics it's almost predictable who will show up, almost on cue, and it's even very easy to guess what they'll say, regardless of policy or context (indeed, this very discussion has demonstrated this). I believe TheTranarchist has been more overt with their tendentious editing, and I do believe their edits fail WP:NOTADVOCACY. As Lulfas above me said, By their own words, they are here to right great wrongs. — Czello 15:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Following on from this, I've just read through the collection of comments collated by Red-Tailed Hawk above, and all I can say is, good grief. While many here are saying that their off-wiki activities should be discounted, I firmly disagree. Not only does she link to her social media on her user page, but it's a pretty telling admission of a desire to use Wikipedia as a tool (her words) to clearly push an WP:AGENDA. TheTranarchist is not here to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 16:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose TBan - While TheTranarchist has made some mistakes while editing, they've also been willing to try and correct them, both before and after this thread started. As for making intemperate social media posts...I mean, who among us? No one should be sanctioned for that unless it creeps into their editing, and the evidence it has in this case is pretty thin. A more targeted restriction such as a requirement that all BLPs written by this user go through AFC as suggested above could be reasonable, though. Hatman31 (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, regretfully, from GENSEX and BLPs. I wanted to vote for a warning but this just now: "If multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to [categorize them as opposing] LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right?" The answer is yes!, and that TheTransarchist still doesn't grasp this, even at this late stage, shows she has much to learn before she can competently edit in these very sensitive topic areas, particularly when coupled with the blatant advocacy on- and off-wiki. It's not just 'at most 4 bad edits', she doesn't seem to understand why everyone else thinks her editing is not policy-compliant, and I think that's because she doesn't actually understand our policies, as evidenced by this quote. "Indefinite is not infinite", but she needs to edit elsewhere and really learn how to properly summarize sources, and how to identify reliable sources, and how to responsibly use social media, before she edits GENSEX topics, especially contentious BLP content (which is almost inseparable from GENSEX). I feel bad because I think this new editor is suffering the consequences of being led astray by more experienced editors who should have, but haven't, offered course corrections. This is the harm that echo chambers cause. I would support a warning, but only if I actually saw her take some corrective action or at least some genuine self-reflection, but all I see is doubling-down. At bottom, the need to be fair to BLPs is more important than being nice to a well-meaning editor, so I regretfully support. Levivich (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  For what little it's worth, this edit and these two recent comments were intended as course corrections. As well as this observation. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  You're right: credit where credit is due, those were attempted course corrections, thank you for trying. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I tried a few times too, in a sort of "take my advice, I'm not using it anyway" kind of way.  Tewdar  22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  In regards to the point about categorization, that is a more nuanced discussion than framed here, a position that others agreed with me on there, and a categorization question, not a SYNTH question, as I never said "the organization opposes transgender rights" should be anywhere in the lead or body. I think it would be best served as an RFC on how to define LGBT rights or a discussion on appropriate categorization and scope at the category's page. For example, if "organizations that oppose same-sex marriage" was a subcategory of "organizations that oppose LGBT rights", that would be based on reliable sources generally noting that same-sex marriage is a right at the category page. If sources frequently concurred an organization opposed same sex marriage without explicitly calling it "opposed to LGBT rights", we could still say they "oppose same-sex marriage", which would still be a subcategory of "opposed to LGBT rights", regardless of people's opinions on whether same-sex marriage is a right or if sources said the organization opposed LGBT rights. Frankly, I'm fine with the (somewhat overly specific subcategory) "organizations that oppose rules against misgendering", and a discussion at "organizations that oppose transgender rights" as to whether that's a valid subcategory.

  Regarding my genuine self-reflection, in this discussion I've variously acknowledged

  • I majorly fucked up with my Mastodon posts, no question there. I should post a lot less and more tactfully or not at all, as I'd ditch Mastodon posts in a second if that's what consensus calls for since I care more about editing the Encyclopedia than posting about editing it
  • I fucked up by including unreliable sources in a BLP, and I should be a helluva lot more careful ensuring sources are up to snuff, and I will do a lot better and should be given WP:ENOUGHROPE to not introduce them in future
  • I should work on my WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, as even supportive editors have noted it
  • While I genuinely try to write neutral articles, any editor will let bias slip in, so I think reviews and good faith discussion and collaboration to address such issues would be a good thing
  • Relatedly, I fully support sanctions on publishing articles directly to mainspace and a requirement I go through AFC, since I want other eyes to ensure I've introduced no accidental bias and the article is as good as it could be

  TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  We can all read Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism#Category: Organizations that oppose transgender rights, where many (all?) of the things I've said were brought up by others.

  Saying it's a categorization question, not a SYNTH question, as I never said "the organization opposes transgender rights" should be anywhere in the lead or body demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:CAT. See specifically, WP:CATDEF: it should not be a cat unless it's a defining characteristic, in which case it should be in the lead, and anything in the lead must be in the body.

  We're not going to have an RFC or a discussion about "how to define LGBT rights" because we would never define LGBT rights (WP:OR). The only time we ever say someone or something is "anti-LGBT rights" is when there are many high-quality sources that say that, and never under any other circumstances ("exceptional claims require exceptional sources" is WP:V).

  See also WP:SUBCAT: Y is a subcat of X if all Ys are Xes (an "is-a" relationship), but all Yx are Xes does not mean all Xes are Ys. So "opposed to SSM" is not a subcat of "opposed to LGBT rights", even though SSM is a subcat of LGBT rights, because while SSM is a type of LGBT right, not everyone opposed to SSM opposes LGBT rights. For example, gay people who oppose SSM but support civil unions are not anti-LGBT rights. Trans people who oppose gender-affirming care for minors, or oppose trans women participating in certain women's sports, can still support other trans rights; it doesn't mean they are anti-LGBT rights. That's why if RSes say someone opposes same-sex marriage, we say they oppose same-sex marriage, we do not say they oppose anti-LGBT rights; we categorize them as opponents of SSM (if it's a defining category), we do not categorize them as anti-LGBT rights.

  I checked your Mastodon today and I did not see you delete/remove/whatever any of the problematic posts, nor make any kind of correction, apology, or other mea culpa. If you realize you majorly fucked up with your Mastodon posts, tell your Mastodon audience; un-fuck-it-up. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  As I showed above somewhere, the editors opposed were largely basing it off their opinion that it is not a right, while I provided evidence that it is a recognized right. So in that case, I think a discussion on whether "organizations that oppose band on misgendering students", which is a defining characteristic of the organization and already noted in the lead, is a subset of "organizations that oppose transgender rights" is called for. A categorization disagreement, which I based off reliable sources saying it is a recognized right of transgender students to not be misgendered, is not grounds for a TBAN.

  In regards to Mastodon: I was planning to do that after all this anyways - post a brief note, apology, clarification, and notification I will either not be posting further or purely post uncontroversial edits (like "check out this article I wrote <link>" with no further exposition). I have not made private my Mastodon account or deleted my posts since I wanted to be fully transparent, and not seen as trying to delete the evidence or tamper with it after the fact. I wanted to post about this whole situation but have been very purposefully avoiding further interaction with it. Damned if I do post, damned if I don't apparently. I will do a thorough review of my Mastodon and add clarifications and apologies where needed after this whole thing is over with. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  While there are other reasons, I don't think your focus on the editor not being an expert in SYNTH or SUBCAT is usefully a reason for a topic ban, particularly as nearly all the other editors on this page would struggle with those at times. The category system is a dreadful way of classifying things in the real world and nearly all other modern knowledge databases use keywords, tags and other looser things. That someone hasn't fully grasped the awful Venn diagrams one needs to create in order to get that right on Wikipedia... well... you don't have to be perfect to edit on Wikipedia but can you collaborate? That surely has to be a better question for topic bans than whether every single edit complies with NPOV. Because if you think that is the standard for topic banning, I've got a list... -- Colin°^Talk 20:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's not just misunderstanding WP:CAT, it's also not understanding WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and being argumentative throughout (see below). I support a TBAN to protect other editors from having their time wasted arguing things over the basics. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Don't forget WP:GNG... JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Whether that was WP:SYNTH has been disputed by other editors, and there isn't evidence I don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or WP:RS. WP:GNG is a new one though... Any evidence of that? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I got mixed up with which thread this was. JoelleJay (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  No worries, seems to be a lot going on on this board lol. GNG just through me for a loop since I know for a fact I've stuck to that one TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't think failing to navigate the alphabet soup of categorization guidelines is grounds for sanctions, topic bans, or ANI in general. If I saw a list of "Famous performers of Beatles cover songs", I wouldn't immediately assume that each person on the list performed more than one cover song, even though songs is in the plural. Likewise, a list of "Proponents of conspiracy theories" could include people who only advocate one conspiracy theory each, and a list of "Opponents of LGBT rights" could include those who oppose only one such right. There's no synthesis in that, just the squishiness of the English language. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  A side note that's maybe not directly relevant here:

  "If multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to [categorize them as opposing] LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right?" The answer is yes!

  I've been editing almost as long as you have and I think this is a transparent over-reading of WP:SYNTH. I'm honestly flabbergasted that anyone could say this. This is like saying that we couldn't report that Edmund Hillary climbed a mountain from the sources that said he climbed Mt. Everest, because who's to say Everest is a mountain? Loki (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  RSes say that Everest is a mountain, that's who. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  But let me guess, if the sources saying Hillary climbed Everest don't explicitly state the BLUESKY fact that Everest is a mountain, then the editor who says it's obviously a mountain, and even provides sources showing RS generally classify it as a mountain, while others insist it isn't a mountain based on their FRINGE opinion, is guilty of violating SYNTH to the most extreme degree and should be topic banned? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am 100% sure that:

  1. There are a profusion of reliable sources that say that gay marriage is part of the category "LGBT rights".

  2. The fact that gay marriage is an LGBT right is WP:BLUESKY.

  Which is to say, this response does not make your response make any more sense, and in fact mostly just makes it more confusing. My instinct is that if there's any argument at all here, it's whether "opposes an LGBT right" and "opposes LGBT rights" are synonyms or not, not whether gay marriage is an LGBT right. Loki (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  They are most definitely synonyms in the present case. @Levivich's fringe hypotheticals aside, if you oppose SSM, a fundamental LGBT right, it is safe to say you oppose LGBT rights. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  By comparing:

  • whether Chloe Cole is "an anti-transgender activist" or "opposes gender-affirming care for minors"
  • to whether Edmund Hillary climbed "a mountain" or climbed "Mt. Everest"

  ...you are making a number of serious policy mistakes:

  1. Chloe Cole is a WP:BLP; Edmund Hillary is not
  2. Being an "anti-transgender activist" is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim; Hillary climbing Mt. Everest is not an extraordinary claim
  3. Being an "anti-transgender activist" is "contentious material" within the meaning of WP:BLP; climbing Mt. Everest is not
  4. Being an "anti-transgender activist" is a MOS:LABEL; climbing Mt. Everest is not
  5. Mt. Everest is a mountain, but "opposing gender-affirming care for minors" is not "opposing LGBT rights" (or "anti-transgender activism"). Being opposed to one LGBT right is not the same thing as "opposing LGBT rights" because "opposing LGBT rights" means opposing all (or most, or at least many) LGBT rights. And your opinion doesn't matter; it's the RSes' opinions who matter. So unless an RS says it, we don't say it, period.
  6. Putting it all together: the only time we say a living person is 'anti-X' is if RSes widely say 'anti-X'; never SYNTH LABELs in a BLP.

  Because if you do, you will probably get TBANed. Levivich (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding point 5 - @TheTranarchist stated it best - "Quick note, trans kids are not magically not trans people. Campaigning to forcibly detransition people and deny them access to transgender healthcare is indeed anti-trans activism, regardless of their age."

  Is the above not true? It also seems like coverage from "reliable sources" like the Washington Examiner or other conservative outlets who focus on such individuals are likely to use veiled language or dogwhistles. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  And to add to that. Sources directly call her an anti-trans activist, especially SIRS ones. Others note she lobbies for anti-trans legislation. And even if we put aside bullshit arguments about "think of the children", one would hope you read the article or talk page, where you could see she has supported bills that would criminalize or restrict access to trans healthcare even for adults TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Climbing a mountain might not be A MOS:LABEL but being a mountaineer is. Are we not allowed to refer to edmund hillary as a mountaineer if we only have a source referring to him as having climbed multiple mountains? I don't think calling someone who is on the record touring across the country to campaign against the right to transition an "anti-trans activist" is anything even remotely close to a an extraordinary claim. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, "mountaineer" is not an MOS:LABEL. Did you even read the page? Sheesh, noobs. Levivich (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I also want to clarify since I left my earlier comment while travelling - my comment about Mount Everest being a Mountain was not in relation to Chloe Cole at all (who is so blatantly an anti-trans activist, which is so unequivocally covered by RS, that it's hard to understand why you'd argue otherwise). It was in regards to FAIR and opposition to the rights of transgender students still being counted under opposition to transgender rights, per BLUESKY and reliable sources categorizing it as a right. By your example: if I categorized Hillary as "known for climbing mountains" since sources repeatedly noted they had climbed Mt Everest, Mt K2, and Mt Kilimanjaro (just examples, not sure if he had), without explicitly saying they were mountains and people objected on the basis they did not believe those to be mountains, and when presented with RS that they were mountains, called it SYNTH, they would be laughed out of the discussion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich, @Newimpartial, @Colin, @LokiTheLiar, @LegalSmeagolian, @Licks-rocks, @Nil Einne - I'm notifying y'all as editors discussing this here of an RFC I started on the Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism page to address this (apologies if you're already watching), I'll abide with whatever consensus finds I just think this ANI discussion is not the correct place for the discussion as to the merits of this argument either way. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I see two issues with how you are conducting this RfC and the notices. First, the RfC question isn't neutral. That violates the basic rules of a RfC. Next when you post the entire non-neutral question here [62] it fails as an appropriate notification (see APPNOTE). You further violates APPNOTE by selectively pinging editors. Given all of the discussions over there last few days you are making the same errors again. It didn't install confidence in your ability to make appropriate choices going forward. Springee (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I pinged all the people here who weren't already heavily involved in the page but who discussed the topic here, as I didn't doubt you, Jweiss11, and AnimalParty were already watching the page... Half the people pinged here disagreed with me ffs so that by no means fails APPNOTE - I just wanted this discussion moved to a more appropriate location. I also see no evidence posting the question for context fails APPNOTE, and given that I was told I improperly worded the question before, quoting directly what was asked as an amendment to the OP and apologizing for the OP is now a problem? Finally, how on earth is that question not neutral? It lays out the situation and the relevant categorization issue, and it could have just as easily been written by someone who disagreed with me per WP:INSCRUTABLE. Springee, it doesn't inspire confidence that you seem find a problem with everything I do, including accusing me of selectively pinging editors when half disagreed with me, and casting me apologizing for a non-neutral notification with an attempt at a better one and an update as evidence of not being neutral... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Phone reply so this will be short. You can ask the question but the moment you start putting up the arguments, evidence etc you are no longer asking a neutral question. When it comes to pinging editors it's best to do mine or ping them all. Again, my concern is you don't see a problem with your ways and this it doesn't seem likely they will change. Springee (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Springee, the moment you start putting up the arguments, evidence etc you are no longer asking a neutral question - where in that question did I actually do that? I didn't offer any arguments or evidence, I laid out the question, and the two options which have been debated, with no comment or evidence either way...

  From now on, I'll be sure to ping you even on articles I'm 100% sure you're watching, just in case... And in further terms of improper pinging, I was not the one canvassed in by a banned sock, who then called for a topic ban by 1) providing a link to a COI editor calling me "tendentious" without evidence 2) providing a link to a warning about improperly reporting a seperate COI as evidence there were problems with my editing (WP:CIR, you should have read the section you linked) 3) providing a link to an article that has remained fairly stable and 4) providing a link to an article that has mostly remained stable, save for the period of whitewashing and advertification... You continued to raise ridiculous charges, such as referring to a section title called "undoing the advertification and whitewashing" as evidence, which other editors agreed was an apt description of the article state per WP:NOTADVERT & WP:WHITEWASH. Frankly, the only real problem with my editing you've raised wasn't even original, it was just saying you concur with Red-tailed hawk after every one of your complaints had been proven irrelevant by me or other editors... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I wanted to corroborate what @TheTranarchist said about actively trying to improve the article Gays Against Groomers to maintain NPOV. She has been very responsive and open to constructive criticism, illustrating her commitment to editorial integrity. She is passionate, yes, but is also a hard-working editor. Because I have been helping with the article, and can be thus perceived as involved party, I will refrain from making any judgements regarding taking action against the editor. At the same time, I want to stress that there are editors in this discussion, most notably Jweiss11, who had previously made POV statements in TheTranarchist's articles' talk pages and who should immediately recuse themselves. That they attempt to influence this discussion and openly recommend a TBAN is just grossly unethical. I urge everyone, and the administrators in particular, to be very vigilant when gathering and assessing community consensus. Ppt91^talk 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions as non-productive. TheTranarchist has been editing in a highly charged area while adhering to WP:RS, with a few heated moments of poor judgement. She acknowledges those missteps, and I don't see any benefit to the encyclopedia for forcing her out of this area of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Both their off-wiki tone and on-wiki editing fall below the threshold of someone we want involved in contentious areas. I appreciate their suggestion that they will moderate their approach going forward, but it's a bit 'closing the barn door after the horse has bolted'. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  ...you already !voted, right? Just yesterday in fact? Loki (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah weird to vote again so recently. @David Fuchs will you strike this !vote? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from biographies of living persons who are related to the topic area of WP:GENSEX. If one of the subjects of the posts/biographies described above were to pursue legal remedies (perhaps before a jury in Mississippi or another jurisdiction where trans rights are not recognized/respected), the off-wiki posts referenced above (including a statement of intent to "expose" and "undermine" such persons) would provide evidence of actual malice. And if Wikipedia failed to take action to limit further editing after such actual malice was brought to the community's attention (as had been done in this discussion), such failure could be viewed as ratification of the comments. It would be reckless of us not to impose a topic ban under such circumstances. Cbl62 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Cbl62, are you implying the community should impose sanctions on an editor based on the possibility of legal consequences? I would find that an unlikely possibility and a weak source for wiki interpretation of PAGs so want to understand your perspective further. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, Red-tailed hawk, and BilledMammal set forth valid reasons for the topic ban. As for "legal consequences", I simply think it is extremely reckless to make statements essentially admitting that actual malice (a desire to "expose" and "undermine") is the reason for one's edits. A TBAN sends the message that Wikipedia does not tolerate or ratify such malice. Cbl62 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nil Einne referenced a non-neutral notification I posted, but as I showed in my response, in the discussion it referenced, those who opposed did so on the basis of flat out not considering it a right for transgender students to not be misgendered in schools, and ignored the RS and evidence provided that is generally recognized as a right. That is important context. BilledMammal said my comment about "exposing" Genspect/SEGM was an issue, but the articles themselves are fine, and nobody has been able to prove otherwise. Please note, the comments about "exposing" and "undermining" explicitly used those in reference to "misinformation". A motivation for writing an article has nothing to do with the merits of the article itself. Even then, I've already spoken about how "expose" was a linguistic miscommunication, as I relied exclusively on WP:RS to write the articles in question. I've already re-hashed Red-tailed Hawks points multiple times, but a miniscule fraction of poor sourcing judgements compared to an extensive history of ensuring WP:RS and WP:MEDRS are used, do not justify a full TBAN.

  A TBAN would send the message that Wikipedia tolerates WP:FRINGE and will ban editors who try to stick to it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN so far none of their onwiki editing has risen to the level of meriting such sanctions. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning Watching from the sidelines, I think Dumuzid's comment characterizes my position well enough, except that I'm not sure what purpose a warning would serve, apart from a bureaucratic one (should another ANI come up, people could say "editor has previously been warned"). XOR'easter (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  People have compared this to the Stuartyeates case. Well, I thought that was a risibly over-broad topic ban as well, given the extraordinarily narrow focus of the disruption. XOR'easter (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  And having read the Mastodon posts that are being repeatedly invoked as evidence of battleground behavior, I have to say... that's it? A few intemperate expressions of emotional investment in a topic that naturally invites emotional investment, and statements recognizing that articles have to be built on reliable sources? Remind me never to start a social media account and talk about the fringe physics articles I've !voted to delete, because heaven forbid, I might express some feelings there. XOR'easter (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  They were at times outright admissions of using Wikipedia as a tool to promote certain views, or attack opposing views. It's clear WP:RGW behaviour. — Czello 14:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  So is making actual physics more prominent than perpetual motion machines. So is making medical facts about COVID more prominent than 5G conspiracy drivel. The creation of a free encyclopedia is, at root, righting a great wrong. The social-media posts in question made clear that reliable sources have to come first — that Wikipedia's job is to follow rather than to lead. Questionable judgment about what sources are reliable for which purposes is a legitimate concern, but not a sanction-worthy one. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yikes, xor. Levivich (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely not the same. It's not questions around science, it's ideologically motivated. — Czello 15:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I will refrain from deep philosophical musings, but I will point out that the last few years should be ample evidence that the borders between "science" and "ideology" are porous at the best of times. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, many of the issues that have arisen about Gender identity and are best understood in relation to WP's WP:FRINGE policy framework - some views of the underlying medical and psychological topics are mainstream, some are FRINGE and there is a spectrum in between. Political actors in this domain often dismiss or distort the scholarship and professional practice in the field, presenting "scientific facts" as "ideological opinions". This aspect is part of what it makes it difficult to edit in the GENSEX area. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Czello quite a lot of my edits have been ensuring that sources are WP:MEDRS compliant and that WP:FRINGE is upheld... WP:RGW states Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do. If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. Remember that you can reach out to a relevant WikiProject or the neutral point of view noticeboard if you need help. RGW is not a question of attitude, it is a question of WP:OR. There has been evidence of a very minor number of poor sourcing choices, not evidence of WP:OR or departing from WP:RS TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Countless pro-science, anti-pseudoscience edits get smeared as "ideologically motivated", or words to that effect, by the pseudoscientists who get upset that we report on them accurately. My entire involvement with this project could be smeared as "ideologically motivated", if somebody felt the desire to do so. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with RGW as a shortcut / section-heading is that a desire (whether hidden or shouted loudly from one's mastodon account) to right great wrongs is not actually a problem. Not at all. But it gets waved about by editors (not accusing you of being one) with conservative beliefs in their battle against "woke" editors or anyone who expresses a progressive opinion. For example, many medical editors view their mission to counter all the nonsense people might otherwise read in the newspapers and internet and promote evidence based medicine. Nobody seems to mind that much, except for those who keep getting their herbal cures removed from cancer articles. As XOR points out, all of us are righting great wrongs by making educational information free. That's quite a subversive activity.

  The specific issues that the RGW section is dealing with is editors pushing something that goes beyond the mainstream, beyond the facts supported by reliable sources. Editors doing that will find themselves in conflict with our basic restraining policies about original research and verifiability and so on. The containing essay Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, is about problematic behaviour, not problematic beliefs or opinions or motivation. It explains "It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles."

  Czello, when you say this is "ideologically motivated", I think you are heading into dangerous territory. That's language used by activists (on both sides, but mainly on the gender-critical side) to dismiss opponents. For example, the use of "gender ideology" in scare quotes to reduce a relatively mainstream concept into something like a cult. Well, others have made this point too. There are similarities for example between Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and Andrew Wakefield (the latter is an article where we pull no punches and call him a fraud). Both are attacking mainstream medicine and both have their followers and fans. One may well have a view that mainstream medicine gets it wrong but then you'd be the one on the wrong side of RGW.

  The point is, we need evidence of behavioural and editing problems (and for which there may well be) so posts that simply say that this editor has strong beliefs that motivate their reason to edit here are unhelpful. And frankly chilling on whether editors are open about their beliefs or identity. -- Colin°^Talk 15:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to "all of the above" here as there were many replies in a short space of time, and I don't exactly that to turn this into another bludgeoning battlefield-thread. To be clear, just in case there's an unspoken implication here (especially given mentions of conservative/woke beliefs or the language used by transphobic public figures), I'm not suggesting that issues around gender are unscientific, or that gender is biologically immutable, or anything else that invalidates the existence of trans or non-binary people. I'm talking more about the motivation behind editing that I saw on the above social media posts - for example posts #2 and #3. Any quashing of fringe medical sources I wholly advocate. — Czello 16:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've read the same social media posts. I've re-read posts #2 and #3 just now. Yes, they make the underlying motivation clear. But I keep cycling back to a single question: so what? Who edits without being motivated? I could turn out a social-media post in the same tone about cleaning up Wolfspam, if I were honest about my feelings and expressed them in the common idioms of social media. The point is not motivation, but conduct, and whether the conduct is so beyond the pale that completely shutting out an editor from a whole topic area is the reasonable response. I don't think that it is. And I think that when the topic is emotionally fraught, we have to work deliberately to avoid jumping to the conclusion that evidence of strong motivation is evidence of incorrigible conduct. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  And post #2 displays a good understanding of how Wikipedia has to follow the sources. And post #3 doesn't look all that different from some post at WT:MED where someone asks for help with an article that is clearly written to promote some fringe medical/health beliefs by true-believers, and needs some work done on it to reset things. -- Colin°^Talk 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is "#3 #2", emphasis mine:

  These fuckers hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy ... I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer ... All hope is not lost though, as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one. The truth of their positions and actions is on prominent display and they can't lie their way out of it.

  Wikipedia is a very important tool in combating the misinformation of the anti-trans movement more broadly. However, that depends on reliable sources (by wikipedia's guides) reporting on it themselves. This can pose a problem, Wikipedia coverage helps reliable sources report on them more accurately, but that doesn't get the ball rolling in the first place, only we can do that, by putting pressure on news organizations to cover these issues and if they aren't willing to help, reporting on it ourselves in the hope one picks it up.

  So what? Are you kidding? Levivich (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to find something objectionable here. I also have opinions about how I hope Wikipedia will cover certain topics, and realize that I am constrained by what reliable sources say about those topics. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Here's how I read that post: [Organization #1] and [Organization #2] are transphobic bigots. I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them. [L]iberal news organizations like the New York Times (aka WP:RS) start uncritically treating them as merely concerned experts, but I created Wikipedia articles about them as a little SEO trick so that their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one and The truth of their positions and actions is on prominent display and they can't lie their way out of it no matter what the NYTimes writes. The problem with Wikipedia is that combating the misinformation of the anti-trans movement ... depends on reliable sources (by wikipedia's guides) reporting on it themselves. If the reliable sources do not report on it themselves, we do not summarize what they say, but instead we should put[] pressure on news organization to cover these issues (aka say what I want them to say about it), and if they aren't willing to help, reporting on it ourselves (aka WP:OR) in the hope one picks it up (aka WP:CITOGENESIS) (all of which might even cross into WP:COI). I see a lot objectionable there, but YMMV. Levivich (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is clearly the most cynical reading imaginable. Note just how much of that you had to make up. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich, show problems with either article, proof they depart from the weight or WP:RS or engage in WP:OR, or stop WP:BLUDGEONING about it and putting words in my mouth.

  • The NYT article did not provide them SIRS coverage, it quoted them without much further exposition, AKA they did not have the excessive WP:WEIGHT you seem to think they. What recieved more weight and attention than their coverage was how much they were criticized in other RS for not mentioning the true extent of Genspect's campaigning (such as against bans on conversion therapy or for forced detransition for those under 25). That coverage is already included in the bloody article, mentioning how that article was cited to ban trans healthcare in a State's deposition, and also look at New York Times#Transgender rights for general track record on it. The overwhelming lean and weight of RS, from investigative journalism to WP:MEDRS, is "Genspect publishes misinformation and campaigns against trans rights".
  • I explicitly said I stuck to RS, the NYT is a source with a horrendous track record publishing on trans topics, and coverage of this fact was reliably sourced and in the article.
  • I say wikipedia relies on RS, so unless RS cover it we can't, so to get the ball rolling trans people should research and document them off wikipedia. I reference two trans publishing collectives in that same post that have written amazing research on Genspect, which has been picked up and referenced by RS. That is not WP:CITOGENESIS by any stretch of the imagination - which is OR or a false claim being put in article, which I have never done. I never said I was engaging in WP:OR or WP:CITOGENESIS there, have never advocated for it, and casting a comment about how I stick to WP:RS as evidence I do not is such a BS argument it's hard to assume good faith...

  TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, I really don't get the impression you're assuming good faith here. Rather the opposite, in fact. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Did you really just bold 1) me saying I combat misinformation 2) me saying I stick to RS as defined by WP even when I wish I could include others and 3) me noting that RS only report on trans topics accurately when pressured or we (as in the trans community, not Wikipedia) have already done the research ourselves, a somewhat BLUESKY statement, as evidence of a problem? Do I admit to WP:OR or not using WP:RS or not specifically targeting WP:FRINGE? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

  Chiming in only to say that emotions are already running really high and maybe it'd be best to not regurgitate the social media posts when one had a chance to present their point of view, as it is clear some people view it differently than others. I fear this can inadvertently take a combative turn and any further WP:BLUDGEONING accusations here is the last thing we need. Again, I am all for constructive and continued dialogue, and certainly am not trying to take anyone's right to present their honest and analytical take on the issues involved; just asking to not dwell on it to a point where it's unproductive. Ppt91^talk 17:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, I'm not "kidding". Replace "anti-trans" with "antivax" in that paragraph with all the bolded text, and you'd have a humdrum description of how editing on fringe theories operates. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, other than the swearing, I'm not seeing much different to 101 interviews Doc James ever gave about why he was on Wikipedia as a Wikidoc. (I'm only mentioning Doc James because he was the most high profile wiki doc and gave lots of interviews about why he was on Wikipedia). Yes, having our articles at #1 of google search results is pretty high on the motivation reason for a lot of Wikipedians. I get that some people are shocked that anyone might actually be motivating to edit here, vs just so bored they have nothing better to do, but that's not a policy compliant reason to ban someone, on its own. -- Colin°^Talk 17:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I cannot understand for the life of me why editors are targeting you over this and not just giving you a warning for running your mouth on other platforms, which is the only thing you really did. In terms of your actual contributions to WP, they haven't been non-constructive. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN This is cut and dry tendentious editing. Looking at their contributions, I'm surprised support for a TBAN isn't unanimous. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support. Editors who are here to "win" by defaming people cannot be allowed to stay here. This should be her last chance. Maine 🦞 16:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Confused to where the editor defamed someone? You are also one to talk, based off of all the issues with BLP on your talk page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have only spoken truthfully about the identity of Soldier F, which Wikipedia has decided to censor for some reason. That is different. Maine 🦞 16:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is because he has not yet been charged/tried and doing so could actually constitute defamation, so actually not that different. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Maine Lobster You have just blitzed the ANI posting at least 11 comments in a span of 18 minutes in a variety of discussions that have real consequences for involved editors (as @Canterbury Tail has already mentioned to you). It's disrespectful and, frankly, suspicious, especially for a new editor with a very limited experience; out of almost 170 edits you have made so far since registering in late December 2022, over 50% are on various noticeboards, including ANI and AfDs. I'd caution you against rushing into these important discussions. Ppt91^talk 16:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• All editors have a PoV, but a Wikipedia that allows itself to be used as a vector for deliberate malinformation failed to learn the right lessons from Gamergate. Sennalen (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  As someone who made his Wikipedia bones during the Gamergate donnybrook, I find this analogy inapposite. No esdisrespect intended. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose T-Ban and any other sanctions. Here we have before us an editor, TheTranarchist, who makes constructive, important, contributions to Wikipedia. Who strongly supports human rights. And who is a particularly strong advocate outside of Wikipedia. And who feels strongly about the denial of rights that most strongly affect herself. Linking her Mastodon account to her User page is not forbidden, is it? Shall we dig through evidence linking all Wikipedia accounts to external internet accounts? To me, that would signal an authoritarian trend.

I think TheTranarchist has made tactical mistakes in not expecting that links to her off-Wikipedia advocacy could be used to attack her on-Wikipedia work. But not mistakes that warrant any sanctions. If TheTranarchist is sanctioned, why should I not be sanctioned? Just because I have not signaled my spheres of advocacy off-Wikipedia, why should not my choice of articles to edit, my edit summaries, my talk page contributions be examined for suspect tendencies? If TheTranarchist is T-Banned, why not Neonorange, or ...? This threat is as chilling as any I've seen on Wikipedia. In fact, T-Ban me, just in case.

Wikipedia should be a safe place to edit. We must judge editors by what they contribute here.

—Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 21:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC) —

well said LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I was convinced to support a topic ban solely by what I saw on Wikipedia, on three articles that TheTranarchist started (see our conversation above). I still hope that they are acting in good faith, but they do not currently have the ability to edit neutrally in this area. Advocating for rights is one thing; writing non-neutral pages designed to make BLPs look bad is entirely another. Being unable to distinguish reliable sources from entirely unreliable ones is also a major issue (see RSN discussion linked above). —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

We must judge editors by what they contribute here. OK:

• In this contribution here from yesterday, she refers to this source from Passage as an RS providing WP:SIRS, even though the RSN thread she started came to the opposite conclusion because Passage only publishes opinion and analysis.
• In the same contribution, in support of categorizing FAIR as "opposed to transgender rights", she cites this source about recently added protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school, and she writes that FAIR opposed a full ban but doesn't mention that the source says While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech.
• The description of this other source also contains selective quotation: TheTranarchist writes, They reported as doing the same in yet another source, where FAIR opposes state it's unconstitutional to 'teach students that they must use alternative pronouns' due to the 'first amendment' and 'religious freedom', while the source says something more nuanced (all emphasis mine): While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouncs and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.”

This sort of thing wastes editor time. Levivich (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• The reliability of Passage is not fully settled there, and others said their vote would depend on use by others, which I later demonstrated but have yet to hear back from. By my count in that thread, there are 3 who consider it reliable, 1 who considers it partially reliable but thinks other sources would be better, 2 who wanted to see evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS who haven't yet responded since I added it, 1 who voted not reliable based on a lack of notability (before I'd published the USEBYOTHERS), and 4 who consider it unreliable (including your recent comment last night and an editor with, as previously mentioned, a COI in this field, that has led them to not edit/discuss this article neutrally repeatedly beforehand). That's hardly the overwhelming consensus you seem to think it is... Not to mention, a RS mentioning FAIR directly cites the Passage article in question as evidence of its statement about FAIR's activities.
• The accusations of selective quotation are laughable. If a source states "organization opposed <LGBT right> - in a comment they said they support LGBT rights", the relevant part is the first half, the second half is immaterial. The puffy language they used matters less than what RS sources explicitly noted their actions to include, and in both cases it was opposing a ban on misgendering schoolmates. Arguing the puffy language they used means they didn't objectively oppose that right? This sort of thing wastes editor time

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support BLP and GENSEX topic ban per copious evidence above, especially from Red-tailed Hawk, of an ongoing pattern of problem behavior. Continuing to use fringe blogs as sources on a BLP, even after being informed not to do this, is a major problem and a time sink for more experienced editors, and will bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Furthermore, as noted above, this is very similar to the Stuartyeates case where the user ended up with an indefinite topic ban from BLPs. The clear goals and intent here are much the same and are incompatible with neutral editing, especially neutral application of WP:WEIGHT and evaluation of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support I really have nothing else to say beyond what others have mentioned. TheTranarchist, whatever the outcome of this discussion, I encourage you to rest for a bit and maybe choose another topic to edit for some time. You'll only end up burning yourself out if you edit exclusively in a charged area like this, and continuing to edit elsewhere will likely placate these concerns given time. The Night Watch (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support both a TBAN and a restriction against creating new BLPs in mainspace, per the clear evidence of programatic abuse of WP as a platform for advocacy and smear campaigning. It's just not excusable, even if many of us agree with the general socio-political viewpoint being pushed. This just is not okay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN or any other sanctions. I see no evidence that TheTranarchist has been editing in a disruptive way or in bad faith. There is also no evidence that she allowed her personal beliefs to impact the content of articles she worked on. So far, her work here proved that she is a constructive and productive contributor to the project, who use reliable sources. In the end, is it even necessary to mention the fact that OP was a sockpuppet, and how ludicrous would it look like if we impose a TBAN or some other restrictions based on a report initiated by a proven sockpuppet. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN From this long discussion I find that TheTranarchist has been editing in a disruptive way and creating biased attack BLPs to suit a POV: totally unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs)

@Xxanthippe: Is there really a need to vote twice... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Sorry about that. I can get lost in these long debates. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC).

• Support TBAN. Round and rounder has laid out the evidence that this editor clearly views Wikipedia as a battleground. This is particularly egregious as it's obviously intended to rile people up and is bad publicity for Wikipedia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  How is "bad publicity for Wikipedia" a bannable or topic-bannable offense? If I discovered a nest of horribly NPOV, COI editing that had snuck under the radar, and I made a social media post about it, that would be "bad publicity for Wikipedia" in that I'd be publicizing how imperfect we are. Should I then be topic-banned for upholding policy? What if I posted about the Doug Coldwell cleanup effort? That would be "bad publicity for Wikipedia" because I'd be devaluing the Good Article status. Should I be topic-banned for alerting people to the problem? XOR'easter (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with constructive criticism, but consider the following: "TERFs are crying again, do you think they'll cry more when I mention Posie Parker's far right ties in the lead?". This is not constructive, and is obviously intended to provoke. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how it's obviously intended to provoke. That would presume that the message is being directed at an audience of TERFs, rather than people who follow TheTranarchist on social media because they like what TheTranarchist has to say. The latter audience would be amused, not provoked. Is it a bit juvenile? Maybe so. Is it constructive? Maybe not. Is it a topic-ban-worthy offense, or even a contribution to that side of the scale? Hardly.

  It's social media. Snark happens. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's a public platform that anyone can see, linked from her userpage. Yes, it's obviously designed to provoke. — Czello 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's a public post on a service where people choose whom they follow. Maybe it was "designed to provoke", rather than to entertain, but I can't in good conscience see it as a bright-line violation of a conduct policy, such as would warrant sanctions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  You don't need to follow this user to read her posts, and she explicitly links it from her user page. Am I also correct in remembering this is a user who has been mentioned in journalistic outlets? She knows that her political opponents are likely to read her social media posts. — Czello 20:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Over the years, I've seen editors collect statements on their user pages about fringe figures they've angered, niche publications that have denounced them, and/or wiki-drama they've been involved in. It's arguably in poor taste, but getting upset about it veers far too close to getting angry that people edit for emotional reasons rather than Vulcan ones. And now we're speculating about the social-media audience that an editor might or might not have, and debating whether to TBAN that editor because of who might or might not be in that hypothetical audience? Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Czello: Yes, TheTranarchist has been mentioned in an article by The Atlantic. That article references the February 2022 move request of Gloria Hemingway, and the quotation from the expert that The Atlantic cites was favourable of both TheTranarchist and StAnselem (the other editor mentioned by name) conduct in the discussion stating "It didn’t seem culture warrior–ish". Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  How favouriable the article was wasn't my point. I was drawing attention to the fact that the Trananarchist's social media isn't some isolated, lesser-seen platform of her views. It's directly linked to her account. — Czello 22:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Czello My userpage has received more attention in the past few days over this case than at any point prior.

  On Mastodon I have 77 followers - hardly a celebrity, even a micro-one. The way Mastodon's algorithm works is, unless you 1) already follow me, 2) are searching for a hashtag I used in a post, or 3) look up my username, you won't see my posts. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  None of this really addresses my former point - you link you social media from your user page. Yes, you understandably would have received more attention in the past few days: because it's been the subject of a very big ANI thread. — Czello 23:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Trying to address that directly (please let me know if I'm still off the mark):

  1. Linking it there was bloody stupid, nobody has disagreed on that, least of all me. Same goes for how the posts were tactless and sent the wrong message
  2. I mentioned this somewhere in this forest of a thread lol, but I originally stated on my user-page I don't use the username anywhere else (partly due to people directing harassment towards people with my username). It felt it would be duplicitous for me to not explicitly confirm it was mine when I created it.
  3. The posts in question usually entail me stating how I use wikipedia: 1) to combat WP:FRINGE misinformation (see below where I give a list of non-BLP GENSEX articles I've edited) and 2) to document the anti-trans movement (in accordance with RS, and never with OR). I have never been anything but open about that, that's even on my user page.
  4. You originally said my edits fail WP:NOTADVOCACY(An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.) and quoted another editor saying By their own words, they are here to right great wrongs (WP:RGW states If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. - I have always been explicit that I write articles based on RS (very very rarely, I have mistakenly used non-RS, but never has an article depended on them for anything other than a brief detail)

  On my user page, I explicitly state in a subsection titled Choosing an article topic: Difficult at the best of times, and up to you. I find my time on Wikipedia is best suited to 1) documenting anti-trans groups and activists and 2) documenting trans rights groups and activists. Generally, Wikipedia can be a wonderful tool for shedding light on both those who fight to make the world better and those who fight to make it worse. We need to know about both. This is not contrary to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as both tend to be covered in reliable sources.

  To try and make a more personal case, I see you created and did great work on Timeline of the Mahsa Amini protests! (An aside, hadn't run across that article before but it's great, hits very close to home as the situation was very similar in my mother's country growing up) Taking it as an example, if you had publicly said you were on Wikipedia to document violence against women and protests against such violence, and after you wrote the article stated you supported such protests and some less tactful statements like directly saying "fuck the Iranian government", how would you feel if editors took you to ANI without evidence the article itself has faults, but over your comments? And to relate the example more to this case, after the case had already been going on, if it was revealed you fucked up on a just a few of the sources therein (which you would've realized and fixed had anyone raised it on talk)? Would you accept categorizations that you were here to WP:RGW and engage in WP:ADVOCACY? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Ficaia I just want to note, the only publicity for Wikipedia I have received has been the Atlantic saying: The main advocate for moving the page from Gregory to Gloria was an editor named TheTranarchist, and the main opponent was an editor named StAnselm, a self-described Calvinist who has created more than 50 articles about biblical characters and scenes. Yet the discussion on the Talk page was about facts and Wikipedia policies and guidance, not politics. “It didn’t seem culture warrior–ish,” [Joseph Reagle, a Wikipedia expert at Northeastern University] said. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think one of the concerns is that this editor is diving into controversial topics and doesn't know how to work within Wikipedia. Consider that after all the discussion the editor opens a non-neutral RfC [63] ( 17:44, 22 February 2023‎ ). After several editors reject the desired outcome TheTranarchist starts a second RfC [64] ( 21:23, 22 February 2023‎ ). Yet a few hours later when I note there was no reason for the second RfC [65]( 04:31, 23 February 2023‎ ) they unilaterally closed the first RfC [66] ( 04:42, 23 February 2023). Shortly after Levivich replies to the second RfC in a way that doesn't support TheTranarchist's desired outcome. Levivich's reply is met with a wall of text largely repeating earlier claims [67]. It appears this sort of behavior is what we can expect from this editor even after all the above concerns and the risk of a topic ban have been placed in front of them. Springee (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I literally advised closing the first RfC and starting a second, more specific one. (Just prior to my making that comment, Animalparty had said I think the scope of this RfC is too broad). If there is a concern that an editor doesn't know how to work within Wikipedia, what's wrong with learning? XOR'easter (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing is wrong with learning, but perhaps staying away from contentious topics while you are learning will let them establish a firmer footing, and be less likely to create time sinks for other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  TheTranarchist, do you think it is reasonable to suggest editors who disagree with your edits at Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism have COI? "That article was whitewashed and advertified by a COI editor." [[68]]. You also suggest an editor was canvased. Making accusations against other editors, even if you don't specifically name which of the small number you are thinking of, is not CIVIL. One of my serious concerns with your behavior is that I don't see any contrition for the way you have acted on site. You may be trying to distance yourself from your off wiki comments but unlike the discussion of another editor a few sections below, I don't see that you are really recognizing and acting upon the problems with your own behavior. Continuing to battle, even if only on your talk page, is not a sign that you have turned over a new leaf. Springee (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee, I'll name them for you

  • JWeiss11 has a monumental COI and a look at their edits on that page confirms a pattern of advertiifcation and whitewashing. Others here have already explained to you, a lead containing only a mission statement fails WP:NOTADVERT to an extreme degree. I reported this a week ago via email with copious evidence and followed up a few days ago. Believe you me, as soon as arb-com gives me the green light to make a case (and confirms there are no outing issues) I will demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jweiss11 has 1) friendships with FAIR board members 2) relations with FAIR's activities and campaigning 3) a demonstrated history of working with FAIR and 4) their edits on the page have been obviously effected by this and they've indeed worked to whitewash it.
  • You were literally WP:CANVASSED, the only person the banned sock who started this reached out to. Multiple other people here have noted this. I do have contrition for the way I've acted on this site, that doesn't mean I should not make criticisms of 1) a COI editor who jumped on the TBANdwagon or 2) a canvassed editor who has repeatedly tried to raise a problem with nearly everything I do, even as other editors say "that isn't actually a problem", who's now apparently stalking my talk page...
  • Jweiss11 has a verifiable COI. You were verifiably canvassed. Taking an issue with me pointing that out is a ridiculous new low. Continuing to WP:BLUDGEON and call for a ban with spurious evidence is not WP:CIVIL. Give other editors a chance to speak, because it doesn't look good for you or WP:BOOMERANG to repeatedly try and attack me for anything you can think of.

  TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Can you support this COI claim against Jweiss11 else you are deep into WP:ASSPERSIANS territory. Secret hidden emails don't excuse publicly calling out an editor. Do your obviously, strong, negative feelings about these groups constitute a COI? Do you think the other editors who see your behavior as improper also have COIs? As for the canvassing issue, I have no idea who was notified about this discussion. Are you suggesting that I wouldn't have noticed had it not been for that editor? That seems unlikely. It would have been proper to notify all involved parties rather than just me (I am taking your word on that). However, it's hard to believe that notification would have mattered in the end given how many editors have replied. You are of course free to request sanctions again the editor responsible for that improper notification. Regardless, what I see is an editor who doesn't see that they need to fundamentally change how they approach this topic area. Since you don't see that I support a tban so you can edit other areas and show you understand the rules before returning to this area. Do note that tbans indefinite doesn't mean permanent. It means until the admin/community agrees that the problem has gone away. Springee (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Unquestionably yes, and I have, and the only reason I didn't do it publicly from the get-go was concerns about WP:OUTING. I just linked to an admin confirming the email was received and it's under review (and in my past experience, they respond much quicker when there isn't a case). I have only said 1 editor has a COI, because he does - he's publicly friends with many FAIR advisors and has worked with FAIR in the past. I've asked admins and arb-com to for the love of god give me the go-ahead to disclose the evidence publicly multiple times here, especially since they came in here swinging for a TBAN and a WP:BOOMERANG is called for.

  Do your obviously, strong, negative feelings about these groups constitute a COI? - No, for the BLUESKY reasons that gay editors don't have a COI about NARTH, Black editors don't have a COI about the Klan, and Jewish editors don't have a COI on the Goyim Defense League, even if they publicly say about them "fuck these homophobes/racists/anti-semites" off wikipedia.

  Multiple people have pointed out that you were canvassed here. Round and Rounder launched the case, notified me 8 minutes later, and you 5 minutes after that, notifying no other editors. You jumped straight in suggesting a ban with the totality of your evidence being 1) aforementiond COI editor called me "tendentious" without evidence 2) a warning about improperly disclosing a COI you apparently never bothered to read 3) Chloe Cole, which you never pointed to any evidence there were problems with and 4) Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, where you accused me of clear bias in source choice without evidence and ignoring the fact I'd already realized I fucked up including Idavox. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I jumped straight in? And what sanctions did I suggest when I jumped right in? Well if you look at my first edit in this long mess I said that I'm wasn't sure. I specifically said I hadn't dug into all the edits that might apply and, " If the pattern of poor editing continues or a longer history is shown (I haven't interacted with this editor that much) then I would suggest a topic ban so they can prove competency in other areas." That means I didn't call for sanctions absent a further review of your edit history. The thread had grown quite a bit before I finally endorsed Slywriter's sanction suggest which was nothing more than a restriction on releasing new BLP or GENSEX articles. I was not supporting a tban at that time. Your behavior since is why I changed and now support the tban. I'm clearly not alone in seeing these issues. What I can clearly see now is you are a time sink. The results of your edits are often poor quality and need to be reviewed by others. It would be better if you learned the ropes more before returning to this topic area. Springee (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  By the time you called for a full TBAN, the evidence you had raised (since your original post) had been 1) I was using SYNTH to say someone who RS described as an anti-trans activist and consistently noted to campaign for anti-trans bills (including making transition for even adults a felony) was an "anti-trans activist". 2) I made a talk section header titled undoing the whitewashing and advertification, which other editors agreed was an apt description of what had been done to the article (A COI editor replaced the lead with its mission statement...) 3) after I'd already apologized for the inclusion of an attributed statement to the Anarchist Federation (Britain) (an organization that was present, not just an anarchist blog/press site), you tried to reiterate the point. By the time you called for a full TBAN, the only serious evidence of any improper editing had been the sources on the KJK article, which I'd already admitted I'd fucked up on and promised to do better in future. Multiple other editors had said my articles were good, well-researched, I stuck to sources, and that this whole case was fishy considering how accusations of bias relied more on my off-wiki comments than any links to my actual edits. One even pointed out how the Atlantic, a publication whose track-record on trans topics I abhor to say the least, stated my edits stuck to facts and policy, not being "culture warrior-ish". But somehow that constituted enough of a pattern of poor editing to you to call for a full TBAN... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't call for a tban until Red-tailed hawk had presented more complete evidence.[69] Prior to that my feeling was the evidence was likely there but as I had said, I hadn't seen/found it yet. Saying a tban may be the answer isn't the same as saying it is the answer. The additional evidence and your behavior here pushed me over the edge. Springee (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Red-tailed hawk's evidence was still barely grounds for a TBAN, as the only evidence of improper sourcing was on the KJK article. The rest was linking to statements about dealing with WP:FRINGE without linking to evidence the pages themselves were effected. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Casting of ass

Persians

• Not the ass Persians! Sorry, figured this thread could use a little levity. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  So first you complain the original RFC was not non-neutral (which you still have yet to provide any evidence for...). 4 people leave comments, two of which (on both sides) say it's too general, so I create a more specific one. You call for closing the specific one, which people on both sides of the argument thought would be better. Per WP:RFCCLOSE The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the { { rfc } } template and The dispute may be moved to another dispute resolution forum. Levivich responds directly to my comment, saying of the 4/5 sources presented there are only 1, and I respond and add extra quotes from the sources questioned. For the love of god come here with some real concerns and stop picking random things to find wrong nobody else even agrees are problems... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  The wording of the first RfC was imperfect, but the flaws were not fatal. Any advice to redefine it after so many responses already understood and spoke to the proposal was misguided. There was clearly a consensus forming against the intent of the proposal (and not so much against the wording.) Framing the replacement as a choice among

  1. TheTranarchist's PoV
  2. Also the Tranarchist's PoV
  3. Undefined "other"

  is substantially worse than the original. It just got a lot harder to believe the protestations that her ardent political commitments don't compromise her editing objectivity. Sennalen (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the replacement is substantially worse than the original. At worst, it's a lateral move. I mean, it's not like people will refrain from suggesting whatever "other" they prefer. And TheTranarchist clearly prefers one out of the three; I don't think two of the three can be called "TheTranarchist's POV". XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think it should be classified as XYZ, other editors agreed, some disagreed. I start an RFC, I'm told from both sides it was overly general. Not to mention, the original RFC assumes no sources have called it a right, but as I showed in my response to the later one they do. So I create a specific RFC raising the 3 options that the various past discussions have raised 1) XYZ, 2) subcat XYZ, 3) neither - as in you oppose including using that cat or a subcat. There have been no other options raised. An overly general case with an analogy in hindsight was obviously a worse idea, and I say that as the person who wrote it. How the hell is the new one by any stretch of the imagination substantially worse than the original? At least be creative... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is why we have WP:RFCBEFORE before starting RFCs. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, a rush-to-RfC can lead to wasted time and energy, and even ill will. But there's a gulf between "that could have been handled better" and "the handling was so bad that it's evidence the editor should be barred from the whole topic". I'm seeing the former, not the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm noticing there's a lot of "yes X could have been better, but" throughout this thread. — Czello 17:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  That sounds entirely typical for situations where suboptimal behavior leads to a dispute involving more heat than light. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. If "could have been better" is our measuring stick, just block everyone right now. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Wikipedia, as someone once said. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Like Czello points out, there are a number of times people have said, "Well <this one thing> isn't enough...". No, no it isn't. But you combine them all, and you get: whatever you may think of the social media posts + whatever you may think of the neutrality of the articles she created + citing obvious non-RSes + taking obvious non-RSes to RSN + ignoring the RSNs + two RFCs without an RFCBEFORE + categories + SYNTH + MOS:LABEL + BLP + AFAICT fixing nothing but creating new problems during the TBAN discussion + bludgeoning = enough for me to !vote for a TBAN. She means well, but she's swimming in the deep end before she's ready, and burning a bunch of editor time as a result. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  social media posts everyone agreed were stupid + articles that are generally considered to adhere to NPOV + very rarely mistakenly citing non-RSes while citing RS the majority of the time + being mistaken about the reliability of a source when given no better explanation than "it's leftist" and immediately dropping it when a solid policy based reason was given + sticking to the RSNs + a poorly formatted RFC turned into a better more specific one after feedback from editors on both sides suggested it should be that way + what you call SYNTH but other editors have disagreed + LABEL (which last I checked an editor raised by saying someone who reliable sources call an anti-trans activist and note to campaign for anti-trans legislation can't be called an "anti-trans activist" despite having no other notability) + a BLP fuck-up on 1 article which I already admitted to and said I'd step away from anyways + continuing to work on the GAG article (AFAYCT, creating new problems) + responding to points raised by people calling for me to be TBANned (apparently, BLUDGEONING...). you combine them all, and you get: not enough grounds for a GENSEX TBAN, and at most a solid case for putting BLP's through AFC first to ensure no mistakes are made. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Casual reminder that as I pointed out above in my !vote, Tranarchist has only 1200 edits as of when I voted. I don't think a bungled RFC should get to count as evidence of malice here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from BLPs and GENSEX, boadly construed per Red-tailed hawk, The Wordsmith, and Levivich. Creation of BLP attack pages like that is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia, and my impression is the problem won't be solved unless the editor is completely kept away from her areas of advocacy on Wikipedia. GretLomborg (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from BLPs and GENSEX, Red-tailed hawk is an excellent editor and whose opinion I deeply respect and the list of evidence they provided is very compelling. It is important to remember that no matter how much we agree with an editor's POV that doesn't excuse bad behavior. Separating our opinions from guidelines isn't easy, but perhaps a break from this topic will allow the editor to grow. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning As far as I can tell, TheTranarchist is working very hard to stay within WP's guidelines and policies. This is an effort to be valued, not sanctioned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction per Colin, X'OR. --JBL (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from BLPs and GENSEX per Red-tailed hawk. Loksmythe (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. I think The Hand That Feeds You offers the best short rationale. We do not want to be driving away good people, who do good work, for making mistakes in what is one of the most difficult and stressful topic areas we have at the moment. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Refer to ArbCom This discussion was started by the sock of a LTA to stir up a mob from the community and this issue will not be resolvable via freeform discussion. Trans people are not inherently biased or ineligible to edit in GENSEX and I worry that there is a bad precedent that would be set by rushing to impose sanctions. I personally would oppose sanctions, but need to see the evidence of biased editing on-wiki in a more structured manner (as an ArbCom case would require presenting) rather than the sprawl of accusations back and forth mixing off wiki and on wiki remarks and behaviour to be confident of this. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Lizthegrey: Can you list any editor in good standing who has suggested that trans people are inherently biased or ineligible to edit in GENSEX? That's a very serious accusation, as it's a very serious wrong doing. It's the sort of comment which IMO would be enough to justify a community ban or hopefully a no fuss instant indefinite block. And whatever else happens here, if something good can come out of this mess it would be in kicking such editors out ther door, I wish to push that process along as need be. P.S. If this thread has been closed, please post any editors who did so on my talk page if they're not already blocked (hint, hint to closing admins!) Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne Nobody has done so in as many words; however, there has been the repeated underlying implication that trans people who happen to be advocates for their own human rights off-wiki who are editing in GENSEX are here to WP:RGW, not here to build an encyclopedia, and that we should held to an extra high standard wrt what's WP:BLUESKY/WP:SYNTH, POV pushing, etc.

  As per @Aquillion, there's a WP:BATTLEGROUND -like set of conflicts going on that are not going to be addressed by singling out and sanctioning one editor. Any such sanctions (especially broad ones like the union of all BLP and all GENSEX, rather than the intersection thereof) will have a chilling effect upon _any_ knowledgeable trans person editing in these areas in the future. As @TheTranarchist put it, we can't have a state of affairs where people who are members of a majority group are the only people deemed "neutral"/unbiased enough to edit on groups that oppose minority rights, because members of the opposed minority are deemed non-neutral. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne regarding your request - see this comment by @Snow Rise, for instance, regarding whether someone who is a public advocate for X can also participate in discussions of X as a new editor. I'm very wary of the no true scotsman fallacy here because Snow suggests that trans editors can edit GENSEX only if they're experienced, but that new trans editors must get that experience elsewhere in the project first, which is not a burden we put cis editors through, plus how many of those experienced editors are there out there? :( Lizthegrey (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nope, nope, nope: that is not remotely what I said. And look I get that emotions are running a little high in this thread and there's so much to keep track of, but let's please try not to read assumptions about eachother's positions into the record which have not actually been stated by said party. I definetly do not believe that all new editors who are trans should be required to avoid trans topics. I do believe that all editors, whatever their particular background, should be careful about editing in topic spaces where they have particularly passionate views, however they come by them, and that this caution ought to be particularly pronounced when someone is at the outset of their tenure on this project, and still familiarizing themselves with and internalizing this community's standards and priorities. But I would never urge a strict prohibition on any demographic group as I would find such a propisition probelmatic, inadvisable, and impractical to implement besides.

  As I have made efforts to emphasize throughout my few contributions here (as an uninvolved community respondent), I am basing my feedback not on any vague, monolithic aspect of the editor in question, but on the very particular conduct that has been discussed here, as well as TT's responses to those concerns. I chose to !vote as I did based on those specific editorial actions--and to a lesser degree on TT's very public declarations of the motivations behind those actions. I believe this specific editor has demonstrated reason to give us concern about competence in this area at the present time. Not because she is trans or new(ish) to our community, nor because she sits in the intersection of those two things, but because of an self-avowed activist/RGW motivation and how that mindset seems to be influencing her editing in this area. There are plenty of trans members of this community who leap straight to editing trans topics as new editors, and no one is suggesting we habitually warn them away from doing so. Rather this particular editor has evidenced some behaviour that was enough to convince me to endorse the TBAN, albeit with mixed feelings, given the nuances of the situation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for my misinterpretation. Withdrawn, as you note temperatures are running hot and AGF and giving a chance to cool off definitely applies. Lizthegrey (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Liz: I very much appreciate that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Amended: endorse @Sideswipe9th's remedy: Warning, mainspace creation only through AfC as per reasoning Lizthegrey (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. TheTranarchist could stand to use better sources, but the sourcing on those articles isn't at the level where it would justify a topic-ban with no warning or prior history; likewise, we don't topic-ban people for a bad RFC. More importantly, the off-wiki discussions people are linking specifically say that her goal is to write accurate articles and push back against what she sees as POV-pushing and disinformation on Wikipedia. I personally feel that falling too far into that mindset causes problems of the gazing-into-the-abyss, he-who-fights-monsters sort; but the community decided to delete WP:POVFIGHTER (a decision pushed for, as I recall, by several of the people now arguing that TheTranarchist should be topic-banned for, essentially, POVFIGHTER behavior?) If it is WP:WGW to spend one's time on Wikipedia trying to push back against what you see as misinformation, POV-pushing, and misrepresentation of the sources, then we need to come to a proper agreement on what it looks like and how it would be defined. And to do that there needs to be at least some recognition that large parts of this topic area have broken down into a WP:BATTLEGROUND of rival camps whose editing focuses on "defending" Wikipedia from what they see as the biased editing of the other camp, which is the sort of thing better unravelled by ArbCom if we're going to try to get to the root of the problem. --Aquillion (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from BLP and GENSEX main space - I think this discussion raises serious concerns about where TheTranarchist is in her development as an editor and supports a sanction to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. I have not yet reviewed all of her work, but in this discussion, I note Silver seren wrote at 01:46, 19 February 2023, in response to Endwise [70] about the Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull article at that time [71], "if you compare your initial edit link to the current article, has not had much of the original text changed or removed at all, just added to. Because the original article was written perfectly fine", but I have spent several days trying to clean it up, and from my view, it was not and is not perfectly fine, e.g. [72] (negative statements about the subject added at article creation by TheTranarchist [73] without support in the sources), [74] (in this close paraphrase of a source added by TheTranarchist [75], the word 'alleged' was dropped to make directly negative statements about the article subject). I have not yet fully checked the article to determine the origin of all additions.

Also, in the comment by Silver Seren noted above, in reply to Endwise linking to what they described as "polemic diatribes on her user page", Silver Seren states, "I don't think that's a proper use of a userpage and that sort of addition should be removed completely." After I removed the similar 'Nazi Barbie' social media profile "accusation" from the Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull article, TheTranarchist questioned this on the article Talk page [76], and part of my reply [77] included reference to "WP:BLPSPS, we should Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". I mention this because as of the time of writing my comment here, TheTranarchist has not updated her userpage [78], and the Honorable Mentions section still says, "So KJK, who has literally used a Nazi Barbie to represent herself", with a link to a third-party tweet. From my view, this userpage conduct emphasizes the WP:IDHT issues - while I support TheTranarchist's ongoing participation on Talk and draft space as she continues to learn, it seems necessary to implement a restriction from main space for the contentious topics of BLP and GENSEX to prevent harm to the encyclopedia at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr the article was indeed overly detailed and intricate and needing serious work. In past when editors have raised that I've agreed and wanted to work on trimming it down and on the talk page, while I've made small notes on only some of your edits, as I've mostly thanked you for trimming it down and stepped away myself. I've acknowledged here multiple times it got too personal (after she publicly insulted me and called me a liar).

• In reference to [79], that was overly detailed, but it still stuck to the source. I just felt it encyclopedic to mention what her tweets contained that people found objectionable rather than reference the tweets without explanation.
• For the Stephen Bates paragraph[80][81], that seems a linguistic error, Bates himself did not say alleged, he directly said all those things - he did not say "her visa should be revoked because of her alleged XYZ", he directly said "because of her XYZ".
• I've been avoiding my user page and mastodon until this is over since I don't want to be seen as tampering with evidence, but I'm planning a thorough overhaul of both when this is over. For my honorable mentions, I was already planning to restrict it to just quotes rather than my own response to them (since I think whether I linked to the archive.ph link of her own profile or the National article noting it or both there would still be issues). I will say, I've never used a tweet in an article, the only time I cited one was that one location in my userpage, in my response to her publicly insulting me.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The article has taken a lot of time for me to clean up, and my experience with discovering misused sources is broader than the examples I added here - this is more than too much detail, and I noted in my edit summaries when I was removing other content unsupported by sources, as well as other issues - I just have not spent more time reviewing the edit history to determine who made the additions, because my focus was on clean up. But to address your specific points:

• It does not stick to the sources if none of the sources mention the contents of the tweets. It is original research to find tweets and associate them with what was reported by the sources, and the tweets are not even cited. Even if the tweets were cited, no RS cited clearly associates those tweets with the investigation, so it would be synthesis that no secondary source supports.
• The use of the word "alleged" by a news source is not a linguistic error, it is a standard practice in journalism. Bates published a letter that intentionally removed Keen's name from the publicly-available version, and a secondary source reported on the letter as containing allegations. Again, we cannot conduct original research with primary sources, especially to bolster negative statements about a living person, and cite it as if a secondary source supports this when it clearly does not.
• Unless revdelled or oversighted, the edit history of your userpage remains visible to all of us, so altering it over the course of this discussion is not tampering with evidence, it is an opportunity to show you are listening and directly responsive to concerns raised about your conduct. I am glad that you recognize that an archive link to her alleged profile or the National is problematic, but it is not great to hear a justification for using the tweet on your userpage being related to a personal conflict with the subject of the article.

And to clarify, because it probably sounds harsher than intended, when I speak of 'preventing harm', I am referring to harms such as the amount of time needed to clean up after your edits, to explain core content policies, and the potential impacts on living people when errors are not noticed or fixed by other editors, which is what tipped my view on a restriction at this time, to balance what I think is your clear potential for development as an editor and the needs of the encyclopedia in the meantime. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• I came to say I never did WP:OR on the tweets, but reviewing the sources I see where I fucked up my reading of the sources as to the tweet's specific contents. The tweets were part of the investigation: Two officers travelled to Wiltshire where [KJK] lives, and questioned her for several hours over six Tweets she had posted.[82] But on review that source and another covering it simultaneously described similar cases against KJK and Caroline Farrow and interweaved them a lot, so when I read The conservative Catholic commentator, was contacted by Surrey Police on Monday asking her to come in for an interview over a series of comments she had made towards Ms Green on Twitter. The mother of five claimed she had been told she was being investigated because she had misgendered, Ms Green's daughter in the same source I'd thought that was Keen.
• The same source that described the letter also said that Bates later explicitly confirmed the letter was referencing Keen. The member for Brisbane listed a litany of concerns about Kellie-Jay Keen included alleged violent incidents at her events, her alleged links to far-right groups known for racist and anti-Semitic statements and her alleged harassment of people who are transgender. I'd thought by saying Bates listed the concerns that made it obvious he was the one to allege them, but I accept I was wrong on that
• In that case I suppose I'll start cleaning up my userpage today! Leaving after this comment though so it will have to wait until tonight. I must admit, I lost my cool when a prominent bigot insulted me and called me a liar, so I'll try and have a more measured response if that happens in future. I also want to say, while I think a BLP and GENSEX TBAN (UNION or INTERSECTION btw?) is extreme and a requirement GENSEX BLP's I write go through AFC first would better suit the situation, I really appreciate you having actually gone through the article to improve it, and appreciate and want to improve on what I can tell are clearly good faith concerns/criticisms you've raised.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply - I feel your response helps bolster my perception of your capacity for ongoing development as an editor and your intent to figure out how to effectively participate here. In the meantime, I think a mainspace topic ban for now on each of the contentious topic areas is warranted based on various examples of your editing history raised in this discussion. It may also be helpful for you to consider the Adopt-a-user program, and apply for a mentor through that project. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, while this is just a detail, but potentially relevant to the issue of using sources, I do not see anything in source about Bates that says "Bates later explicitly confirmed the letter was referencing Keen" - the source states Keen later confirmed the letter was about her, and the source connects the letter to her, despite Bates' attempt to redact her name. While I am glad that you recognize my concerns as being in the good faith in which they are intended, I am sorry that this review of your work is happening in the high-stress forum of AN/I. Beccaynr (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr I know I asked to move everything to the associated talk pages but I recalled I needed to address this point here. I misspoke, since as we both know this is distressing and not exactly the most conducive environment for thorough collaborative content discussions. In that source, it was Keen who explicitly confirmed it was her, the article repeatedly states in its own voice Keen is the subject of the letter, and the linked letter lists specific actions of Keen's that leave no doubt to the imagination who she is. While I've found some comments here in less good faith than others, yours have consistently conveyed the utmost good faith, especially given you've actually done the work of improving the article's issues collaboratively (though I certainly wish you'd came across the article before the case began lol). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, TheTranarchist, and I look forward to working on articles with you in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from BLP and GENSEX main space - I think Beccaynr's approach makes a lot of sense to address the problematic editing issues, at least for a period of time, while permitting TheTranarchist to participate in these topics via the talk page. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• I don't remember the last time I saw an ANI TBAN thread with five non-XC editors voting (on both sides). Closer take note. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich I see your point, and I raised a similar concern regarding one specific editor earlier, though I am also wary of uniformly applying the xc criterion as a benchmark for community participation. It might inadvertently alienate a lot of people who would otherwise offer thoughtful and potentially valuable opinions. This kind of assessment should be done individually, I believe, and when it's warranted; otherwise, it feels a bit like pulling rank. Ppt91^talk 23:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

• Oppose any sanction This was started by a blocked sock of an LTA clearly trying to remove an 'opponent' from the topic area, and while I don't doubt many of the supports are coming from a place of genuine concern, it is absolutely not merited here. Frankly, the recent usage of RGW at these noticeboards feels like it's application has turned from "don't be a crank trying to make the wiki support your crank view" to "don't be a real person, with real feelings and opinions." Its usage like this absolutely benefits people gaming their online identities to be as "who, me? i'm just a humble neutral person with no connections to anywhere else online" and penalizes anyone who isn't overly obsessed with opsec. Humans have biases. Every single person edits the wiki with bias. Bias is fine. It's the material effects of bias that matter. It's why we aren't given random articles to edit. You edit the things that matter to you, whether its social issues, or world war 2 planes, or bus stations in the south of France. You're passionate about them. If this leads to bad edits, we intervene. But to simply say "Ah ha ha, well this person clearly seems like they're GOING to edit with bias!" (This is not every supporter. Don't @ me, colloquially.) is just horseshit. Parabolist (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support GENSEX and BLP tbans. I fail to see a difference between this case and that of Stuartyeates, where it is the intention to create/edit for purposes other than those of the project which is problematic (in other words, per BilledMammal and David Fuchs and others). As to the point immediately above, "started by a blocked sock...", so what? It was started, perhaps, by the wrong account/person, but the complaint has merit regardless, and should be evaluated on that merit. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the Stuartyeates case vs this one.

  • Yeates created articles that ignored most WP:RS and most of their activities to highlight one thing they were involved in - I've created articles that use every RS, the biggest criticism is I, very statistically rarely, let non-RS slip through, which I acknowledged I fucked up on and vowed to be even more careful about. Generally, if anybody had pointed out I included a poor source on the talk page, I'd have removed it myself, glad my error was pointed out. Instead my honest mistakes are being cast as evidence I should be banned.
    • It should also be noted, I've included things about organizations I can't stand that make them look good and which even I agree with, such as the Mendoza case at Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism
  • In the Yeates case, Rfjaffe called for a 3 month BLP ban, here they called for no sanctions. Slywriter called for an indef BLP ban, here they called for me putting my articles through AFC to make sure they're fully reviewed first, which I think is a good idea and have no issues with.
  • Yeates was banned from BLPs, people are calling for me to be banned from GENSEX at large as well
    • My contributions to GENSEX, which account for the majority of my contributions, have been wholly uncontroversial. I've ensured Detransition, Gender dysphoria in children, and Transgender youth stick to WP:MEDRS and don't spread misinformation. Same for Conversion therapy, which was so wildly out-of-date it inspired me to join WP in the first place. I even created WP:USALGBT to make sure that the [[LGBT rights in <XYZ>]] articles are kept up to date.
    • Even articles I've written which intersect BLP and GENSEX have been uncontroversial. For just some examples: Genspect, Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Novae Terrae Foundation, Gays Against Groomers, Guardians of Divinity, International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice, and Chloe Cole, which have been based wholly off reliable sources and nobody has shown have serious issues. I have never been anything less than honest about the fact I write articles about organizations that oppose transgender rights. If I engaged in WP:OR, the articles would be much longer, but I have always taken the greatest of effort to ensure my sourcing is impeccable and I do everything by Wikipedia's standards.

  TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  The specific problems pointed out in this thread are not the only problems. The very articles you point to here, and others you've started or worked on, still have RS problems, like citing sources that are yellow at RSP. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that an ANI case should take into consideration problems that haven't been pointed out here... I'd hope we operate based on "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps you could point to examples of issues? Also, last I checked, yellow at RSP means No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context - not can't be used, and if you do, it's grounds for a TBAN... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is what I mean when I talk about swimming in the deep end before you're ready. "Yellow at RSP" means don't use it for contentious material in a BLP, so for example no WP:NEWSWEEK and WP:MEDIAMATTERS. You should take into consideration problems that have been pointed out here, like "poor sourcing". It's not anybody else's job to point you to each and every single mistake you've made. "very statistically rarely, let non-RS slip through...nobody has shown have serious issues", I can't believe you seriously believe this. BTW, for example of another problem, your userpage still violates policies like WP:NOT and WP:BLP in my view, even after your clean-up. Levivich (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  "Yellow at RSP" probably means "don't use for contentious material in a BLP", but that's not spelled out as an absolute rule anywhere I am aware of. The explicit statement it should never be used for information about a living person is down at the "generally unreliable" status. XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Red means don't use it for any information about a living person (or anything else, really); yellow should not be used for contentious information about a living person (but might sometimes be OK for something else). WP:MREL, aka "marginally reliable source", is poor sourcing, and thus shouldn't be used as WP:BLPRS. Perhaps we should expand WP:MREL to say that explicitly, but most editors AFAIK won't use MREL for negative BLP content. Levivich (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blaming a new editor for not picking up on implicit standards that may or may not be how most editors do things seems poor form. XOR'easter (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Your list of things not worthy of a TBAN keeps growing:

  • failing to navigate the alphabet soup of categorization guidelines
  • A few intemperate expressions of emotional investment in a topic that naturally invites emotional investment
  • Questionable judgment about what sources are reliable for which purposes
  • a rush-to-RfC
  • not picking up on implicit standards that may or may not be how most editors do things

  And yet not sure what purpose a warning would serve, apart from a bureaucratic one. Look, whatever happens, the important thing is that nobody use MREL as BLPRS. Levivich (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I still think that none of those are worthy of a TBAN. They're not even separate things; the latter three items are all the same thing, AFAICT (one count of "not being magically aware of sourcing standards written up in no one place, when they are written at all"). XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  The fifth is duplicative, but the third is about RS and the fourth is about RFC. I don't really care if she gets TBANed or not, I care that problems improve (or, from the half-empty perspective, that disruption decreases), however that's accomplished. Statements like I've created articles that use every RS and based wholly off reliable sources and I have always taken the greatest of effort to ensure my sourcing is impeccable yet there has in fact been questionable judgment about what sources are reliable for which purposes, across multiple articles. if anybody had pointed out I included a poor source on the talk page, I'd have removed it myself, glad my error was pointed out yet e.g. in the case of Passage at RSN, that's not what happened at all. Describing her contributions in the topic areas as wholly uncontroversial and nobody has shown have serious issues is straight-up WP:IDHT when there are dozens of editors supporting a TBAN. I wish there was a door #2, maybe like what Beccanyr suggested, I'm all for whatever works. Levivich (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  The reliability of Passage is nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I've posted more information there. It doesn't help that one of the editors calling it unreliable has a COI that's led them to do everything they can to mute criticisms of FAIR...

  there has in fact been questionable judgment about what sources are reliable for which purposes, across multiple articles If there are issues with the use of MM4A in the GAG article, raise them there at the talk page - there's no rule that says you can't use it, and you have yet to show it is used in a problematic way. No editors involved in that page have raised any issue with it, and I'd already been trying to reduce its use, so the onus is on you to show it is being given WP:UNDUE weight or is being used improperly.

  there are dozens of editors supporting a TBAN - and there are dozens opposing. Saying I agree with <insert editor>'s point is not more evidence, especially when I've already responded to points raised and agreed.

  Notably, of the list of non-BLP related GENSEX articles I'd listed above (or even the broader pool to draw from), not a single editor has a raised a single complaint about my edits there in this whole discussion. Of the approximately a dozen BLP related GENSEX articles, nobody has shown inarguably improper sourcing at any apart from KJK, which I've fully admitted to and repeatedly stated I'll step away from, and one source in Gays Against Groomers that doesn't actually contribute anything not already covered by other sources.

  I don't really care if she gets TBANed - sure doesn't seem that way... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  In my initial review of Gays Against Groomers, I notice that the first graf in the History section is cited to WP:MEDIAMATTERS without attribution, and another WP:MEDIAMATTERS source is one of three sources cited for several sentences of content in the next graf, also without attribution, and then twice without attribution for the final graf in addition to a news source. WP:MEDIAMATTERS is the only source cited (again without attribution) in the Incorporation section that follows, and it is cited in the Legislation, Other, and Reception sections without attribution. WP:RAWSTORY is also cited in the Other section, and WP:DAILYBEAST is one of several sources supporting a large graf in the Reception section. The Daily Dot (a yellow source at WP:RS/P) is cited multiple times in the article, and The Intercept is cited twice. Due to the amount of clean up that appears needed and the substantial reliance on these sources, I think WP:DRAFTIFY could be appropriate per WP:ATD-I. Beccaynr (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think some of these articles need to be reviewed against WP:NCORP/WP:NBIO but I was going to wait until these ANIs closed to bring that up. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Guardians of Divinity is tagged for notability, although an attempt at draftification may be a helpful first step in advance of a potential AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Beccaynr before this whole ANI case started I was planning to prove how it met the GNG guidelines on its talk page, which I shall get to at the first available opportunity. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Beccaynr I don't see any benefit from saying this on ANI rather than the talk page. And, in any case, draftifying suggestion is excessive. The article overall has improved significantly since it was first published and TheTranarchist continues to actively address outstanding problems, particularly those related to sources. She's pretty much doing all of the heavy lifting in that article, following consensus to the best of her abilities, while most of the other editors pop in to point out everything they think is wrong with it. Clearly, having gensex articles that are well-written and researched serves WP:1Q so why not just help her make it better? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you have made any edits there or participated in the talk page discussion. Ppt91^talk 20:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Ppt91, I was responding to TheTranarchist's question above Perhaps you could point to examples of issues?, so I made an initial review of the article and identified examples of what I see as issues relevant to this discussion. I have not edited the article nor participated in article Talk discussion - I was offering my initial impression in response to the question here. I am familiar with the amount of time and effort that it took to review and clean up the Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull article, so I am hesitant to continue investing more time in what appears, from my view, to be another article in need of a in-depth review and overhaul, that may be best served by incubation in draftspace. Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Beccaynr Thanks for your reply and explanation. I understand the motivation, though I guess I am questioning whether that course of action is the right one to take, especially at this point, and if it will benefit the article. I think that Gays Against Groomers is a different case from the one you mentioned in that it seems to be improving daily and conflicts are being actively resolved on the article's talk page. Look, I realize TheTranarchist needs to work on her combative approach, and I think she is very much aware of it, but I also hope that it will not overshadow the hard work she is actually putting in. Ppt91^talk 21:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is my understanding that there is a difference between an opinion attributed to Media Matters for America, and a purely factual statement sourced to them. Multiple other unquestionably RS already cited in the article have repeatedly cited or referred to MM4A's reports on GAG. Even then, I have been undergoing efforts to reduce the amount cited to MM4A in that article.

  WP:MREL states It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. If there is doubt about the veracity of MM4A's WP:SIRS reporting on GAG, it should be discussed on the talk page.

  For the WP:DAILYBEAST, it states There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. Even though it's use is ok here, it can be removed as it doesn't seem to be adding any information not covered by the other RS there.

  For the Daily dot, RSP says There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact - which is what it's used for in the article

  With regards to WP:RAWSTORY, that source can be removed no problem. I hadn't seen that at RSP and the rest of the sources already cover it.

  @Ppt91, do you think WP:DRAFTIFY is called for? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @TheTranarchist No, per above. Ppt91^talk 20:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Ppt91 I posted right after you did so missed it lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  I do think this is ridiculous. TheTranarchist, a relatively junior editor, has created articles in a really difficult domain, with a mix of sources and is being blamed for the worst sources that a highly experienced editor can find. Yet nobody looks at the other articles in this topic domain and says that well most of those sources are crap too, and yet experienced editors here (some calling for bans) have edited those articles and sometimes argued and edit warred to retain the crap, but they escape censure because their total contribution to the article is minor. And that's the problem... many editors (I'm no exception) editing in this space have actually contributed very little to the article space. Levivich, you are placing this one editor under the magnifying glass because (a) they actually wrote material with citations, which isn't true for most of Wikipedia and you know that and (b) because a banned account who socked created this AN/I to attack this editor. I'm frankly disappointed, Levivich, that you can't spot how unfair you are being. Go pick any other editor in the gensex arena and look whether they are here to build encyclopaedic content or just revert stuff they don't like, and include shit they found that day on Google, look to see if they are any good at 100% using reliable sources, look to see if they aren't also an argumentative PITA. You are being used Levivich, and you've swallowed the bait hook line and sinker. -- Colin°^Talk 19:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is pretty ridiculous, and the fact that it's being held about an editor who has made positive contributions to GENSEX articles, despite being relatively junior, is a real shame. Has she made a few mistakes along the way? Sure, which is normal for Wikipedia editors starting out. The editing process and ANI should not be used as a way to bludgeon a new editor like this. Hist9600 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN. It is immensely dishonest to claim that anyone in this topic area doesn't have their own views on the subject. TheTranarchist sets out to write negatively about these subjects precisely because it is her ­– totally legitimate – opinion that such is the RS stance on these organizations and people. That is precisely what a Wikipedia editor's task is. I understand some would prefer if Wikipedia could only be edited by appropriately detached, viz. cishet, white, etc., editors. This tactic of using "neutrality" as a cover to abuse marginalized people is nothing new. That she has been involved in disagreements, some of which have concluded with a consensus contrary to her opinion, is hardly remarkable. Neither is it that she sometimes has been mistaken on the existing consensus regarding certain sources, or that she may have applied disagreeable taste with regard to the appropriate time of opening an RfC. All of these are completely normal things that happen on Wikipedia, especially so in GENSEX. If the sum of it merits a TBAN in this case, we might as well delete the entire Category:Transgender tree and go home.
  As an aside, shouldn't Rounder and rounder's contribution be SOCKSTRUCK? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 01:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a specific policy-based reason why you oppose the TBAN? Or lack of policy-based reasoning in the initial proposition that you are protesting? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  The latter. The section starter was a trolling sockpuppet, and the rest of the comments calling for sanctions seem to me to be trying to make something out of nothing. On a scale from normal GENSEX disagreements to TBAN I rate this a nothingburger. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for elaborating. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've now struck the sock's edits per SOCKSTRIKE. The original notifications from LilianaUwU that Round and rounder was a sock are kinda lost in the sheer length of this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for GENSEX topics. There's just too little respect for WP:RGW in this user's approach to the area in question. Editors, particularly newer editors, should generally eschew working in areas where they feel an impulse to advocacy, and here we have an editor who is unabashedly embracing such advocacy as their primary motivation for involvement in such subject matter. I certainly believe TheTranarchist when she says that she intends to advance this advocacy while also scrupulously following all of our policies, but with respect, that's the thing about bias: it is by definition those influences which act upon our reasoning despite our best intentions otherwise. And that is compounded in this case by a low level of editorial experience and effort to contribute in areas which do not intersect with TT's pro-trans rights advocacy editing. And that concern is only heightened by the fairly immense and uniform display of WP:IDHT above where the user has pretty consistently sought to minimize or dismiss the vast majority of instances above where she has been presented with community concerns about lack of appropriately neutral tone or approach in the precisely the articles for BLP subjects whom she has publicly disclosed an express intention to shame.

In fact, about the only advice she has seemed to take to heart is the fact that she shouldn't have announced this intention, which I fear is evidence that she is taking the worst possible lesson from this experience: play your cards close to your vest and don't disclose your biases, or it will be harder for us to look the other way. To be perfectly clear, the issue here is decidedly not that TT made public disclosures about her intent to create attack pages (and however you slice the semantics, that is the accurate label when one expressly begins work on an article with the decision already in mind to portray the subject in a negative light, nevermind that they think that the sources will be amenable to this effort). If anything, wearing her heart on her sleeve in this respect is a boon to understanding what is going on here--and in any event, it's really outside our scope to police statements outside this project. Rather it's the actual editing of content on this project consistent with that very plain and express agenda that are the problem, and I'm deeply concerned that the only thing this editor seems to be learning here is to be more restrained about broadcasting that agenda while continuing to pursue it whole-heartedly--unable to see because of their lack of experience why this is an innately problematic way to contribute to this project in general, and not internalizing the particular concerns of the community.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how we can preserve this user in this topic area at the present time. Not just because of the public disclosures of their actual a priori intent in engaging in articles in this space (to bring disrepute upon the subjects which she feels they have earned), which cannot possibly do anything but bias her contributions, nor the polemic statements on her user page, but also because of the more particularized concerns raised above, and the failure to appropriately acknowledge these issues. Yes, it would be a problem in and of itself for this community to allow someone to continue to contribute in an area where they publicly declared an intent to develop attack content, even if we otherwise agreed with all of the particulars of their edits. But in this case, the issues don't begin or end with those statements. Bluntly, this editor has simply made it clear they are WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, but rather to leverage it for advocacy. I can see that they earnestly believe that they can have that as their primary objective and still comport with our content guidelines, but both this community's experience with such advocacy-motivated editing and the particular facts raised here strongly belay that self-assurance.

In short, let this user spend some time editing in other areas, demonstrating that they are not here merely to advance some of their most dearly held social beliefs (however sympathetic and relatable they may be), and understanding how to interpret and apply policy when they are not externally motivated by a non-editorial objective, and then we can see about returning them to this area with the benefit of more experience and objectivity. At the present moment, they clearly and somewhat self-admittedly lack the neutrality required by policy in this area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I want to preface this by saying, in this entire thread, nobody has even once raised a single issue with my non-BLP GENSEX edits. A full GENSEX ban is entirely uncalled for and for the life of me I can't understand why people seem to think that's warranted.

WP:RGW is very explicit there is a difference between WP:OR and recording information according to WP:RS. I have never engaged in OR.

In terms of WP:IDHT and In fact, about the only advice she has seemed to take to heart is the fact that she shouldn't have announced this intention - that's by far the only one I've taken to heart. I have supported a requirement my new articles go through AFC to make sure my bias isn't present despite my best efforts. I have been open that I'm biased and think reviews and collaborative editing will ameliorate that bias to ensure articles are up-to-snuff, because that's the whole point of wikipedia. I have been open about the fact I write about anti-trans groups because I'm trans. I will never stop being trans, nor stop being affected by their rhetoric, so there is no way for me to be fully "neutral" writing about them and there never will be. Wikipedia doesn't exist in an apolitical void - there are hateful groups out there, and people whose rhetoric and actions they effect. If writing about such groups is inherently WP:ADVOCACY, ban every other trans editor who's touched those articles too. I've also acknowledged needing to work on my battle-field mentality (which partly stems from the non-stop transphobic nonsense I put up with in GENSEX). I've acknowledged that even though I currently take great pains to be incredibly strict with my sources, I should be even stricter. And even then if anyone had pointed out I'd fucked up on the sources in the rare cases I did, on talk instead of as a gotcha in ANI, I'd have removed them myself. I should also summarize better, as I can sometimes include too much detail that could be trimmed down.

Regarding - Rather it's the actual editing of content on this project consistent with that very plain and express agenda that are the problem and because of the more particularized concerns raised above, and the failure to appropriately acknowledge these issues very few editors have raised concerns about the actual editing, and when they have I've been receptive. Most comments have solely been about my off-wiki comments and why those are grounds for a ban. If we look at the actual articles people have raised concerns about:

• Genspect and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine: I was open about the fact I wrote them to make sure people know they're WP:FRINGE and fully stuck to WP:RS to do so. Many have raised issue with my comments about them, but so far nobody has shown any problems with the articles themselves.
• Chloe Cole: the banned sock who started this said I wrote the article impartially, linked to a BLPN notice that objected to language in the article I did not introduce and had already objected to myself. Another editor objected to her being described as an "anti-trans activist", despite WP:SIRS repeatedly directly calling her that, and even more WP:RS stating she campaigned for "anti-trans legislation". There seems to be a consensus at that talk page that the article is neutral.
• Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism: I'd used an improper source, which I realized and admitted before this whole thing even began when given a clear policy reason why. An editor objected to me saying the page had been advertified and whitewashed, and other editors here took one look and basically said "that's exactly what you call it when the lead is just their mission statement". That's not even mentioning the fact that was the result of a COI editor. The further evidence of my wrong-doing there was creating a malformed RFC on an issue that had reached no consensus, being told the RFC was poor by two editors on either side of the issue, at which point me fixing it to a more specific RFC was also cast as evidence of wrongdoing.
• Gays Against Groomers: The editor who has been working with me to improve it has defended me and my conduct there, and when I presented it as an example of my good articles the only truly objectionable material that could be found was 1 citation to Raw Story, which was used in a paragraph sourced to multiple other RS saying the same, which I anyways removed when it was pointed out.
• Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull: The biggest and sole clear-cut case where I fucked up. I realized I'd messed up some sourcing when pointed out, and had already been taking a step back after it got too personal when she publicly insulted me and called me a liar (for having written the article).

I am not her to advance some of [my] most dearly held social beliefs - I am here to, to the best of my ability, objectively document anti-trans groups, objectively document transgender history, and make sure WP:FRINGE pseudoscience is not spread here and we stick to WP:MEDRS (for example, I started editing because Conversion therapy made absolutely no reference to trans people, and was based off statements from health organizations made 1 or 2 decades ago, and I updated Detransition to actually cover the fact that detransition isn't always a choice, but sometimes forced by repressive states, and I updated Transgender youth, to correct the hugely damaging misinformation that most kids grow out of being trans). Nowhere do I advance my own beliefs against what RS have to say on a matter - I don't write articles saying group XYZ are evil incarnate when I believe they are or perform WP:OR on them to expose shitty things they've done that WP:RS haven't mentioned, I write about what they are known for in reliable sources. People who support such organizations can appreciate what they've done, people who oppose them can curse them for it, I don't care as long as they are accurately represented. I don't push my own beliefs about trans healthcare, because believe me I heavily disagree with what MEDRS have to say on certain things, but I stick to medical consensus even when I disagree. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In the GENSEX article histories that include TheTranarchist, I have normal constructive edits from her. It would be a shame to kick out one of the editors who has been positively contributing to these articles and maintaining them. Hist9600 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's funny. I am here to advance some of [my] most dearly held social beliefs, but because most of the time that manifests as saying "science is important" rather than "trans people are people", nobody has called for me to be TBANed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You say: "in this entire thread, nobody has even once raised a single issue with my non-BLP GENSEX edits." I don't know why you keep on saying things that just aren't true. I brought up problems with your initial drafts at Genspect and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, a comment you responded to and which we discussed. I know it's been a lot the last few days, but stop making misleading statements in your own defense. You also told me those pages (and Chloe Cole) had "barely changed" from your initial drafts, which was not even close to true. I really want to believe you are discussing in good faith, but you keep making it harder. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 poor choice of words, my apologies - I'd been considering organizations to fall under BLP in that remark, but double-checking I realize that WP:BLPGROUP explicitly separates them. To be more clear, what I meant to convey was in this entire thread, nobody has even once raised a single issue with my non-BLP OR non-BLPGROUP GENSEX edits - referring to my contributions to LGBT rights in <xyz> edits, Detransition edits, etc, since those indeed have not had any issues raised with them.

Wrt Genspect, you stated the initial version was written from a clearly non-neutral perspective, but never elaborated further. I stated it was poorly formatted, but all the content therein is still in the article and was reliably sourced, and noted I had been the main contributor in improving the article afterwards. That version contained most of how they'd been described in RS at that point. That was one of my first articles, and since then I've strived to make sure that my initial published version of any article I write is well formatted and takes into account all relevant information.

Wrt Chloe Cole, with the exception of that paragraph in the lead I'd mentioned earlier but forgot in my initial reply to you, the article has had some issues but has mostly been steady. Comparing the initial to current version, the examples you raised were small details supported by the source that questioned the relevance of. Additionally, you noted that concerns had been raised on talk, but as I noted in this summary above the discussion on talk has seemed to be a consensus that the article is mostly neutral. Regarding your examples of issues

reportedly being unable to answer some questions coherently but responding with apparently rehearsed answers to questions posed by Republican lawmakers - that was an direct observation in a source providing WP:SIRS coverage

none of whom were from Florida - that none of the detransitioners protesting the bill were from Florida is a neutral statement and was noted in multiple RS,

leading a transgender nonbinary person who signed up to testify but wasn't able to do so to state the event was 'obviously staged' - another speaker at a hearing she testified about made a comment, reported by multiple RS, on how the panel seemed staged.

Many have speculated that her travel has been paid for anti-LGBTQ activists. Cole denied that and said her trips are self-funded with crowdfunding via Twitter tips. Others have questioned if she is being coached - These were raised in WP:SIRS coverage.

While the weight of these is debatable, none automatically seem to scream "shouldn't be included".

Wrt the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, comparing the initial and current version, you said without elaboration that the original version wasn't neutral, and took issue with me describing it as "barely changed". If we look, the article lead is currently mostly based on my proposed version on talk. The most notably removed content is 1) Idavox, which I mentioned above, 2) the changes to the lead, which for a time was just their mission statement, 3) the changes to notable members which also reads like a mission statement (which, and I know I'm a broken record here, but was largely due to a COI editor). The body of the article has barely changed, except for minor fixes, and a notably removed paragraph on why students at Emory protested them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist. I actually do wish there were a less onerous option here. I would have supported one if it were on the table by the time I reviewed this thread. Unfortunately, the options at the moment seem to be a TBAN or doing nothing at all, and, without meaning to give offense to you, I think the former is more prudent than the latter in the overall circumstances. And yes, I am aware you were willing to accept a temporary 'new articles must go through AfC' restriction, and I think that might have been a quite reasonable middle path, but I don't see the community likely to adopt that at this juncture, merely as an artifact of how this discussion has proceeded.

Addressing other aspects of your response, I do recognize that you do seem to have a good grasp of policies, and I absolutely AGF that you intend to keep your editing, however passionately you feel about the subject, within the bounds of policy. I can see that you are not just trying to pay lip service to that principle: you genuinely believe that is important as far as I can tell, which bodes well for your longterm ability to make positive contributions on this project.

But here's the thing: I wouldn't lodge an !vote here without following up on the diffs and doing additional review of your edits, and I just don't think you are succeeding in threading that needle between your activist motivations and fidelity to our editorial rules. Or at least certainly not to the extent you feel you are. I see significant and consistent tonal issues to your contributions in this area, and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed them even if I hadn't encountered them in the context of already having seen your social media vows about what you were setting out to do here.

Unfortunately, nowhere is the phrase "you don't know what you don't know" more accurate or germane than when it comes to understanding the influences our biases (especially biases relating to our more central beliefs and personal experiences) play in influencing our approach to how we contextualize activities we find objectionable. I just don't think you yet have the experience here that you would need to contribute in this area without issues, given your very express desire to hold these individuals and institutions to account for what you (understandably) regard as morally objectionable behaviour.

And even if you did have that experience, I'd still recommend against it, as it is often the areas one feels strongly about that they should typically avoid if they are actually on this project for primarily WP:HERE purposes, rather than here to pursue a particular external objective which they feel they can harmonize with our rules. That's just easier said than done even for a truly veteran editor. However this discussion plays out, I hope we won't lose you as an contributor, but I really do think the best thing for you (if you first priority is to contribute to this project) would be to gain more experience in an area where you don't have so much skin in the game in terms of outside motivations. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have neither the time or the energy for a full response to this, as I want to go to bed and be done with this, hoping some admin descends from the wiki-heavens to close - a knell that summons me to heaven or to hell. I'll just say you recommending me against editing articles about anti-trans figures and groups, even in future, because I have so much skin in the game in terms of outside motivations doesn't feel great... Given I will never stop being trans, and therefore not have skin in the game, it seems in that case the best editors to write about trans topics and anti-trans groups are the ones who aren't trans... Considering that you !voted for a full GENSEX ban, in a discussion which has only ever raised concerns about my articles intersecting BLP/BLPGROUP and GENSEX, seems dramatically uncalled for. Especially, if the AFC process might have been a quite reasonable middle path, yet you called for the full GENSEX ban because you don't see the community likely to adopt that at this juncture, admitting to going with a harsher punishment because others called for it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are misreading my comments here in significant ways. To begin with, I don't expect trans individuals to eschew contributing on trans topics as a matter of course: it is both predictable and understandable (and not inherently problematic by any means) that people within the trans community will feel the urge to contribute on such topics. But you are not the average trans editor in this context: you are someone who made a public declaration of intent to leverage Wikipedia to drag certain individuals and groups into the light of day, and speak truth to power with regard to what you regard as their attempts to spin past positions. You publicly took a very activist position on the matter and then proceeded to edit related pages in a way which has caused some concerns.

I am making the best judgment I can, as a member of this community unconnected with the underlying disputes, on whether or not you should be allowed to contribute in this area without restrictions, and I am basing my !vote and responses to you on the specific of your situation and your conduct, not on your status as someone who happens to be trans. I would be providing you precisely the same feedback based on your declarations and the editing that followed if you were not trans, because it is the behaviour and competencies that matter in this situation.

Likewise, if you review my comments, you will find that I did not in fact say that I was supporting the proposed TBAN merely because others did, but because I am put in a situation as a latecomer to the discussion where I have to choose the lesser of two problems: taking a completely laisez-faire attitude towards issues with your activism and approach, or endorsing an outcome that is a little more severe than I would have proposed myself in these circumstances. I'm sorry, that's just the nature of the beast here sometimes, and I just couldn't see doing nothing here as the correct result. I know it's hard not to take any !vote against you in this context personally, but I have been doing my best to make it clear that I view this as a tough call and am opting for an imperfect solution in a complicated situation and that I do recognize the good-faith character of your contributions. I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do in light of these facts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You say here that "_{I did not in fact say that I was supporting the proposed TBAN merely because others did, but because I am put in a situation as a latecomer to the discussion where I have to choose the lesser of two problems: taking a completely laisez-faire attitude towards issues with your activism and approach, or endorsing an outcome that is a little more severe than I would have proposed myself in these circumstances"}

Yet several editors directly surrounding your !vote ARE proposing a milder option to adress whatever concerns they have, which you have ignored. I am confused as to how I should interpret this sentence in that context. What's stopping you? --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I do support a milder approach, in principle: if one particular proposal gains serious traction here, I'd please appreciate a ping from someone, and if the proposal seems even remotely well-tailored to address the raised concerns, I'll most certainly support it. But my !vote as it stands is based on a pragmatic and realistic interpretation of the present posture of this thread: there are currently some three dozen contributors supporting sanctions here and some twenty opposing, making almost sixty total contributions. Not all of the support !votes support the full TBAN and not all of the opposes are completely opposed to sanctions, but those are the two largest groups. I've seen around half a dozen !votes proposing a specific milder sanction, and not all of those even make or endorse the same proposal. I'm sure I've missed others, but the fact of the matter is that the !votes proposing middle ground solutions presently represent a fairly trivial portion of the overall perspectives.

Now, considering that the thread has now reached the top of the page and constitutes half the content of the board at the moment, I would guess that a closure is imminent and certainly likely to occur before a third way proposal gains traction. That means one of three outcomes is likely here: a TBAN, a consensus not to sanction, or a determination of no consensus. I personally think we have to do something rather than nothing here, so I put my weight behind the option that actually would count for something given the close is on the horizon, because I just do feel that inaction here would send a bad message not just to this editor but with regard to advocacy editing in this area in general. However, if someone can martial support in the 11th hour for a milder option that doesn't completely throw NPOV and BLP under the bus, then I will be on the spot to support it, and will happily amend my formal !vote. I hope that adequately clarifies my position for you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I myself have endorsed the milder more specific sanctions, and while I dearly thank everyone who opposed any sanctions (or more specifically, the originally promoted full GENSEX TBAN), I take their defense of my general conduct as supportive of the more tailored option others have recommended and I have endorsed as fair and reasonable. By that math, I'd say half are in support of the more limited sanctions and opposed to the extreme ones. Your !vote could always be amended to support them, as it seems the two options that have about even traction are 1) a disproportionate full GENSEX ban and 2) the limited sanctions recommended. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I would very much like to, but the problem I have at the moment is that there is no one more middle ground proposal that has a significant amount of support, such that I can abandon my original !vote entirely and still feel that the community is responding. So here's what I'll do: I will Support your proposal below, as I understand it: a six month ban from publishing articles with a significant GENSEX component outside of AFC. If you can get enough support for that proposal, it strikes me as a solution which reflects community concerns reasonably enough.

But I'm also going to reiterate that if the TBAN is the only proposal the closer can see significant support for, I'd still prefer that over no action being taken. I honestly don't mean to cause you personal offense or distress by that: it's just that the issues here are bigger than any one editor and we just can't have people running around (even off project) saying that they are going to shine the light of day on "those fuckers" and then generating highly critical content about those same parties. Please understand that if the community here bends over too far backwards in an effort to excuse that kind of behaviour on your behalf, just because we also (to take one example) personally think conversion therapy is amoral nonsense akin to psychic driving, then we also mitigate our ability to deal with POV pushing coming from the opposite direction in support of such rubbish.

If I could point to one post here that I think most accurately serves as a capstone summary to this whole debate, it would be Rhododendrites' comment far below. And there's one point that he raises that I feel I and the other community respondents here have failed to adequately emphasize during this discussion: even if you comport yourself perfectly in regard to policy after vocally declaring your intention to "get" (for lack of a better concise term) your rhetorical opposition and hold them to account, that mere declaration, made in that way, is destructive of the consensus-building process. As Rhodie correctly points out, ideally we would have fewer editors with strong biases editing these articles, but if you absolutely must edit in conformity with a pre-determined objective to hold these parties to account, you need to at least exercise more restraint in how you clearly mark these parties as bad people needing to be thwarted. It's just not a good look for you or for the project when that happens. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, if you have any indulgence in you for more outside advice, I'd like to suggest that you should spend a while increasing the proportion of your edits that take place in areas you find completely boring and/or outside your wheelhouse. It's healthy for a new editor to make the bulk of their edits in areas where others are more likely to be the ones with a deeper connection to the subject matter. It helps to see protect against losing perspective on neutral tone if you see how it happens to others. Ultimately the editors who last the duration (and thereby make the biggest contributions both inside and outside their areas of passion) are those who come to view our policies as priorities in and of themselves, rather than just requirements that have to be accepted and acceded to.

I'm not just reaching to end my comments here on a positive note when I say that you seem to have a good grasp of policy generally and could be a real longterm asset to this project. But the piece you're missing at present is that you seem to be here to promote and further trans rights first, and as a Wikipedian second. While that's technically not against the rules, provided you otherwise follow this project's guidelines to a T, such editors who do "merely" that tend to not have the sticking power of someone who makes being WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia their first priority when they log on to edit. Just food for thought. Forgive this one last exceedingly long post, and best of luck to you moving forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

got it. Then let me remind you that wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is not determined by number of votes, and I'll be on my merry way. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. But I wasn't tallying votes, but rather explaining why I made the pragmatic choice to !vote as I did, given the late stage of the discussion and the perspectives as they stand. Consensus may not be a vote, but that is not the same thing as saying that the numbers have no influence over the outcome, especially as regards CBAN discussions at ANI. And with that I am checking out here myself: have a good one, L-r. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

SnowRise's opening paragraph is problematic as we know all editors editing in the GENSEX area have biases, and most are so strongly activist for one cause that you can tell their POV within seconds of looking at their contribs. What matters is if they are working with others to build an article that conforms to our policies. Are we to topic ban editors for declaring their bias? The rest of their argument seems to rest upon their reaction to being taken to AN/I and defending themselves. This newish editor clearly doesn't know one has to prostrate oneself and plead for mercy. I think Sideswipe9th below offers good advice, though I would go further and suggest a self-imposed wikibreak to heal and think after such a bruising experience. I recommend TheTransarchist heeds advice of good editors and works on the areas causing problems. If they continue to give problems in 6 months time, we can review this. -- Colin°^Talk 21:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Colin, but that is an incredibly flawed--and indeed, problematic--line of reasoning. On this project, we do not create grading curves for particular content areas for the purposes of deciding whether or not editors are expected to conform to important content and behavioural policies and community expectations--and certainly not with regard to how we maintain BLP standards. If a given topic area is rife with the evidence and impact of bias, that is an argument for increasing the enforcement of key policies across the board, not for abrogating those standards in cases where we happen to be sympathetic to the viewpoint of a user in question, relative to the "other side", nor even because we happen to think they make a good editor otherwise.

And sympathetic I do find TT: I'm certainly more amenable to her outlook than those of someone who would whitewash discourse around a form of brainwashing. But my friend, a low tide strands all ships, and I am unwilling to obviate our community standards in the fashion you suggest and thereby weaken them, one exception for a user whose motivation we happen to like at a time. That is just a path to utter disarray in our editorial and consensus processes, a whole lot of issues with conduct, and lower and lower level of trust our readers can put in the neutrality of our content with each such exception. And a quicker devolution it will be in topic areas as contentious as this.

As to the implication that we would censure TT (or any editor) merely for disclosing their biases, you must have surely read my post without attention to detail if you believe that is what I am advocating, because I went to some effort to distinguish that it is the actions of the editor we have to judge in a case like this, not the motivation itself. For that matter, I don't see anyone else in this thread suggesting we should act merely on TT's beliefs, but rather how she is approaching this area in editorial terms, as a consequence of those priorities.

Nor do the contributions of anyone here seem to conform with your even more hyperbolic suggestion that people are looking to humble TT (for....reasons?). She probably would have been better advised to make more concession to the concerns raised here than to defend to the hilt on most every implication and give the appearance of not hearing those concerns, but people having IDHT concerns is a far cry from demanding she abase herself, and I don't think you are doing her any favours by making such implications on her behalf. This discussion is already long and complicated enough without scatter-shot speculation that any editor with concerns here is operating from such a silly, unlikely, and manifestly bad faith position. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who agrees with TT's moral opposition to the practices that she covers, and would like to let her off with a warning, but who doesn't feel comfortable doing so in the circumstances and with the way this discussion has gone. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with the walls of text you keep posting here. Above you responded to someone else "Nope, nope, nope: that is not remotely what I said." Well several editors believe that is what you said. You haven't AFAICS struck what you said and I stand by my complaint about it. Terrible. -- Colin°^Talk 10:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

First off, my response to the editor above that you just referenced regards a completely different topic from what you and I were previously discussing here, so (whether it was conscious or not) this feels like an attempt to redirect the present discussion away from a subject where you were receiving some due criticism for a very poorly considered proposition you forwarded (i.e. you realized your "everyone is biased in this area" argument was a non-starter under policy, and so poorly-reasoned that you didn't want to linger on it any longer and instead tried to make our difference of opinion here about something else entirely, particularly if that new subject let you feel like you were forming ranks with someone else).

Second, on that other subject, you can cast all the careless aspersions you want if you are unwilling to re-review what I actually said and refuse to credit me with candor: I will trust to the bulk of the community to apply a responsible degree of due diligence and care in reading my comments, rather than leaping to an interpretation that can be tactically pivoted around to continue to argue for argument's sake. I clearly did not say that new trans users should not edit trans topics: I simply never said that or anything like it. What I did say is that this particular user has (by making WP:RGW declarations and then following them up with tonally problematic edits) given us reason to be concerned about her WP:competencies regarding WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, which I think is a reasonable read on the situation.

Regardless, I believe my position (and the fact that I was clearly talking about this particular newer user and concerns raised specifically about their edits, and not new trans users generally) is imminently clear from my posts. But if there was any ambiguity before, I am now correcting your misapprehension once again. If you don't accept my clarifications at this point, I can only assume you are operating in bad faith out of some attempt at gaining rhetorical advantage, and therefore I won't be interested in discussing the matter with you further as I just don't see the point of playing such games.

And frankly, you aren't really doing TT any favours by making me defend my position by repeating it yet again, with increasing emphasis, making it seem more strenous and critical of her than I initially intended it to be. Any more than you did her any favours by advancing the poorly considered "two wrongs make a right" style argument about why her bias is not such a bad thing because all editors in this topic space are blatantly biased: that kind of argument is more likely to put the community further on guard as to issues here, rather than be seen as a viable excuse militating in TT's favour. Honestly, I think the best thing you could do for this editor at the moment is to stop trying to defend her, because you're approaching that task in a very counter-productive fashion, if I may be blunt. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

making me defend my position by repeating it yet again Huh. --JBL (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions, warning at most. This "incident" was opened by a sockpuppet account over an editing conflict. Nothing here is serious enough to warrant any bans. TheTranarchist has made significant positive contributions to GENSEX articles. A warning may be warranted about BLP's. But I think by now those points have been sufficiently made. Let's move on and stop badgering this one editor. Hist9600 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose GENSEX and/or BLP TBAN. Support warning, and 6-12 month restriction on creating articles directly in mainspace. It's taken me a while to consider this, and I've read all of the opinions put forward so far while trying to determine where I fall on this. This is discussion at ANI is somewhat of an oddity, because there is a very similar one below on a different user in the same content area. However what differentiates these two editors, beyond being different people, is experience level. The discussion below is for an experienced editor, whereas this one is for an inexperienced one, and I think we need to tailor our responses according to that. Has TheTranarchist screwed up? Yes, and she has both admitted to this and is actively working to help clean up the results. Has she over-personalised comments to the point of skirting the edges of our civility policy? Yes, and although she is far from the only editor to do this in GENSEX I would like to see a commitment from her that she will work on this. Is she here to build an encyclopaedia?
  GENSEX is a difficult content area to work in for a multitude of reasons, there are editorial behavioural issues, there are civil POV pushers, there are uncivil POV pushers, off-wiki sources (particularly media but some fringe academic too) are ripe with both misinformation and disinformation. It's very easy to lose one's cool, whether you're dealing with good faith editors who are personalising comments, bad faith editors, or harassment from article subjects. Despite this, and despite the other issues I've said above, I do think she is fundamentally here to build an encyclopaedia. Expressing the intent, whether on or off-wiki, to combat mis and disinformation is not an expression of NOTHERE nor is it a demonstration of righting great wrongs. It should be the goal of all good faith editors to write articles that follow reliable sources and as a result counteract mis and disinformation. With the exception of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, where Keen-Minshull's harassment of TheTranarchist has caused sourcing and content issues, I do not see the same major problems that other editors are expressing. I do see the same mistakes that a lot of new editors, and some experienced editors make in articles, but we don't generally sanction for those. Issues like putting too much detail into articles, proseline, misreading of RS where the source itself is unclear, are sadly common across this topic area (and plenty of others) but ultimately unsanctionable.
  Does TheTranarchist have issues that she should work on? Yes, and I think she's recognised them and I believe that she will work on them. Do these issues raise to the level of actually disrupting content or our processes? With the exception of the KJK article, I don't think so, not at this time anyway. For that reason, I would oppose any TBAN for either GENSEX and/or BLP. I would support a warning on this however, per WP:ROPE, along with a 6 to 12 month restriction on directly creating new articles in mainspace so that any sort of major or minor content issues can be caught before the article goes live. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. TTA is one of the few editors that is, by and large, fighting against the FRINGE activists on GENSEX articles, an increasingly more difficult job now the likes of the Heritage Foundation have decided to make it their newest culture war. Of course someone would want her taken out of the area. We already made a huge mistake by letting the Blanchard disciples run amok on Wikipedia for longer than we should have; don't make a second. Sceptre (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support GENSEX topic ban. Clear pattern of tendentious editing. Jevansen (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support GENSEX topic ban I rarely edit in this topic area, and have had little interaction with TTA, but having explored many of the discussions above, there is a Clear pattern of tendentious editing and editing from an 'advocacy' standpoint. The fact that they cannot see the degree of 'advocacy', worsens rather than mitigates the lack of neutrality IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• As an example of why others have a concern with TTA's editing. At the Chloe Cole article there was a long discussion about the use of "anti-trans activist" as a label in the opening sentence in wikivoice. There is not consensus for this label and BLP concerns have been raised. An edit was made to remove that LABEL from the lead [83]. That edit aligns with the general consensus here "Anti-transgender_activism"?. TTA restored the contested label within a few hours [84]. This is exactly the sort of failure editing issues many people are concerned about. Springee (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  There was not consensus to remove it, there was some discussion of how it should be placed in the lead and where. It was unilaterally removed alonside a host of other edits that included 1) removing the fact she frequently appears on right-wing media, which has been noted in many many WP:RS, even those favorable to her 2) removing all details of Marjorie Taylor Greene's bill which Cole said she supported 3) replacing gender-affirming care with loaded phrases like "medication and surgery" or with "surgery" in places where the scope of the bill was larger and 4) removing a paragraph consensus on talk found to be WP:DUE. I just listed all the sources that use "anti-trans" to refer to Cole, her rallies, and the legislation she supports there, which is the appropriate place for this discussion. I think @Licks-rocks said it best with I'm not sure where you see the WP:SYNTH there, considering the first source contains the phrase "anti-trans activism" to describe the BLP verbatim. I also think it's a bit nauseating that every phrase in this topic space has to be fought over tooth and nail even when it's as blatantly obvious as it is here, but hey, that's probably just me TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  After all this you still aren't hearing people. This is why you need to stay out of these areas until you have a better understanding of the ropes around here. This is a contentious wp:LABLE. There is not consensus for it to be in the opening sentence. We don't have have enough sources directly supporting it. You have used SYNTH to suggest other sources support it. That is not consensus for inclusion. Note that this is a new article so there is no implicit consensus for any particular edit. Additionally, this is a BLP and NOCON says if a contentious edit doesn't have consensus it needs to be kept out. Sure, you can make your case but edit warring when your behavior is being discussed at ANI is just more evidence that, at this time, you lack the awareness needed to operate in this area hence why a GENSEX TBAN makes sense. Springee (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  I should have provided the source breakdown at talk first, my apologies. I reverted once, and then took to the talk page, which is hardly "edit-warring". There does seem to be a consensus for including it in the lead in general, either in the second sentence or in the form "has been described as an anti-trans activist". The one who initially took umbrage with the phrase is a banned sockpuppet. We have 3/4 sources directly supporting it, including WP:SIRS coverage. We have about a dozen more supporting it, since it is not WP:SYNTH by any stretch of the imagination to, on talk, list sources describe her as 1) speaking at "anti-trans" rallies and 2) supporting "anti-trans" legislation, as those sources are stating her activism includes "anti-trans" activities... I refer you to the highly useful essay WP:NOTSYNTH

  a GENSEX TBAN makes sense - a friendly reminder to the crowd/closer, not once has anyone in this entire thread raised issue with my edits outside the intersection of WP:BLP/WP:BLPGROUP and GENSEX. Outside of that intersection, many have lauded/defended my edits in the GENSEX area, with nobody giving any evidence as to a general GENSEX problem. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  You had already provided a source breakdown before this ANI. It showed you didn't have sufficient sourcing for add a contentious claim. What you added today was no help. Please stop with the idea that "not once has anyone in this entire thread raised issue with my edits outside the intersection of WP:BLP/WP:BLPGROUP and GENSEX." Editors have. Ganesha811 has. Jweiss11 has. Levivich has. That's not even carefully reading through this huge time sink that your editing has created. That you chose not to listen is a serious part of the problem. Springee (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee The original breakdown was poorly formatted, disparately segmented, and you objected to some sources listed. Editors said their position depended on the sources directly calling her "anti-trans activist", which I collected all in one location, along with sources saying she spoke at "anti-trans rallies" or supported "anti-trans legislation".

  You say please stop with the idea that "not once has anyone in this entire thread raised issue with my edits outside the intersection of WP:BLP/WP:BLPGROUP and GENSEX." Editors have. - and you proceed to list editors who have taken issue with my GENSEX BLP/BLPGROUP edits, but not GENSEX edits outside of BLP/BLPGROUP...

  • Ganesha811 only raised issues with my BLP/BLPGROUP & GENSEX edits. When I stated nobody had criticized my non-BLP edits (meaning to include BLPGROUP), they took issue, and when I clarified that I meant BLP & BLPGROUP, they thanked me for my clarification and didn't comment further. @Ganesha811, could you confirm that sequence of events?
  • JWeiss11 is an editor with a COI who has only complained about the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article, which is once again an intersection of GENSEX and BLPGROUP
  • Levivich has not raised a single objection to my edits outside of the intersection of BLPGROUP/BLP and GENSEX.

  IE you called for a full GENSEX ban, and when presented with a statement that editors had only raised issue with my edits intersecting BLP/BLPGROUP and GENSEX, you list a few who did exactly that as evidence that my GENSEX edits outside BLP/BLPGROUP have issues... Hard to assume you're operating in good faith when you mischaracterize other people's criticisms of me to support a draconian measure. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich has not raised a single objection to my edits outside of the intersection of BLPGROUP/BLP and GENSEX I have. Do you really want to make the claim that there are no problems with your edits outside of the intersection of BLP/BLPGROUP and GENSEX? Because if you really want me to, I can list some again, with more specificity than before...but really, it's like Snow Rise said, you end up making me advocate harder for a TBAN than I really care to. I wish your heels were not dug in quite this deep. Because it's not about having no problems outside of GENSEX -- that's a silly claim because everyone makes mistakes, nobody is expected to be perfect. But repeatedly insisting that no one has raised any objections to <specific area> is pointless, plus you kind of set yourself up to have more diffs tossed at you, which at this point is not really productive. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Whether the horse is still alive or already dead, I think it's time for everyone here to drop the stick and and back slowly away from it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, what'll it take to get an admin here to finally end this? This is my first (and hopefully final) ANI case so I'm not sure what the procedure is, and you first called for a close 8 days ago so I've no clue what the timeline should be lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  once there haven't been new comments in a while (meaning discussion has mostly cooled down), and once an uninvolved admin is available to close it. Hence my comment to drop the stick. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Gotcha, I started trying to step away from it last night but felt pressured to respond to comments made this morning. Please, nobody leave more comments as this has gone on too long. Admins, please descend from the wiki-heavens and do with me as you see fit. Consider this my final comment here and an official dropping of the stick! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Do you really want to make the claim that there are no problems with your edits outside of the intersection of BLP/BLPGROUP and GENSEX? - yes, and if some do turn up, I humbly point out this would be the first time anyone's mentioned them, and the vast majority of comments speaking to my general GENSEX edits (discounting BLPs/BLPGROUPs), have been supportive.

  If you want to list some again, with more specificity than before, please provide evidence diffs that you in fact listed them in the first place. AFAICT, you've raised issues with Chloe Cole, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, Gays Against Groomers, and my posts about Genspect and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (without raising issues about those 2 articles themselves). Nowhere have I seen you comment, to any degree of specificity, on my GENSEX edits that don't intersect BLP/BLPGROUP TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich, as I don't think anybody here wants this case to drag out any longer, if you respond please stick to the specifics of problematic edits in GENSEX outside of BLP/BLPGROUP that you yourself have previously raised. I didn't mean my preceding comment as a challenge to go through all my past edits for evidence of general GENSEX wrongdoing as everyone has had ample time to raise them thus far - I was referring specifically to your comment that you've already raised evidence of problematic non-BLP/non-BLPGROUP edits, since while you have raised genuine concerns with the BLP/BLPGROUP edits, I genuinely cannot recall or find you referring to my GENSEX edits outside of those. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Consider this my final comment here and an official dropping of the stick! That almost lasted a half hour. Levivich (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  This was part of the dropping of the stick, levivich, and mosltly on my suggestion. Let's leave it here and wait for a close._{PS: I saw how you reacted to her telling you that on your talk page and uh don't.} --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Tough call. What I find myself wondering about is how this would've gone without the Mastodon posts. In other words, is their on-wiki editing unusually problematic such that a topic ban is needed? I see some poor sourcing-related judgment, but that's the stuff of warnings not topic bans. It seems like most of the reason for the tban requires consideration of their social media posts to contextualize edits that otherwise wouldn't have stood out in a domain rampant with POVs. In my experience, it sure seems like a lot of people are editing these articles to combat one side or another -- they just have a modicum of wiki-savvy to know not to blurt it out. That's TheTranarchist's failure here -- saying the quiet part out loud (very loudly). It's not just about optics; it's detrimental to deliberation and collaboration on-wiki. So what do we do with someone not experienced or tactful enough to transform their POV into the standard low-key kind of CPOV we unfortunately expect in this area? I'm inclined to say warning about reliable sources and NPOV in general, take them up on their mandatory AfC offer, and a suggestion not to edit any of the articles they've announced their intention to edit in a POV way lest a topic ban be likely next time. Oppose a full gensex tban at this time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, while I understand people's contentions with Tranarchist's reasons for editing, her editing is of good quality, and of benefit to the topic the ban is proposed on. --Cdjp1 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Addendum, though with the arguments presented, I do have Soft support for temporary restrictions on BLP in the topic area, as many have suggested on creation of such articles may be best. --Cdjp1 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban everyone in this topic area has a POV. Someone talking about their POV offwiki should not be a consideration (since when have we have cared so much about offwiki stuff?). And the handwringing about if being against same-sex marriage counts as being anti-LGBT rights is frankly silly. Some of the BLP edits do look a bit concerning and maybe warrants a warning about that, but a lot of the complaints seem to be about labelling WP:FRINGE viewpoints about trans people (relative to the medical consensus) as being such. I think Rhododendrites is very right that her mistake is saying the quite part out loud, and weakly support his proposal. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Problems continue TheTranachist's recent actions at Chloe Cole illustrate why a tban is nessicary. They seem to be taking the inaction related to this ANI as evidence that their editing and related behavior was always fine. Recently they have bludgeoned the article talk page creating walls of text [85][86][87], 19 talk page edits [88] as well as repeatedly proposing changes which clearly do not has consensus. The net effect is to get their way via beating down editors who grow tired of the discussion. As an example of NOT HERE editing, one of the TTA's stated objectives on their off site account was to impact search engine results. This is consistent with their push to include controversial claims about Cole within the first 2 sentences of her BLP. In a proposed lead here [89] they call Cole "anti-transgender" (despite a lack of consensus on the LABEL used by only a minority of sources) and associating Cole with the Proud Boys in the opening 2 sentences. TTA has been quick to revert productive edits made by others[90][91] as well as add guilt by association claims from weak sources (addition of Proud Boys association sourced to MM4A[92]). It's clear the editor's intent is to bludgeon down editors who don't agree then make changes that ignore IMPARTIAL and WEIGHT in order to further their POV. The amount of effort required to address the BLP concerns they have added or are pushing for is simply too much and most reasonable editors will simply give up. Springee (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  ... you're really dragging me here over nothing again? I'll address my own behavior, and then yours, since WP:BOOMERANGs are fun...

  Me first:

  • Your first two links (which are out of order) [93] [94] are me having a productive discussion with @Tristario to compromise and work to address NPOV concerns and make a good lead that follows the body. You literally just linked to me and another editor collaborating and working together to improve the article, resulting in a version both of us found satisfactory and another editor stepped in to say seemed good, as somehow evidence of wrongdoing...
  • Your third link[95] is me responding to another editor. If you cut out 1) me re-iterating that the American College of Pediatricians is WP:FRINGE (which 3 separate editors had already told them was fringe, even pointing to community consensus to that effect) and 2) a lead I proposed, that reply is shorter than the comment I'm replying too...
  • Every change I've proposed has been iterated towards consensus... The attendance of Proud Boys at a Rally Cole spoke at? There was a consensus that was due, and I only added that after discussion on talk. The proposed changes to the lead? You stated we can't even say she's been described as an anti-trans activist in the lead, a position you are the only one to support (as even the other editors who objected to calling her an anti-trans activist in wikivoice said that it was due to mention she'd been labelled as such)
  • Once again, regarding the second link, Tristario said the lead needed improvement[96], I gave an outline of my thoughts and proposed a lead, we discussed and iterated, and it reached a local consensus (and I still hadn't updated the article, waiting to get more feedback overnight). Tristario said we should mention groups she's worked with, the only group RS have stated she has been with twice are the Proud Boys. You don't seem to bring up the fact that in my very next comment[97], I agree that the PB weren't due in the lead, and state I'd just been trying to address Tristario's concerns with being specific about who she'd worked with.
  • revert productive edits - your first example is [98] is restoring a well-sourced fact that multiple RS and SIRS have commented on, ie her appearances in right-wing media to advocate such bans, not just media in general. Your second[99] is restoring content unilatteraly removed: ie the details of a bill Cole supported. The bill proposed banning a lot more than just gender-affirming care for minors, yet the additional details of the bill were removed to just say it would ban gender-affirming care for minors.
  • Once again, I first proposed the MM4A detail[100] on talk, there was a consensus to include it, and only then did I include it.

  Your turn, since It's clear the editor's intent is to bludgeon down editors who don't agree then make changes that ignore IMPARTIAL and WEIGHT in order to further their POV is actually a pretty good description of at least one of us...

  • You state the mention of the Proud Boys should be entirely removed from the article as a guilt by association mention.[101]. There's a whole section about that on the talk page: Talk:Chloe Cole#Proud Boys. Two rallies are mentioned in the article. Proud Boys attended both. There was no dispute that their presence at the Tennessee rally was due and should stay in the article. I made a case for including the fact they attended the Nashville rally (which every single source that covered the event mentioned), and consensus found it suitable for inclusion. You saying mentions of the Proud Boys should be entirely removed is blatant whitewashing and POV pushing
  • You state[102] The same applies to the "celebrity" comment. The bills supported part is also just back doors to try to include disputed content in the lead. This is even more problematic since you removed details about one of the bills here, linking to [103]

  1) You object to the text has been described as an "anti-trans activist" and "celebrity of the anti-trans movement" - once again, even editors who didn't think the sources warrant anti-trans activist in wikivoice considered it due to mention she's been described like that.

  2) you object to Cole has also supported legislation that would prohibit the use of public funds for gender-affirming care for adults. which is completely true, verifiable, and commented on in multiple RS. It is not disputed apart from your POV pushing that only her activism against trans kids should be mentioned

  3) most blatantly ridiculous, and I cannot understate how ridiculous this is, you link to a diff where I restored the full details of a bill Cole supported (since an editor had removed the fact the bill targeted adults as well), and accused me of "removing details". I restored details that someone else had removed, even trimmed them to be more concise actually, and you accused me of removing details...

  • Here[104] you state of a source if they claim something that isn't true to the actual text of the law we need to treat their claims with additional caution.. When I ask you which source / falsity are you referring to? [105], you state This will require more review of the sources, I will try to do it later.[106]. I think @Maddy from Celeste put it best in her reply So for (2) you're saying you haven't any reason to believe they are misquoting, but because you insinuate they might be, we should somehow care?[107]
  • You then oppose[108] the proposed lead me and Tristario worked on (the one you just used as evidence against me...), and propose one that 1) doesn't mention she's been labeled an anti-trans activist, which basically everyone there agreed was due 2) says media, instead of right-wing media, despite being well supported by sources 3) remove all mention of her rallies and 4) doesn't mention her campaigning against medicare coverage for trans healthcare for trans adults. Somehow, you think that's more "impartial"...
  • This isn't even mentioning all the times on the article you argue that Cole doesn't oppose gender-affirming care, just the medical parts of it, ignoring the editors telling you that's what gender-affirming care is.
  • For funsies, since I was reviewing your edits, I also see you recently edit-warring with @Hist9600 to revert criticisms of a book by the SPLC[109][110]. Also accused @Dlthewave of following you[111].

  So, a recap, you've basically spent the last few days leaving mostly irrelevant comments on the Chloe Cole article with no hint of compromise, trying to whitewash an article in ways that nobody supports (removing all mentions of the proud boys, not mentioning her opposition to medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for adults in the lead, saying we can't even say "she's been called an anti-trans activist", and etc.), and following me to ANI with every content dispute you can think about, accusing me of things it's obvious I didn't do (I'm still not over you accusing me of "removing details" by restoring removed details, twice...)

  Meanwhile, I have productively worked to improve the article with @Tristario at talk and generally made sure to run every proposed change that may be even slightly controversial by talk to achieve consensus, compromising and working with other editors. Speaking to my other recent edits, I improved the Tri-Ess article from a stub that was about to be deleted, started refactoring the Gays Against Groomers article to address NPOV concerns and generally improve it[112], and practically wrote the Crown Heights Tenant Union article (which was a paragraph and is now a large article - It's still a WIP, I've still got 3 years of activities to cover and then copy-editing to do, which you distracting me here and at Cole's article has not helped...).

  You have been the one to propose changes that ignore IMPARTIAL and WEIGHT in order to further their POV, refusing to compromise and trying to depart from the weight of sources to represent her as only opposing gender-affirming care for minors, focusing nearly all your efforts on Cole's talk page and my ANI case, while I have worked with other editors to ensure NPOV is maintained, comrpomised and discussed to achieve consensus (even when I would prefer another outcome), and generally actually contributed to the encyclopedia and worked with other editors to do so.

  @Tristario, @Maddy from Celeste, @Sideswipe9th - we've been collaborating the past few days on the Cole article, care to comment on my general conduct there vs Springee's? Please keep it short if you do lol, I thought this case was finally settling down and coming to a close but apparently I can't be that lucky TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Funny how so many new accounts in this topic area who write content about anti-trans activists also bludgeon and have a tendency to ping perceived allies. Gee where have we seen this before. Levivich (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is that you saying you agree Cole is an anti-trans activist? (/humour, I'm fine just saying she's been described as one unless enough sources eventually concur) Also, I cannot tell a lie, I thought we'd been starting to turn a new leaf with the Tri-Ess article - I've been trying to move away from contentious GENSEX BLPs by collaboratively fixing up my old articles and making sure there's consensus while moving onto new ones like the Crown Heights Tenant Union (WIP) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yet another wall of text. I will also note the selective notification of editors. Springee (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I pinged the editors I've been working with collaboratively on the article who were involved in the specific discussions raised. In terms of the wall of text - Brandolini's law. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Brandonlini's law. Imagine how much effort it takes for good faith editors to deal with the walls of text you produce. When they don't address the whole thing you feel they weren't able to address your concerns. That is followed by claims like no one had issues with your non-BLP GENSEX edits. Springee (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  ... can you point to a single instance in this entire case where an editor has raised concerns with any non-BLP/non-BLPGROUP GENSEX edits? Not just vaguely saying they might exist, but actually pointing to even 1 edit or article? A single diff could stop me saying that, and the fact I've repeatedly challenged people to provide one and not gotten a response goes to show my claim is correct! So, either prove me wrong or stop saying my claim is false without evidence.

  Also, it's poor form to come to my ANI case, level some baseless accusations against me, and get upset at the length of my response (and to be fair, please keep in mind that half of my above response was pointing out your POV-pushing at the Cole article). Also, the walls of text you raised concerns with in your latest accusations were mostly comprised of discussing changes to the lead with another editor, and we reached a version we were both comfortable with... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee It's worth noting you've made over 20 posts in this discussion, and you continue engaging. Which is fine. But if you don't wish to read more walls of text, it's best to disengage. I've been burnt out just reading this discussion, surely you need a break by now. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's true, it was an attempt to delete well-sourced content. I attempted to restore the previous stable version. Fortunately some other editors were able to help. Deleting references to the Southern Poverty Law Center's reports about hate groups and anti-LGBT activities is usually poor form. The SPLC is a Wikipedia perennial source that has been reviewed many times. Hist9600 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I generally agree with your post, so I won't restate it in full. It suffices to say I find Springee's accusations here highly disingenuous, and their complaints about this wall of text even more so. They complain about you making "proposals which don't have consensus" as if that wasn't the whole point of a proposal. On Talk:Chloe Cole, they have also upheld useless, WP:IDHT-esque tangents such as insisting that "gender affirming care" includes both medical and non-medical, or baselessly insinuating that some sources are misrepresenting some bills but refusing to actually show how. I also count @Slywriter's bizarre refusal to accept preëxisting consensus that the American College of Pediatricians is not WP:FRINGE, on grounds such as that the Wikipedia article on them does not include that word, among these. And most recently, it is in fact Springee who is working against a consensus on the lead emerging among the other participants in that discussion. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Propose Topic Ban For 3-6 Months Judging from the walls of texts that user:TheTranarchist is using to reply to nearly every ivote, it would seem to me that a short (3-6 month) topic ban would be appropriate. This would give user:TheTranarchist some time to reflect on their behavior and contribute to wikipedia in other ways. Bottom line, I don't think sanctions should be punitive, but I do believe they should be a net benefit to the project. In this case I believe wikipedia and user:TheTranarchist would both benefit from a topic ban. After the 3-6 month period, remove the topic ban. This is not a permanent punishment, it is simply a rest period. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:FD27:AF83:F025:53FA (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) 2600:1700:1250:6D80:FD27:AF83:F025:53FA

  • This is literally your only contribution to Wikipedia and this IP could very well be a user who has already commented and contributed to this novella. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

user:LegalSmeagolian I believe AGF extends to IP users as well as registered users. This is not my only contribution to wikipedia, and you will also notice I suggested a *temporary* restriction. If IP users are not welcome to contribute here, then please strike my above vote. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:28FC:6307:144:5BAB (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• question. Should the title of this novel be struck since it was also written by the sockpuppet? WP:SOCKSTRIKE says not to be nitpicky, which maybe this is. Seems wrong, though. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, I don't think that's a good idea, if for no other reason than, unlike striking the rest of the user's comments, striking the titke may have some potential to cause confusion or technical issues with format, threading, sectioning, archiving, and searches after the fact. It also has the potential to suggest that the issue has been dismissed wholesale by the community--which, whatever else one can say about the divisive mess above, I do not feel is an accurate interpretation of community perspective. On the other hand, a struck title in the TOC would stand out so much, it might draw yet more attention to this thread (which may be a good or bad thing in general, depending on your perspective, but frankly, at this point we don't need extra feedback here so much as an admin willing to close, which only get harder to acquire the longer this monster thread grows).

  
  

  Note that while SOCKSTRIKE has been cited a few times above, that's actually just an essay: the actual guideline that permits striking in cases of sockpuppetry is WP:TPOC. Another section of that guidelines (WP:SHOWN) notes that titles are "owned" (fur purposes of TPG determinations) not by their author, but by all the editors needing to make use of it, and provides for circumstances when they should or should not be altered, but does not discuss this particular situation, nor striking in any context. In any event, on the balance, I would say striking the title is not appropriate here. Striking the OP's comments immediately below is going to make the situation as obvious as striking the title itself would to anyone looking at it, and given the potential for unforseen technical issues, or an inaccurate implication of the current posture of the discussion, or drawing this matter out further (and at this point I think the wait is getting unfair to TT, whatever the outcome), I think we should let it be. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, plenty of OP's comment has been struck already. I don't see any need to go further. — Czello 17:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Will somebody close this, please?

It looks like everything that needs to be said has been said, and there's been plenty of opportunity for opining opinions, and for people to read and revise their opinion if they find persuasive arguments argued. All that's left is for some brave admin to close this and choose an appropriate course of action. Any further discussion will only cause this page to load even slower, with no appreciable benefit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I checked the word count. We're about the length of Faulkner's As I Lay Dying. We passed The Great Gatsby and Slaughterhouse-Five a while ago. (We're at about 55,000 words). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So it goes.--DanielRigal (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe Btw, not to discount your examples in my comment below, I've read and enjoyed the latter two as, but somehow the HG2G felt longer and more personally mind-boggling to surpass lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Support warning; 6-12 month restriction on publishing to main space per Sideswipe9th's recent detailed !vote, and generally those who have defended and/or constructively criticized my editing (a great thanks to all who did so). Some final notes since this has been causing me a week full of stress: I want to make sure that all articles I write are encyclopedic, and I am more than happy to make sure they're peer-reviewed before going live until I can be proven to write articles of the highest caliber from scratch. I screwed up by not taking advantage of AFC sooner, having relied on peer review after publishing, which I realize could be too late especially with regards to BLPS - which I sincerely apologize for. While they do not compromise all of my written nor edited articles, I make no secret about the fact I consider many of the groups I write about to be morally objectionable due to their campaigning against trans rights or minorities in general. I want to make sure they are encyclopedically documented, and are described neutrally - as I state on my userpage: I believe the truth when simply presented will speak for itself and I think I should be judged on the quality of the content and not my motivations for writing. If anyone wants to further review or help improve any article I have written to date, I will be more than happy to collaborate on the associated article/talk page - I want this to come to a close and everything to be done in the appropriate location, as opposed to this novel (which blew me out of the water to learn is somehow longer than The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). I believe a BLP OR GENSEX TBAN would be overly restrictive, considering my prior work on BLPs (all GENSEX) such as Gloria Hemingway, Mridul Wadhwa, Quentin Van Meter, and Angela Lynn Douglas and in the general GENSEX area with WP:USALGBT, Detransition, Transgender youth, LGBT rights in <XYZ>, and Conversion therapy, among many others. I also want to reiterate, to ensure my articles are of the highest quality, I wish to put them all through AFC first, even when they don't or barely intersect with GENSEX or BLP. I believe this will help me improve as an editor and in 6-12 months if they have shown to be written to a sufficiently high standard we can revisit it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Do not put new !votes in the closure request section please. _{let's keep this novel at least somewhat organised--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)}

The closer will assess the discussion and arguments. Possibly prejudicing a closer is not constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rough count of !votes Just to aid the closer, as of this comment, I count 16 editors opposed to a topic ban (although a few are in favor of some kind of warning or other lesser sanction) and 30+ in favor of a topic ban, with a couple additional editors supporting a limited ban on BLP editing in this topic area. Several other editors have commented and discussed without supporting or opposing specific measures. This count was taken by scrolling + tallying, not by making a full summary table, so it should not be regarded as definitive. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC) My apologies to all, I didn't realize this sort of thing was frowned upon. I made a count for the sake of my own curiosity and decided to share it, unwisely. I did not intend to prejudice the discussion in any way. Striking the section. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Would the editor voluntarily refrain from GENSEX, article creation, and negative/critical BLP edits for 6 months? This thread was opened by a sock, but evidence has been presented that there may be tendentious tendencies and SPA-type advocacy. A voluntary 6 months of editing outside those fields, while keeping up the same level of wiki activity, would demonstrate to the community that the editor is here to build an encyclopedia and can edit without a POV. It would also provide the ditor with more wiki experience. My concern here is that if nothing at all comes of this thread we may be back here with another filing by somebody else. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why? The contention of many of the people who don't support a topic ban, including me, is that Tranarchist's contributions to GENSEX are good and that this is an attempt by POV-pushers to remove an opponent from the topic area. Loki (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, Tranarchist already made a suggestion on how to restrict her editing, a reasonable one in light of this discussion. I think it is clear that the editor is here to build an encyclopedia, just not the one some POV pushers would want. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's funny how you accuse people of being "pov-pushers", when just a couple minutes ago, you attempted to remove an ivote because it disagreed with your point of view. Tranarchist may indeed be a overall benefit to the project, but the evidence seems fairly clear that she has been engaged in tendentious editing, pov-pushing, and SPA type editing in the Gensex topic area. I've noticed that almost no one is advocating for a block or ban, instead most are simply asking for a temporary editing restriction, which in view of Tranarchist's behavior, seems to be a reasonable sanction. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:28FC:6307:144:5BAB (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is very interesting that you, an IP user whose only edits are in regards to this editors ANI discussion, are so familiar with various WP policies and procedures. I never tried to remove your vote, just alert the closer that this conversation has been your only contribution to Wikipedia. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As I stated before (and as demonstrated to you on your own user page, a comment which you replied to by the way), it is not my only contribution to wikipedia, and any editor or administrator can easily check this, as even though my ipv6 address can change, total contributions can be found by simply adding /64 to my address. If you had read my comment above, I had asked that you AGF, but you seem unwilling to do so. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:28FC:6307:144:5BAB (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a silly thing to say when your own one-month-old account has 350 edits. If you had more experience, you'd know about IPv6 ranges, and would have checked Special:Contribs/2600:1700:1250:6D80::0/64 and seen the rest of the edits on this range. Levivich (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Still not very many edits, and many in the GENSEX topic. Hm. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So now an ivote shouldn't count because a user has "not very many edits"?. Also, I've made exactly ZERO edits in the Gensex topic area. Every contribution I've made has been to the relevant TALK pages, as I was hesitant to edit until there was consensus on any change I made. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:28FC:6307:144:5BAB (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Not saying the vote shouldn't count, just noting it for the closer. Seems like the one time you did make a change in the topic area you realized you made a mistake and started profusely apologizing, in which other editors were lenient towards you, and maybe you should apply that principle here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What principle? This IP making a single error and apologising is a big difference to the repeat issues this thread has unearthed.

I'm not sure why you're coming down so hard on this IP except for the fact they're an IP. — Czello 08:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's another protip for you, @LegalSmeagolian: at ANI, threads are autoarchived when no one posts in them for 72 hours. Every time you post here, you reset the 72-hour timer. If you don't want TT to get TBANed, you should just not post here for 72 hours and let it autoarchive. The 72 hour timer will reset now. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, here's another protip for you, I wasn't inquiring on that policy. The 72 hour timer will reset now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• While BLP adherence is part of the AfC criteria, the main focus of AfC is to confirm the notability of the article subjects. I'm not sure the AfC process is broadly equipped to handle POVpushing and questionable sourcing for negative claims on a relatively niche topic (gender-related advocacy) unless there are some committed reviewers who can tackle such hypothetical submissions. It seems way easier to just have this editor direct their energy towards other topics. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that the problem that's supposed to solve is not POV-pushing, it's creating articles for non-notable transphobes. It's not been established that Tranarchist is POV-pushing, and many of us (including me) believe she's actually been instrumental in stopping POV-pushers. Loki (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, the only article I wrote that didn't meet WP:GNG was Health Liberation Now! (very much not transphobes lol) - the transphobes I've written about have been quite notable. The bigger issue raised is the neutrality of some of the articles, so if anyone can suggest/point to a standardized pre-publication NPOV review process I'd be amenable to that instead of AFC (per @Indy beetle's note on AFC not being set up for NPOV reviews). Reviewing WP:PR, I'd be happy to first draft articles then list them there to get feedback before publishing or if that's not standard practice (since I don't see drafts listed) strive even harder to make sure the articles are written from a NPOV initially and immediately request review on publication (in either case, adding a note to review for NPOV). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to utilize PR as well at some point in the development of an article, but it's not the most ideal solution to this situation: unlike AFC, PR has no inclusion threshold/greenlighting function, if you follow my meaning, since it is not meant for pages that are initial stages of development, especially where WP:NPOV is a consideration. See WP:PRG. Rather PR is for already decently well-established articles with few or no major content disputes, but which need an extra layer of polish, often when one is trying to move such an article through a WP:GAN or WP:FAC process.

So, without intending to dismiss Indy Beetle's observations (because per much of the discussion above, their concerns may be valid), I would say if the community is not simply going to ask you to work in another area for a while, then AfC is still the best alternate option, as it is the closest system we have in terms of giving an extra layer of approval to submissions. And while I understand and somewhat agree with IB's concerns about using AfC in this role, it is worth noting that the community has used this as an intermediate alternative to a straight TBAN in the past. Usually it's more to make sure the articles are competently written rather than to address neutrality concerns, but I believe it could work here as well, so long as you interact with suggestions that do touch upon NPOV in good faith. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bludgeoning and edit warring by Newimpartial

Despite four different users, in the last 24 hours, warning Newimpartial to stop their excessive WP:BLUDGEON, they seem unwilling to WP:HEAR. This comes right after their edit warring and WP:BLP violations (and duely warned for that as well) in the LGBTQ area. After edit warring yesterday to insert material from a clearly unreliable source into Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull [113], [114], [115], [116], Newimpartial engaged in extreme bludgeoning at WP:RSN. In the discussion, a large number of users all told Newimpartial that the source they were edit warring to keep in was obviously unsuitable. Despite this overwhelming consensus, Newimpartial has made 43 different comments in 24 hours to argue against virtually the entire community. Four different users, myself included, have told Newimpartial to stop bludgeoning. The edit warring and the bludgeoning look like WP:BATTLEGROUND. Several users also raise WP:COMPETENCE concerns in the discussion, as Newimpartial seems incapable of understanding why accusations made at an anarchist blog are unsuitable under WP:BLP. The edit warring, BLP violations and bludgeoning have become disruptive. I suggest a six-month topic ban from LGBTQ articles, in the hope Newimpartial can return to the area after that. Jeppiz (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban. The edit warring is unacceptable, and the article itself is in shambles, this only adds to it.

YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, YouCanDoBetter, I did not re-add any content that had not been stable to the article, nor did I re-add any content to which more than one editor had objected at the time of my edit. I did not at the time believe that a single editor objecting to the sourcing of an inclusion, which had already received the support of multiple editors, could turn it into "contentious material". Clearly I read the community wrong on this, and I would not do the same thing again, but this whole matter seems quite tangential to GENSEX issues. Newimpartial (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, YouCanDoBetter, do you have a view on the length of ban you would find appropriate to prevent future disruption? I have specified here some of the behavioural goals to which I will be accountable moving forward. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Note - I have been reviewing and revising the Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull article since this discussion started, and while I have not yet reviewed the entire article and all of the sources, I think more policy-based language than "shambles" could be used to describe the state of the article when this discussion began [117]. Beccaynr (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed to find Newimpartial's name here on a curious look at ANI, but not surprised. Over the few years I've spent on wiki I've seen them be a very combative editor in the queer topic area. While I tend to agree with their perspective and recognize the contentious nature of the topic area, their flagrant shirking of BLP in this case is yet another instance of their disruptive approach to consensus-building. Myself and many other editors have warned them in the past not to engage in EW with transphobic and homophobic editors and to interact with them in good faith. In this case however, their ideals have blinded them to our responsibilities as editors to living persons. I support a topic ban, with no opinion on the length (including non-temporary topic ban). They seem unable to participate in the topic area and would encourage them to edit elsewhere on the wiki and deradicalize their editing habits. They and I both know they are a great editor at their best and I hope they can find it in them to become more constructive. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ixtal, just to make my position as OP clear, I also share Newimpartial's perspective and my report here is despite their perspective, not because of it. Their heart is in the right place, I believe, but unfortunately the behaviour is disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope I did not imply you disagreed with Newimpartial's perspective or were in any way transphobic/homophobic, Jeppiz. My comment should be taken into account exclusively as a reflection of my editing history alongside Newimpartial and not a judgement on any editor in the current dispute except for them. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Considering El C has previously both IBAN'd NI in relation to another DS topic area and 3RR warned NI in this topic area, notifying them of this thread in case they wish to comment on past warnings/sanctions. On a similar note, notifying Ivanvector based on 3RR 24h ban. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding my support to Tamzin's anti-bludgeon restriction proposal below. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 23:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I will point out that my 3RR vio came from an incident years ago when I did not know how to count reverts; it has not been repeated. Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ixtal, you say that I "shirked BLP" in this area, but I did not actually revert any contentious BLP material, and as soon as I heard from even one non-INVOLVED editor that there was a problem with a source, I desisted. Although my participation in noticeboard discussions was disruptive, I did not cause disruption in Article space and respected the community norm that consensus is determined through policy-based discussion.

Also, I have repeatedly proposed compromise solutions to respect BLP and NPOV concerns, notably this recent discussion on another sensitive BLP. I don't think you will find any instances if you examine my actual edit history, where I do not interact ... in good faith with editors with whom I disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Misleading comment struck and replacement added by Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. Long history of bludgeoning, and aggressive POV editing over many articles. Seems not to be here to create an encyclopedia but to fight culture battles. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC).
  • I haven't seen any evidence (or really any accusations) of POV editing in this filing, aside from my view of Anarchist publishing collectives (which I will not be repeating in polite company). So why do you feel a GENSEX ban to be warranted? Newimpartial (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know about a topic ban (I don't edit in this area - topic ban could be right for all I know) but they are an incontinent bludgeoner. When I complained to them about their bludgeoning of an ANI thread, they followed me to my talk page to tell me why they weren't bludgeoning. When ScottishFinnishRadish stopped by to point out to them the irony of that their reply suggests total cluelessness. I had to close the thread to get rid of them. Maybe a posts limit per talk page thread might help? DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how a "post limit per thread" would work, but I could certainly cut back my replies to a maximum of one per editor I am replying to. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  My query is superseded by the anti-bludgeon proposal below, which I completetely support. DeCausa (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban up to and including indefinite. Please also note the same tactics and rehashing the same arguments at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull#This article is not factual or objective and at WP:BLPN#Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, as well as numerous conversations the user has blanked off their talkpage. The history of IBAN and edit warring seals it for me, they are unable to be a productive editor. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  The best one to speak to my Iban would be El_C, who placed it, but in the end the ban was removed without prejudice and the editor I was i-banned from was CBANned for their conduct.

  Also, I would point out that in the aftermath of the RSN discussion you removed content from two anarchist RS [118] [119] with a misleading edit summary of "BLPREMOVE", so I'm not sure your judgement is to be trusted in this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  My "judgement" has nothing to do with it, and the edits were an attempt to clean up BLP violations. You also assert that Its Going Down and Unicorn Riot are absolutely RS, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. I don't see that it was discussed on RSN ever, either. Once this situation is resolved I plan on taking them there to get a consensus one way or another, but there's not much point in doing so now while we have so many discussion threads open on practically every noticeboard the project has. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. Regrettably, this isn't the first time I've seen issues of blugeoning from NewImpartial. Indeed, it seems that any time an issue relating to LGBT issues arises, they are quick to appear and bludgeon the conversation with (some rather predictable) comments, regardless of context. Elsewhere on ANI today I've mentioned that there are sometimes usual suspects in these topic areas, and so I'm unsurprised to see this complaint now be raised. I think anyone who has edited in these topic areas long enough has encountered a rather combative mentality from Newimpartial, which is why I'd support a TBAN until such time they can separate their personal beliefs from their Wikipedia editing. — Czello 23:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Where, precisely, so you believe I have allowed personal beliefs to influence my Wikipedia editing? I am generally quite careful to ensure that anything I do is based on what the best sources say, rather than what I might believe to be true.

  Also, the irony of Czello taking this stance after having made multiple reverts against BLPRESTORE to violate MOS:DEADNAME and insert a pretransition photo in a BLP infobox is discused below, but something about glass houses seems to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Additional content added by Newimpartial (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Do you intend to reply to everyone that supports a topic ban. You do realise that could be seen as...oh well, never mind. DeCausa (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Can you indicate how fidelity to only using reliable sources spurred you to repeatedly insert self-published statements from an anarchist blog in order to try to support contentious content in a BLP? Your explanation on the talk page was that you believe that the anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability were more than sufficient to use the source, but I'm struggling here as to how that does not tie into personal beliefs affecting sourcing decisions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability Good grief, this raises larger concerns about understanding WP:RS. — Czello 23:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  To answer your question, you were comparing the post in question to a "random Tweet" in terms of reliability. I was pointing out that unlike a random tweet, this post issued from a group established for over a decade, whose goals include.

  Produce information and analysis against capitalist society and argue the case for anarchist communism. Be the memory of the working class by making the lessons of past gains and defeats widely known.

  This is not the same as a random tweet, though I will point out that I did not re-insert any content from that source after our exchange of views. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Do you not find it at all eyebrow raising that the areas you bludgeon in are the areas related to your personal beliefs? — Czello 23:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am willing to receive a BLUDGEONING restriction in any form; I am also willing to receive a ban from discussing the application of WP:SPS policies. But a ban from the GENSEX topic - a topic that isn't especially relevant to any of the evidence in this filing - looks to me like an attempt to swat a mosquito with a blow torch. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, my more expensive thoughts about how my editing needs to change are set out here. As noted here, there is no particular relationship between these problematic patterns and the GENSEX topic area. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × several) Like others in this topic area, I've had the experience of being frustrated by Newimpartial's behavior both when on the same side and when opposed. While more than a year old, Talk:Hikaru Utada/Archive 5 § Feminine pronouns should be used is the example that comes to mind most, in which Newimpartial argued at length against basically every other user in the topic area (cis, trans; perceived as "pro", perceived as "anti") that we should use they/them pronouns for someone who lists herself as "she/they". I'm going to stop short here of expressing an opinion on a TBAN at this moment, but what I would definitely support is an anti-bludgeoning restriction. Something like "no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I initially withheld comment on the TBAN proposal because I had not personally seen sufficient disruption for one, and no one had yet put up evidence to fill in that gap. Now that some more diffs have been posted, the thing I keep coming back to is anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability. I don't think it's a huge secret that my personal politics are anarchist-adjacent, but I would never dream of making such an argument. You are clearly not familiar with Christian doctrines of not bearing false witness, You are clearly not familiar with the non-aggression principle—you could do this with basically any ideological movement, because basically all ideological movements claim to be honest and ethical. And honestly I think this speaks to something that won't be fully addressed by a GENSEX TBAN. This leads to a strange conclusion, because if I AGF that NI isn't deliberately misreading policy here, and misunderstands WP:RS this fundamentally, the correct response would be a sitewide block. Conversely, to support only a TBAN implies some level of duplicity here, or at the very least motivated reasoning. If the latter, perhaps a TBAN would solve the problem, and perhaps sends a message that causes NI to reëvaluate how they interact with Wikipedia. So, support TBAN at a minimum (in addition to my proposal above). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    Their idiosyncratic interpretation (or willful wikilawyering?) of P&Gs extends to notability, too, e.g. their assertion that GNG can be met with one source that is independent (but not secondary or SIGCOV), one source that is SIGCOV (but not secondary or independent), and one source that is secondary (but not independent or SIGCOV). JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from WP:GENSEX and support anti-bludgeoning restriction. The anti-bludgeoning restriction proposed by Tamzin addresses only one of the problems here—there are edit warring problems in the topic area addition to bludgeoning and wikilawyering—and Ixtal is right to bring up that the editor has demonstrated issues with their ability to edit neutrally in the topic area. Both of these issues require their own sanctions to fix, and for that reason I see both as necessary until the editor can demonstrate that they can edit both civilly and neutrally. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that if editors are to suggest that I have edited in the GENSEX topic against NPOV, that some kind of evidence (in the form of diffs) should be provided-this is certainly what would have been expected had this been filed at WP:ARE. Nobody to date (including Ixtal) has offered any such evidence. The examples you have provided elsewhere of excessive commentary do not in themselves show any problems with civility or neutrality on my part - they represent a different kind of problem, as I have discussed just now at my user Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban. Newimpartial has been relentless in attempting to bludgeon a discussion regarding basic Wikipedia policy where the consensus is otherwise entirely clear. Some of the arguments presented have been quite frankly bizarre. See e.g. You are clearly not familiar with anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability being presented at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull [120] as a justification for citing a source otherwise clearly not RS. This is a simple, overt, partisan attempt to subvert elementary Wikipedia policy through repetitive argumentation, and in my opinion, a topic ban is the minimum sanction required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Question about scope - The proposal is for a topic ban on a very broad area, but evidence has only been provided of one instance of problems in one article. What is the justification for anything more than a page block? To be clear, I find their response below, with the assertion of non-contentious, non-biographical information, concerning, but is that misreading of BLP and NPOV specific to LGBTQ topics? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  You make a good point about scope, Rhododendrites. I admit my !vote is based on my personal impression of the editor through our 2 years of interactions so would find it hard to provide edits to support my views. Sharing 500 uncivil and battleground-minded diffs, for example, is a tall task but seeing them as they are made contributes to a perspective on the editor. I hope other editors are able to provide diffs and evidence for the proposals made above as the community (me included) seems to support sanctions beyond what the evidence currently supports. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  They've intensely bludgeoned before in other GENSEX discussions and GENSEX-adjacent discussions, such as Athaenara's gensex-related site ban (>36 comments, including responses to about 1/3 of oppose !voters), Discussion on Talk:Irreversible Damage (about 20 comments, including responses to every single participant in opposition to them), RfC on Talk:Irreversible Damage (~50 comments), an RfC on Talk:J. K. Rowling (95 comments), etc. I can create a whole long list for the skeptics, but this is... a pattern. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  And I am perfectly willing to have a "BLUDGEON restriction" imposed on me so I am accountable for and unable to repeat that behaviour on penalty of losing editing priveleges. But a topic-ban on top of that is not necessary to prevent any future disruption, and would be a loss of a contributor who understands NPOV and is knowledgeable in the subject area. Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Those do look... bludgeony. What do you think about NI's willingness to accept a "bludgeoning restriction" (I haven't found where that's defined yet)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, Special:Diff/1140821936 was the original proposal by Tamzin. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Aha. Thanks, Ixtal. Something along those lines might be called for. I'm reluctant to boldtext support that one in particular because it just seems so likely to be lawyered, but I can't think of a better one. I suppose I'll wait to see if it actually gets proposed... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I found their behavior in this discussion at pregnancy pretty poor as well. This included accusations that newcomers to an RfC were canvassed POV warriors (despite their own project notifications being non-neutral):

  • I'm not sure where the canvassing is coming from, but I now count 7 to 6 in favor of inclusion.
  • To me the policy-based case for inclusion is obvious, but I was actually tallying your content-free !vote, which is a courtesy. Would you rather I ignored it? Entering a ditto-vote citing two knights of POV isn't exactly a virtue. (They did apologize for this one)
  • [editor1] is one of our most effective POV-warriors on this topic. And he brings his friends!
  • I also posted a notice at WP:NPOVN. [editor1], you can post a notice at WikiProject:TERF if you like, if you haven't already.

  Their own project notifications were also not neutral:

  • There is currently a rather raucous discussion taking place about whether to mention Trans pregnancy in the lead section of the article.[121]
  • Based on the sequence of the !voting by new contributors, the POV balance among contributors to a discussion of the mention of Transgender pregnancy in the lead is somewhat questionable. Unjaded viewpoints would be welcome.[122].

  This was AFAIR my first foray into anything related to GENSEX, so I don't know what bad blood was pre-existing between NI and various other editors, but their hostility to every opposing voice was unnecessary. JoelleJay (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, indefinite or otherwise. The presented situation speaks for itself and based on what I have seen from Newimpartial the word ″combative″ that others have used seems accurate. Maybe some time away could make them reflect on their conduct. TylerBurden (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  My recent reflections on how my conduct needs to change may be found at my User Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  If a serious commitment to change is made and this is the first time it has gotten this out of hand, then it may not need to end with a ban. The positive thing I see here is that at least Newimpartial has recognized their issues, there are some serious problems on this site when valid criticism is deflected with "opponents are just trying to get rid of their opponent". The rules should be the same for everyone regardless of which "side" they fall on, and such accusations should need some strong evidence. TylerBurden (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it was not helpful for me to have launched into that accusation. I have redacted my original statement accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Disruptive editing is how I would characterize their behavior, which includes and goes beyond bludgeoning. I do not see the ability for this editor to change. I tried and tried to assume good faith but I cannot anymore. I find them their behavior psychologically abusive and I feel that this is a personality problem. See the discussions between our talk pages [123],[124], [125] which I initiated after their disruptive editing at Talk:Gender. I do not know what the solution is here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Kolya Butternut, please consider striking the sentence "I find them psychologically abusive and I feel that this is a personality problem." The focus here is on Newimpartial's editing behaviour, not their personality. Other, less personal language will be more helpful to this discussion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support indefinite topic ban based on behavior on this ANI which shows they have not changed. See thread below beginning with my comment at 18:45, 22 February 2023.

  At Talk:Gender they edited disruptively by accusing me of moving goalposts [126][127] and gaslighting by misstating the positions I had taken in discussion.[128][129][130]. In the thread below, I believe they passive aggressively accuse me of moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion. When I asked for clarification they obfuscated, but did point to the Talk:Gender discussion. These attacks and obfuscation represent the same disruptive behavior I dealt with at Talk:Gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban But I know this vote is pointless. Many of the usual suspects are above that have long been pushing an anti-trans focus on various articles. I expect we'll have more ARBCOM cases in the future to deal with the issue as they seem to have momentarily gained the upper hand in their desire to slant articles to promote their anti-LGBT beliefs. As I've said before, I largely stay out of this topic area, only getting involved infrequently when there's rather egregious examples of the anti-trans editors pushing pseudoscience and promoting the viewpoints of bigoted groups. It's not worth it to waste my time around there. It's too tiring to deal with such tendentious accounts. They know who they are and they know the sort of nonsense they're pushing. Thank you, Newimpartial, for bothering to deal with such blatant fringe nonsense like all the articles noted above. This is, unfortunately, how things often turn out when dealing with a coalition front of fringe-pushing editors who know what they're doing. Silverseren^C 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban: I agree with Silverseren that there's really no grounds whatsoever for a topic ban, and many of the supporters of such appear like they're just trying to remove an opponent. I don't think that Newimpartial coming up on the wrong side of a content dispute should be held against them, even if the result seems obvious to others. Newimpartial's contributions are very important to the WP:GENSEX topic area: it's infested with POV-pushers and one of the few editors with the patience to oppose them consistently across the topic area is Newimpartial. (I'm neutral to an anti-bludgeoning restriction though, because I agree Newimpartial does have a habit of WP:BLUDGEONING when they're losing an argument.) Loki (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support any ban. They continue to insist, against overwhelming opposition, that "Keen's supporters (EDIT: or their amendment to just "demonstrators", which is barely any change since obviously they're Keen's supporters) had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground" (sourced to a group blog that counter-protested Keen) is not a BLPVIO because it's not "contentious material about a BLP", despite both the spirit and language of policy saying otherwise:

WP:ATP, a policy extension of BLP, includes in its definition of an attack page biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Nowhere does it require this material to be directly describing the subject.

WP:BLP prohibits inclusion of any poorly-sourced material challenged or likely to be challenged on a BLP.

WP:BLPBALANCE says beware of claims that rely on guilt by association and states "See also" links...should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person; it should be clear from this that associating a person with highly negative behavior is not acceptable elsewhere in the article either.

WP:BLPEL states Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs; if linking to SPS is prohibited when the sources aren't being used to support anything in the body, clearly SPS should not be used in inline citations either. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out here, I removed the mention of Keen's supporters almost immediately after the revert in question. Also, at the time I reverted, only one editor (Red-tailed hawk) had objected to the content, which was part of the stable article version. I did not re-add it again after that.

If what you are really saying is that I shouldn't argue with other editors about edge cases in the use of SPS as article sources, I now agree (which might come as a relief to you after our previous engagement over that topic). Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned that your takeaway from the RSN/BLPN discussions regarding this source seems to be that it was only unacceptable because a) the text it supported originally mentioned Keen by name; b) Wikipedia just isn't yet up to speed with the legitimacy of anarchist collective publishing; c) more than one editor contested it, rendering it "contentious" and thus compatible with your reading of BLP; and d) editors are used to CRYBLPing to discount sources that they don't want to include, even when these sources are used for policy-compliant inclusions, and they are misstating BLP to do so. How can the community be assured you won't repeat these violations if you still can't recognize them? It should not take another editor--or your apparent expectation of a minyan of editors--to revert and point out to you a statement reflects negatively on the subject and therefore per BLP must be attributed to high-quality sources. JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No, Joelle; my takeaways from the RSN/BLPN discussions are not at all confined to those points. Earlier today I made a longish reflection about what I misunderstood as well as what I did wrong on these matters, on Sideswipe9th's Talk: it may be found here. I will be appropriately cautious concerning all content in BLP articles (as well as all BLP content outside of BLP articles) moving forward, and I will not at all be counting on other editors to correct any future mistakes. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, while it's certainly on the edge, I could definitely see the argument that a statement about "Keen's supporters" is not a statement about Keen herself. I don't honestly think that this is where Newimpartial fucked up here; the problem is that the source is not reliable for any information, not specifically for a BLP.

But aside from that, everyone involved including Newimpartial agrees that they were wrong in this particular case. But that doesn't mean they should be topic banned for taking an unpopular side in a content dispute. Loki (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban beyond this one article I cannot get behind a broader topic ban for this editor as insufficient evidence has been presented of their allegedly problematic behavior except regarding one article. I know Newimpartial has made a lot of positive contributions to articles about far-right topics although they have a tendency to become overly wordy or overinvested in some disputes, I am not convinced it rises to the level of needing sanctions. All editors must refrain from bludgeoning. (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, I don't edit in this topic area myself so my report was about actions at WP:RSN. If you read through this thread and the diffs posted by several other users to previous incidents, you will see it does appear to be a pattern, not an isolated incident. Jeppiz (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and anti-bludgeon Support a 3 to 6 month GENSEX TBAN, and indefinite anti-bludgeon restriction. And strongly oppose any indefinite TBAN. This is a tough one for me for a multitude of reasons. It's no secret to anyone in the GENSEX area that I'm friendly with Newimpartial. We've worked well together in the past, and I hope we'll continue to do so in the future.
  On the issues at hand, can Newimpartial be abrasive? Sure. Do they have a tendency to bludgeon talk page discussions? Sure. Do they skirt the edges of our civility policy Sure. But they're far from the only GENSEX editor to suffer from these problems.
  What's swayed me towards supporting, is the RSN discussion and Tamzin's comment on ideological doctrines and movements. Newimpartial's comments as a whole in that discussion, and their related actions on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull are very concerning to me. It's one thing to vocally question and disagree with a consensus, as consensus can on occasion be wrong. And I think that Newimpartial did identify a bit of a blind spot in our BLP policy and guidance when it comes to a specific type of content in biographical articles. But to keep hammering the same point, after many involved and uninvolved editors uniformly said "that's not a RS", is not good. And to keep asserting, as they have done below that they did not restore "any contentious BLP material", despite the consensus that the material was contentious is either failing or refusing to get the point.
  I do have a fear that this sanction will have unintended consequences. But on balance, I think that this sanction is needed to prevent future occurrences of what happened over the last day at both RSN and Keen-Minshull's article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Amended !vote rationale. See comment below for reasons why. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sideswipe9th, I would ask you to reconsider your support for the topic ban. The BLUDGEON in question was on anarchist publishing (not GENSEX, and admitedly a topic where I have taken an unpopular stand before). I am willing to receive the BLUDGEON restriction, which should make my editing better, but I think it matters that (1) I did not re-introduce content into that article to which more than one editor had objected, (2) the RSN and Talk page BLUDGEONING were not about GENSEX and (3) I will not repeat edits that resemble in any way those reverts to a BLP article or that BLUDGEONING.

  Why you would want to remove from GENSEX an editor who understands the issues, follows NPOV and the sources, and who proposes compromise article (and policy) text to defuse conflicts, I really have no idea. I am half inclined to believe that Tamzin has hypnotized you :p. Newimpartial (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  The BLUDGEON that brought us here was on an anarchist publication, for use in a GENSEX BLP. Effectively we're dealing with an issue that straddles two CTOP areas, BLP and GENSEX, and unfortunately the conduct was a problem no matter which of those lenses you assess it through.

  This was a bad revert. We're both familiar with WP:BLPRESTORE, and that revert goes against that part of the policy. The whole point of BLPRESTORE is that it applies to any good faith objection, and not any good faith objection made by multiple editors. Even if you disagree that the content that was removed should be covered under the BLP policy, it was nonetheless removed on good faith BLP grounds. Had you stopped there, I would like masem below been minded to say it was a BRD cycle. But then you restored it again. That was egregiously bad. If you shouldn't have made the first restore, you really shouldn't have made the second one. Regardless of whether you thought it was or was not covered by the BLP policy, an editor in good faith thought and expressed, twice in an edit summary (1) (2) and on the talk page that it was.

  The question for me is, what is the minimum possible sanction that would prevent future disruptions like this. The anti-bludgeon restriction will certainly prevent a repeat of the RSN discussion, but it does nothing at all to address the article space problem. A TBAN would prevent the article space problem, but which TBAN? BLP or GENSEX? Both choices have positives and negatives, both for the project and for you. A GENSEX TBAN will affect your ability to edit any gender or sexuality related article, but you would have enough rope to otherwise demonstrate that you can edit other less controversial BLPs without issue. A BLP TBAN conversely would not give you any direct opportunity to demonstrate that you can follow that policy on other BLP articles and content, but would allow you the freedom to demonstrate that you can take on the feedback from this discussion and otherwise edit in successfully in a contentious topic, and perhaps indirectly demonstrate that this or any other issue will not reoccur.

  I don't know which of those two is the right choice. The only thing I am certain of right now is that unfortunately it has to be one of these two. So let me flip this back at you. Of the two TBANs, which do you think is the more appropriate? BLP or GENSEX? Which gives you enough freedom to demonstrate that you can learn from this, while also insuring against the short term risk of an issue like this occurring again in the future? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't accept your premise that a topic ban is required; it seems like casting about for some lead to work with because the tool in hand is a blow torch.

  I agree that I should have respected RTH's objection as a good-faith BLP objection and that my reverts were in error. Nobody has disputed that in this filing - when I pointed out that I didn't revert after multiple editors objected to the content, it's because I was being accused of that more egregious offense, not because I'm saying what I did was ok. It wasn't, as I have said elsewhere in this section.

  Given that I'm not going to make similar edits again when it comes to BLPRESTORE, it also seems to me that no TBAN is necessary to assure the community that I won't BLUDGEON given that a BLUDGEON restriction is enacted. Yes, of course I can keep my editing away from GENSEX for six months or a year, but that won't help GENSEX articles and it also won't do much for my editing except for something like a Liberal Arts "breadth requirement".

  I'd point out that what I did yesterday was a one-time mental glitch in article space, not an article space problem - it hasn't happened before, it won't happen again, and given when I stopped it can't even be called "disruptive" (it wasn't even a 3RR vio). The BLUDGEONing is actually something I have to work on with or without sanctions, but I would suggest that you not fall in with a discourse about a "GENSEX problem" that isn't real and doesn't relate to the evidence presented here, even as an allegation. Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would hope that from my last reply, that it should be clear that I'm not "falling in with a discourse about a 'GENSEX problem'". I see the sad necessity for a TBAN, at least in the short term, to prevent future disruption. I just can't decide which TBAN is the more appropriate in the circumstances.

  There is, for me at least, two issues at play here with some degree of interrelation: Bludgeoning, and an egregious BLP violation. While the bludgeoning has happened primarily in GENSEX discussions, the problem itself is largely topic agnostic. Because of that topic agnosticism, the bludgeoning problem can be handled in general with a broadly construed anti-bludgeon sanction, leaving us with the egregious BLP violation. However this was a BLP violation that occurred on a biography that's also covered by GENSEX, and as such involved GENSEX content.

  Maybe this is something I need to sleep on. And something I hope that by the time I wake up, other editors who are currently in favour of a GENSEX TBAN over a BLP TBAN can maybe state something convincing, or provide convincing evidence for why it should be one CTOP area over the other. For now though I'll clarify that my !vote should be read as Support a TBAN (BLP or GENSEX) and anti-bludgeon, just don't know which TBAN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, if I thought a TBAN was necessary I'd strongly lean towards a BLP one, as Newimpartial is very much a net positive in the GENSEX topic area. However, I don't think any TBAN is necessary. Maybe a page ban, but so far no evidence has been offered in this thread of bad behavior outside of this one particular dispute.

  And yeah, the things Newimpartial said about anarchist sources were really dumb (and I say that as a far-leftist myself). Interpreting them with perhaps too much good faith, they might have meant to say that traditional means of evaluating sound editorial structures for RSes don't necessarily apply to the sort of journalism collectives you often find among anarchists. But even so, they definitely did not have good arguments for that source being reliable.

  However, that's still all things they said in this one dispute. There's no pattern of bad behavior, this is all out of one dispute. Since topic bans are supposed to be preventative, this really doesn't justify a TBAN at all. Loki (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've taken some time to think this through. I've been reading what Newimpartial has been saying, both here and on other user talk pages, since I made my !vote yesterday, and I've had a chat with Newimpartial over on my talk page.

  I want to believe they recognise that they are a problem, not just in GENSEX but how they interact with editors in multiple adjacent topic areas. I want to believe that from this recognition, they will change how they act and interact with other editors. I want to believe that they will become the change we need in the GENSEX content area, so that we can start detoxifying it and making it less hostile.

  But. After reading everything, thinking and talking through everything, I think time is needed. It's not easy to break and form new habits, especially those that have become ingrained over a period of years. And as much I know we need editors in this content area with the institutional knowledge of how our relevant policies, guidelines, and information pages have been developed for this content area, I'm not sure if being active in GENSEX is the right environment for Newimpartial to make the changes they recognise they need to make, and that they have promised me that they will make without the risk of falling back into familiar patterns.

  To that end, I want to clarify/amend my !vote. I Support a 3 to 6 month TBAN, and indefinite anti-bludgeon restriction. And strongly oppose any indefinite TBAN. I think, I hope, that time away from this controversial content area, will give Newimpartial the space needed to work on their problems so that when the TBAN expires they can return to being a productive contributor in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN and oppose anti-bludgeon restriction - Newimpartial is expressing substantial and detailed self-awareness in this discussion and recognizing the need to modulate their conduct in the future. Bans and restrictions should be preventative, not punitive, and this discussion can serve as notice of these concerns, particularly in contentious topic areas that are prone to extended discussions. I have worked on some articles that Newimpartial has also worked on, so I have had an opportunity to observe their conduct and have found them to be a net positive in various article Talk page discussions. From my view, the recent discussions (that I have not been involved in) and the responses to Newimpartial's conduct there and here should be an opportunity for serious reflection, and Newimpartial appears to be listening, so a ban and restriction do not appear warranted at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Question: Has Newimpartial received any sort of warning in the past for their improper conduct? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Newimpartial has previously received an interaction ban that followed from this thread, which was started after an editor objected to comments made by Newimpartial in a GENSEX-related RSN thread. That interaction ban, however, is no longer in place. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just to provide some additional information about my former iBan: it was converted from one way to two way after my iBan partner's behaviour preceding the iBan was pointed out to El_C (not by me[131]), and it ended when my iBan partner could no longer abide by the iBan and began to lash out, which was followed by additional transphobic attacks and resulting sanctions for the former editor in question. Newimpartial (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support 3 month GENSEX TBAN - As demonstrated with the diffs above to previous discussions provided by Red-tailed Hawk and with the recent discussion that brought us here, Newimpartial has had a persistent issue with BLUDGEONING and BATTLEGROUND behavior, specifically in GENSEX discussions. Though kinda walking around the question, they acknowledged that they were aware of the bludgeoning guideline and had received multiple warnings for it in the past (as showed by Red-tailed Hawk). Therefore, I must reach the conclusion that they either haven't fully grasped what it means, which would be a competency issue, or they recklessly ignored it; I suspect the latter. They've even warned others for bludgeoning! On top of all that, they've already had an interaction ban that, you guessed it, was GENSEX-related. Furthermore, I think this is aggravated by their recent support for a clearly unreliable source at RSN, in which they bludgeoned the discussion for their viewpoint. Again, all these issues have been GENSEX-adjacent, despite Newimpartial not fully acknowledging the connection in the reply to my question below. However, Newimpartial has thoroughly apologized and explained that they will stop their problematic behavior and technically this is the first time they've gotten in big trouble over their behavior. So, I think a certain amount of leniency should be given. A temporary topic ban will allow them to thoroughly reflect on what they've done wrong and adjust. Then the TBAN will just go away quietly and we see if they've learned their lesson... Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have to say, taking my two-way interaction ban with an editor who had already launched gender-related attacks on me and who was later indeffed (and my ban terminated) for their transphobic comments about me as evidence why I have a problem with the GENSEX area and need to be sanctioned - well, I find that to be a low blow, frankly, though it's a simple example of a typical way enwiki treats trans and nonbinary editors. That you would prefer to endorse this sanction over the much more easily justified BLUDGEON restriction isn't easy to understand. I hope you'll be prepared to make the calm reverts of MOS:DEADNAME vios - from "both sides" of the issue - I make every week, as well as the dispassionate explanations of guideline minutae that I freely provide, while you ban me from the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support t-ban from WP:GENSEX. Pretty clear case of POV-pushing, which is moreso about conduct and not content. They have a pro-transgender POV and have taken to forcing BLP violations into articles in an effort to discredit an anti-transgender activist. The closer should note that the opposes don't have any policy based rationales. Silverseren's oppose says that those in favour of the t-ban long been pushing an anti-trans focus on various articles. and that's basically what the opposes boil down to. "Don't ban Newimpartial, because I agree with them and they take the correct side in content disputes on transgender-related articles". Even if holding the right opinions was a valid reason to get out of a t-ban, there is no shortage of trans/trans ally editors on this website. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN, or any other sanction at this time - The evidence presented here is very far from convincing of any need for a sanction. At the very most, I would support an official admin warning to avoid BLUDGEONing, except the NI's comments seem to indicate a realization that their response was somewhat over the top, so there seems to be little need for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• A stern telling off would probably achieve the desired outcome without any need for topic bans or other restrictions.  Tewdar  09:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support an indefinite TBAN appealable after 6 months, with additional probationary measures. I've personally been at the receiving end of bludgeoning before on years articles, and it's extremely damaging to discussions, especially on reasonably contentious topics like here or cases which attempt to implement a non-existent consensus. We should give the editor the time necessary to reflect, and if NewImpartial is able to work more collaboratively without bludgeoning or gaming the system in other parts of Wikipedia, we should lift the TBAN (which is why I explicitly put a 6 month appeal in my vote). However, we should also place Newimpartial on some sort of bludgeoning probation, where if bludgeoning or gaming the system continues outside of GENSEX during the TBAN, they should receive blocks of a growing time period. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader Newimpartial uses they/them pronouns... ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure I've never participated in discussions of years articles, by bludgeoning or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support GENSEX TBAN I'm less sure about an "anti-bludgeon" restriction as I think that's more of a symptom of a problem than the problem itself. Also, for editors thinking that Newimpartial responding to criticism in this discussion constitutes "blugeoning", em, I think it is entirely appropriate to "dominate" a discussion about oneself. If you don't want to read Newimpartial's responses, don't read them and don't reply to them. Are you seriously saying that people can post whatever they like about them, and they just have to sit on their hands because they've posted a few times already that day?

I warned Newimpartial about edit warring at LGB Alliance and you can read the conversation here. I think edit warring over a section title is pretty typical of Newimpartial not "try[ing] to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors" which is what WP:ACTIVIST notes wrt spotting problematic activism. And failing to respond with "Yeh, that was pretty stupid of me to edit war over a section title" but instead dig down and say go on take me to AN/I over it, demonstrates their combative attitude. This is a BATTLEGROUND editor who not only attacks "the opponent" but also "their own side" and "the Red Cross" as well. I've often said editors need close wikifriends who can tap them on the shoulder (ideally offwiki) and tell them to back away from the keyboard, or strike or revert something. Newimpartial doesn't seem to have one or doesn't appear to value the ones they have (had). Earlier on their user talk page, Newimpartial invited me to this conversion. The word that strikes me in that is "gaslighting", which Newimpartial had used in a kind of pre-crime way towards me. I later discovered they had accused Koyla of "gaslighting". The thing is, the issue I was accused of (potentially) "gaslighting" them about, was the previous paragraph on the page. In both my case and Koyla's it seems that when another editor disagrees about what they did or said, Newimpartial thinks it is not only because of the other editor's bad faith, but also it seems, that other editor is actively trying to cause them "actual harm, actual psychological abuse".

My impression from those discussions is that this is an editor who lives constantly in an assumption of bad faith. That so many editors in the GENSEX area are disruptive activists with opposing views to them means that they are not always wrong about that. But seems that their hostile approach to everyone means that even the good faith editors and editors "on their side" will annoy them to the point where they conflict with them too. Their post last night to Sideswipe9th initially filled me with hope, as the section was titled "Sorry" but I'll quote how it concludes: "There might have been a time when we could be wikifriends, but I'm losing all respect for your judgement of conduct issues at this point. I will try to remain civil, but it will be a very cold civility like I sometimes manage with Colin and Koyla, who also decided recently that it would be fine to just ignore my perspective and lay into me because it suited their understanding of the world. Blech.". Yeh, it is always someone else being not just wrong but malign. --

Colin°^Talk 10:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Psst...pronouns...  Tewdar  10:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Colin - why in the coldest hell would you misgender me in a long comment seeking a GENSEX ban at ANI?

Also, for one additional tedious time you have misstated our prior conversation - I never suggested that you or any other editors were actively trying to cause psychological harm. What I was talking about was precisely instances like this long post, where you clearly did so (misengendering is harmful) but may well have done so unintentionally. Ahhhhhh, irony. Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC) , partially redacted by Newimpartial (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

A thousand apologies for that. I've fixed it I hope. Wrt the "actual harm, actual psychological abuse" quote, you were responding to me asking you to stop accusing editors of "gaslighting" you, and not for situations where editors had made a mistake. There is no possible world where "gaslighting" can happen by accident. It is a term that is very much an accusation of seriously bad faith. -- Colin°^Talk 13:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Colin, I am not accusing you of "gaslighting" and when I did so, I was not accusing you of inflicting harm on purpose. I explained this at length on my Talk, in the discussion you already linked. What you have done above (apart from the misgendering, which you have now corrected) is to insist again that I accused you of actively trying to cause me harm, which I never did.

Also, concerning cooperation, collaboration and compromise, you seem to be ignoring instances like this recent discussion or these two from last month, where I have collaborated constructively across differing perspectives. I get that obstreporousness is in my toolbox, but I am also able to play nicely with others. Newimpartial (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am of course willfully "ignoring" three instances of your behaviour from last month where I was not a participant, had never edited those pages nor ever watchlisted nor ever read those talk pages. Of course it is my job to read your entire contribution history for situations I am unfamiliar with to try to find three cases where you behaved yourself. I'm being sarcastic btw. The problem, Newimpartial, is not whether occasionally you can play nicely with the other children.

I'm not going to get drawn into (again) another argument about what you said I said. I've linked to the discussion and others can make their minds up. -- Colin°^Talk 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't making an argument about what you said I said. I was making a statement about your comment of 10:27 -Newimpartial thinks it is not only because of the other editor's bad faith, but also it seems, that other editor is actively trying to cause them "actual harm, actual psychological abuse (emphasis added). That is a false statement, presented without evidence, in a context where I had already clarified weeks ago that I was not accusing you of causing intentional harm.

On your first paragraph, the instances I linked were a response to your generalisation,

I think edit warring over a section title is pretty typical of Newimpartial not "try[ing] to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors" which is what WP:ACTIVIST notes wrt spotting problematic activism.

I do actually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate and compromise with many other editors, and so I presented clear, recent evidence on that (the first example of which I linked already, above, which is why I said you ignored - not "wilfully 'ignored'", I didn't imply intentionality). A topic ban is supposed to prevent disruption in an area, but the only thing you point to is an unpleasant bilateral interaction that I encouraged you to move from Talk:LGB Alliance to my user talk page; that, and my expression of hurt in Sideswipe9th's page after receiving these personal attacks and insinuations. If that's your idea of disruption in a topic area, I don't know what to say. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

These arguments over precision are a frequent source of disruption from Newimpartial. I tried and tried to speak with the precision they expected, but when I expected the same level of precision from them, they characterized my corrections as utterly puerile. [132] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Rather than accepting a quick, decontextualized assertion about that difficult dialogue, I would encourage anyone with the necessary endurance to read the two voices of that exchange: my comments are visible here and Kolya's, here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Colin: I think you may have dropped your bolded !vote in the wrong subsection. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved from below per WP:TPO and permission given at Special:Diff/1140937443. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Per Sideswipe9th below, I would agree that at first step we should consider a 3 or 6 month TBAN from GENSEX. I think an indef would be more appropriate if no signs of hope were present. I'm not sure a "stern telling off" is enough for them to get the necessary break/reset, though if that ends up being the result, I would encourage Newimpartial to take a self-imposed wikibreak from that topic. -- Colin°^Talk 08:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN or other sanctions at this time, per Beyond My Ken and Beccaynr. One person's "bludgeoning" is another's "fervent discussion", getting emotionally invested in topics one volunteers one's time to edit is going to happen sooner or later, and sanctions are too blunt to be suitable in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm also a bit uncomfortable with some comments that seem to suggest Newimpartial's comments here are "bludgeoning". Frankly, this is why I don't like ANI. It's a trial without a defense attorney, where the jury is whoever happens to show up, and speaking in one's own defense can be taken as furthering the crime. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a mob trying to remove an opponent from the game board. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely this. Boomerangs are in order. DanielRigal (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm trying to excuse myself from this discussion, but I have to ask - who are you proposing receives a boomerang, exactly? As ValarianB mentioned a "mob", are you suggesting it's for anyone who voted for the TBAN? — Czello 15:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think the relevant population for a BOOMERANG woukd be everyone who !voted for a TBAN for me as a result of personal annoyance with my prior Talk participation. Or at least a trout... Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  How does one identify who voted for those reasons? — Czello 15:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  While I'm sorely tempted to give a joke answer, the rral answer is interaction analysis. A good algorithm ought to be able to evaluate the tone of the editor's prior comments at me, the tone of their comments here, and make an easy determination. Use AndyTheGrump as training data (all right, I couldn't not include a joke answer, but I gave the real answer first). Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  There's so many issues I can see with this I'm going to assume it is the joke answer, but anywho I assume the boomerang calls won't get off the ground anyway... — Czello 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Forget I mentioned it. I'm not trying to make this into any more of a trainwreck than it already is. To be honest, I think this thread may be one of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen on Wikipedia if you disregard blatant vandalism. I read this and I wonder what on earth is going wrong. DanielRigal (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  To quote the old joke, it hurts when I do this. I guess I should stop doing it, then. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Interaction analysis (by humans) can determine who is likely to be !voting in annoyance. That is the non-joke answer. Levivich, for example, is not, based on an examination of our recent comments in reference to each other. AndyTheGrump, on the other hand, almost certainly is, based on the same criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I understood, I think what I'm trying to say is letting an algorithm determine good faith sounds like the first step to SkyNet — Czello 19:16, 22 February 2023

  Fascinating. So someone who only got involved in this whole mess (on a subject I haven't really worked on much) because a ludicrous WP:RS discussion over a source that even an elementary understanding of sourcing policy would have shown to be unsuitable, somehow becomes 'training data'. I assume this is in reference to the 'Large language model' AI algorithm, which as has been well documented, generates superficially plausible but entirely fabricated bullshit when it lacks the necessary data (i.e. evidence) to come up with anything better. How apt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I have seen people deliberately winding Newimpartial up. Newimpartial should try to recognise bait, and not take it, but the blame lies with the people yanking their chain, not them. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I guess I should expand on this a bit, seeing as everybody else is so verbose. ;-) I think we should have the maturity to recognise that Newimpartial has made some mistakes without blowing this matter out of proportion. It needs to be recognised that they are a significant net positive for Wikipedia and that driving them away from the topics where they are most desperately needed would be substantially detrimental to Wikipedia. Articles concerning gender and sexuality are under an unprecedented level of attack at the moment and dealing with this is stressful and unpleasant even for people who are not in the groups affected. It is a real pity that it falls to quite a small number of people to defend these articles. There is a fine line between a Defender of the Wiki Barnstar and an accusation of bludgeoning. It is not surprising that sometimes the stress shows and people make mistakes. Of course, that does not absolve Newimpartial, or anybody else, of the obligation to try to follow policy and guidelines but I see zero evidence that they ever intended to do otherwise. I have read their comments in which they acknowledge their mistakes and undertake not to repeat them. I am convinced of their sincerity in this and I believe that no further sanction is required. I can see the arguments for a warning but I find the proposal for a topic ban (or any other major sanction) to be entirely unjustified. What we do need going forward is a lot more eyes on articles that cover gender and sexuality, even if only in passing. Things are only going to get more intense as anti-LGBT rhetoric becomes normalised in English speaking countries. Eventually this will peak and subside. In the meantime we all need to play our part in holding the line and keeping Wikipedia impartial. DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  "we all need to play our part in holding the line"… this quote says a lot about the user's mentality. Supporting someone at ANI because they are a POV pusher is risible and should be ignored. Many fold (including LGBTQIA+ folx) give good reasons this user is not helpful to building an encyclopedia. Support topic ban and bludgeon restriction. 99.196.131.218 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  The quote says more when you finish the sentence. In the meantime we all need to play our part in holding the line and keeping Wikipedia impartial. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why do I feel like this is the same person who already gave us two deliberately inflammatory posts in this thread? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The bludgeoning and tendentious arguments waste too much editor time, and despite people trying, I don't think anything else is going to work, since the bludgeoning of this thread continues. Suggestions that this is a mob trying to win a content dispute, that bludgeoning is just fervent argument, or that anyone was baited, have no basis, and are the reason I've come off the fence on this one. I think Gensex, not BLPs, is the right topic area, and I'd be fine with a 1-month or 3-month time limit instead of indefinite. Warning second choice. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  The main concern I have about a 3-month ban is the likelihood that one of the activist editors in GENSEX will use this as an opportunity to launch one of the long-theatened RfCs on key topics, knowing not only that I will be unable to participate but that there will also be a chilling effect on trans editors, as there was after the Athaenara ANI and especually if TheTranarchist is sanctioned at the same time (a different case and perhaps unlikely, but not impossible). Given the way my prior iBan - with an editor who hurled abuse at me from near the beginning to the end of their time on enwiki - has been weaponized against me in this discussion, I am also concerned that even a short ban could be turned into ammunition for similar action in the future, not to deal with actual bludgeoning but simply because my familiarity with the policy history is inconvenient for some aggrieved party. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) id redacted by Newimpartial (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  If you really wanted to prevent that, you could avoid a sanction by not bludgeoning this discussion. I believe that you continuing on like this would be more harmful to the topic area than your temporary absence. I'd rather the best option, which is you not being sanctioned, but I don't see that option as being available here. I'm most concerned that if you walk away from this thinking you were doing nothing wrong, you weren't bludgeoning, you were baited, or the editors complaining are just a mob or the usual suspects, that will lead to no change, which would be bad for the topic area. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I do think I have been doing something wrong. Several things. I misread the community's sense of when BLP content becomes contentious, and I bludgeoned multiple discussion on a topic (because I felt I was right in a SNOWBALL situation). Those were both clearly actions against community norms, and I won't do either again.

  Also, while most of the editors calling for an indef TBAN have evident skin in the game, at the same time I have clearly pissed off editors who are not part of any mob and whose negative interactions with me are tinged with apparent regret (on their part as well as mine) more than hostility. I get that it is up to me to edit differently so that I do not contribute to future wikidrama, and I think something formal about my BLUDGEON behaviour - whether a restriction or a logged warning, or what have you - could help with that.

  But if you look at the closed section where it was proposed to ban or restrict me for participating in this filing, it is reasonably clear that the community feels it important for me to be able to participate actively in this discussion - I certainly feel that a comment like this one is more helpful to an eventual closer than it would be for me to "not bludgeon this discussion" by being silent. Of course, some admin or admins will make that determination. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I hear you. I feel the chilling effect here and I'm not even trans. It must be a hundred times worse for those who are. I think this is the reason why you need to take great effort to keep your powder dry. Avoid taking bait and make extra effort to stay on topic and within policy even when others do not. Ironically, my advice is to (sort of) "assume bad faith" in the sense that you should ask yourself "Is this intended to provoke a counterproductive reaction?" and then let that guide your responses. DanielRigal (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Is this intended to provoke a counterproductive reaction? As another regular of the GENSEX content area, I actually do wind up asking myself this on a fairly regular basis. And I absolutely hate that I have to do run this self-check to make sure that an editor is not trying to bait me into saying or doing something I'll regret. Aside from making sure that my content and contributions are in keeping with the relevant policies and guidelines, my guiding principle in the GENSEX area is to be the change I want there to be. And on this regard, while I can ensure that my visible actions are in keeping with that change, my internal processes to ensure that I do so are not.

  I hope that every editor, whether involved or uninvolved, can see how utterly dysfunctional GENSEX is. As much as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is policy, the content area is unfortunately a battleground. Much of this reflects the attitude of societies across the world at this time. On the one hand you have major charities, activist organisations, and medical bodies which I believe represent the mainstream view on this topic and are typically supportive of non-cishet identities and sexualities. On the other, you have religious groups, some heavily right-leaning political groups, smaller charities and activist organisations, and some notable dissenters of medical opinion, who typically reject any sort of non-cishet identity and sexuality and I believe represent a fringe view on this topic.

  Like any encyclopaedia we're caught in the middle of these two groups. But unlike a traditional encyclopaedia like Britannica who can filter their content creation process through paid experts, we are also a user generated encyclopaedia. And because our content can be written by anyone, it opens us up to a series of challenges that other encyclopaedias do not face.

  There was a sentence I ultimately removed from my !vote above, that I think I want to bring up now. Loki made a point that GENSEX has a large number of POV-pushers, and that Newimpartial acts somewhat as a balance against them. And I think that is true. I have a fear that a sanction here will have unintended consequences, in part because it will upset what little balance we do have in this regard. And maybe that's a sign that we need an inquisitorial style ArbCom, to look into this dysfunctional content area in depth and to figure out where exactly it is we're going wrong and how best we can resolve the situation as a whole. As after-all nobody expects the ArbCom inquisition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sideswipe9th, we must also account for the unintended consequences that letting a disruptive editor continue to engage in the topic area just because we agree with them has on our ability to attract and retain editors within the topic area. I have seen multiple editors raise concerns that TBAN-ing Newimpartial will irrevocably change the balance in the topic area in favor of transphobic/homophobic editors while forgetting that the wiki's own PAGs do not align with that group and so those of us that remain can still prevail. However, I am not aware of any way we can prevent constructive editors from leaving or never joining the topic area due to the presence of highly combative, tendentious and/or sharp-tongued editors. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is a fairly straightforward solution to your concern: the editor in question can take a less combative and sharp-tongued approach. This has been a learning experience, and I will make that shift with or without sanctions. In this context, I don’t know what additional benefit sanctions can be expected to achieve. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Newimpartial, you've mentioned this being a learning experience. However, I have no reason to trust you when you are still bludgeoning this thread. Promises tend to be kept when you are being forced to keep them, and would much rather have you successfully appeal for a removal of the sanctions in a few months or years rather than have to revisit this whole issue in a month or two. My ban from ANI (see block log) was immensely helpful to my growth as an editor and that's why I believe sanctions could work in your case as well. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Your proposal that my participating in my own ANI was somehow problematic and should be limited was rejected by the community and WP:SNOW closed. I recognize that I have bludgeoned at least a few times per year since joining Wikipedia, and I know this needs to change. That behaviour wasn't limited to GENSEX topics and seldom touched on BLP issues at all. Therefore, the idea that a GENSEX TBAN is necessary to prevent future disruption - well, I don't really have a history of causing disruption before now, and it is clear that if I do so, I will face serious sanctions. No need to revisit this whole issue in a month or two. Each of us learn in our own way, and while I respect your own "hard knocks" experience I don't feel that I need to follow your path. Soneine UNINVOLVED will surely decide. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ixtal: Can't reply to someone without replying to them. The problem with bludgeoning isn't just the large number of replies. It's that these replies are in some way or another "disruptive". According to WP:BLUDGEON: "bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.". Here at ANI, Newimpartial is the actual focus of this discussion, so we can't call it bludgeoning the same way we would if this were an article talk page. Where has Newimpartial "attempted to force their point of view"? Where has Newimpartial "contradicted every viewpoint that is different from their own?" I can see they've been agreeing to some fault in the case but they also need to defend themselves. We can't simply assume the accusations are true and then try to stop the accused from defending themselves by referring to their defenses as "bludgeoning". — Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nythar, I disagree on not being able to call it bludgeoning, although I understand that comes from a subjective difference of opinion. I am known to have much lower requirements to call behavior disruptive compared to other editors and acknowledge my bias in the case of this editor due to my previous interactions with them. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 01:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  In past conflict areas on-wiki, I've seen patterns where one editor getting sanctioned (especially a prolific one) attracts more uninvolved administrator attention to that topic area and makes it easier to see other disruptive influences and remove them quickly. Given how "noisy" the past few days have been across a wide swathe of noticeboards, that seems likely to happen here as well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have seen some of that at the BLP article that touched this off, and I can only hope that is the effect. But unlike short-term attention, long-term experience (as with the discussions that went into the 2020-23 revisions to MOS:GENDERID) is not easily replaced. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  will use this as an opportunity to launch one of the long-theatened RfCs on key topics - I have no idea what possible RfC(s) this could be referring to, but: isn't it rather strange to view the possibility of an RfC - getting wider community input - as a bad thing? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Depends on the context I think. When mishandled, RfCs can be problematic. For a prime example, the November 2021 RfC for the J. K. Rowling lead caused issues both in the subsequent FAR, and in other discussions since then as we all felt that we were pretty much unable to write a new version due to how many editors contributed to the RfC.

  I'm not sure what RfC's that Newimpartial is alluding too here though. But I would generally say "no surprise RfCs please like we (royal content area we) have a habit of doing. Lets workshop them on the relevant talk pages first." Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. @Newimpartial has defamed people by using bad sources in an attempt to "win" Wikipedia. Newimpartial does not take advice from editors who disagree with their bad decisions until they "lose" at a noticeboard. And they only agree after spamming the noticeboard with the same arguments a ton of times. They should never be allowed to edit articles about gender or gender activists until they stop trying to "win" by defaming people and using bad sources. Maine 🦞 16:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  My reflections about the changes I need to make are found here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

*Oppose If we're going to ban Newimpartial, it is time to just nuke the entire topic area and ban every editor involved. That might say more about the topic area than the editor, but that doesn't mean it's not true. With the timing this also feels more like this discussion and the !votes on it originate more out of newimpartial's defense of another editor above than out of a legitimate concern regarding their editing. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• • Really starting to get frustrated by all these users who come here to cast oppose !votes with no indication of even bothering to read what the discussion is about. Again, it's based on the bludgenoning of WP:RSN and trying to squeeze in clearly unreliable sources. I get it, you like Newimpartial. For the record "I like this person" is not a carte blanche to violate policies. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    To be clear, I stopped trying to squeeze in the source prior to the RSN filing. What happened at RSN was that I thought the SPS, from a known organization with a track record of self-publication, could be used to provide material not subject to the heightened requirements of WP:BLP. I did bludgeon that discussion, but then recognized that the community does not see the situation the same way. I have recognized that I was wrong and this issue is not an "ongoing disruption" anywhere.

    If you look at both the support and oppose !votes on your TBAN proposal, you will see that none of them actually envisage that I will disrupt RSN again (I won't) or defend the reliability of Anarchist blogs (I won't). Many of the "TBAN indef" votes allege a pattern of POV editing on my part (which they do not in any way support), and nobody seems especially interested in disputing whether or not I goofed at RSN and the edits preceding that. I messed up, I won't do it again, and few editors seem interested in litigating that - perhaps because sanctions are about prevention, and that case doesn't require any additional preventative measures. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    You dropped this in the middle of an active discussion about a similar issue with the same editors being involved, of course some editors are going to feel like the two three discussions are in some way related. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Licks-rocks "nuke the entire topic area and ban every editor involved" is an unfair painting of the amount of good editing and good editors in GENSEX topics, and such a broadbrush contributes nothing towards aiding in sorting the problems that do need to be sorted. I have to agree with Jeppiz's frustration. Followup at #Stern talking to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN I have never been particularly impressed with Newimpartial's edits to the topic area when they came up at ANI threads or at ArbCom, and they clearly haven't improved. Conduct like theirs just generates more heat and makes it harder to write good articles, not easier; editors can consider it "removing pieces from the board", but that's frankly often how a lot of disputes get turned into something productive. Enforced time outs are realistically one of the few tools we have for improving consensus building efforts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  If your goal is an enforced time out, perhaps you could suggest how long of a ban it would take for me to demonstrate that the set of behavioural changes I outline here has, in fact, taken hold? Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• I support an anti-bludgeoning restriction along the lines proposed by Tamzin -- two comments per discussion thread per day (no exceptions) seems very reasonable. I think this sanction would get much closer to the heart of the problem than a TBan. --JBL (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction Trying to remove your ideological opponents is a shitty tactic and those doing so should really think about how transparent they look. Note: I'm not really talking about the OP here. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support FINITE topic ban of GENSEX pages and FINITE bludgeoning ban . I think two comments per discussion per day as proposed by Tamzin (possibly three per day) is very reasonable. Their conduct in discussions has been uncivil for quite some time as shown by others above. However, Newimpartial has shown some remorse and for that reason I strongly oppose an indefinite ban. My recommendation is 90 days. Frank Anchor 23:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support a stern telling off, mainly per Tewdar, who knows this situation better than most. I wouldn't strenuously object to an anti-bludgeoning sanction, and I hope to see NI adhere mostly to the bounds of that restriction even if it isn't enacted. I oppose any TBANS or blocks. We absolutely should hope for experienced editors to be as receptive to feedback as NI has been here, and I wouldn't jump to blocking unless there are signs that they return to bad behavior after saying all the right things. There's no sign of that from NI, and the mud being slung about prior sanctions is too dry to stick. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite gensex topic ban, due to the years-long pattern of tendentious reverting, argumentation, bludgeoning, and edit warring as explained and documented above and below. It has continued despite pushback and correction from other editors. I will share more evidence that this is a pattern of behavior tomorrow; however I wanted to at least state this in case someone was inclined to close this too soon. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's the evidence I have, although my impression above is not based solely on these diffs, as I did not always keep track of such diffs:

[133] - endorses a blatant personal attack on another editor. [134] - casts aspersions on those they disagreed with in an RfC as having "attacked" trans editors (which if true, would entail a noticeboard report and swift block of the attackers, not impugning RfC comments).

[135][136][137] - three times calls RfC participants they disagreed with "zombies".

[138] - absurdly claims WP:SYNTH does not apply if someone off-wiki has made a statement even if it was made in a non-RS, even though SYNTH and WP:NOR explicitly are about reliable sources and the clear ridiculousness of getting around SYNTH if some rando said something in some social media post somewhere (this should be viewed in the context above of other 'creative' interpretations of policies like BLP, RS, and GNG).

[139] - personalizes dispute, attacks editor.

[140] - another personal attack mid-discussion.

[141] - another snide attack.

[142] - says editor 'disagrees with consensus reality'.

[143] - mocks editor's careful explanation of concern, falsely calls it a 'one-against-many' crusade.

[144] - aspersions and baseless attack mid-discussion.

[145][146][147] - attacks the same editor three times in 30 minutes while replying to someone else.

[148][149] - absurdly claims that an article on "anti-trans rhetoric" and trans-exclusionary radical feminism is "in scope" for the Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences to argue it is one of the highest quality references on the topic of J. K. Rowling.

[150] - dismisses comment by editor due to their comment in a different discussion, an ad hominem.

Other evidence of disruptive behavior and argumentation is elsewhere in this ANI discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Without irony, Crossroads, thank you for being focused on diffs that are well-selected and relevant, selected from almost 18 months of editing. A couple of these diffs represent discussions of sourcing and content within Wikipedia policy and guidelines ([151][152]) - but the rest of them all show exactly the kind of behaviour I have to stop. This exemplifies the reality I have already recognized about the changes I have to make - none of the rhetorical barbs I used or "clever" comments made any contribution to building an encyclopaedia. I will not do that from now on.

However, I would like to point out that my inappropriate Talk participation is sadly not limited to GENSEX topics. My interchange with JoelleJay that culminated here (and I was ruder before) is a good example, as was my meta-discussion with Colin on my Talk, which was prompted by a GENSEX discussion but wasn't really about that topic at all. My tendency towards incivility has not been tied to any one topic and has certainly not served any WP:ADVOCACY on my part; it is just bad editing in Talk space.

So, yeah, you have provided a good list of examples of what not to do again. I won't. The goal of editor sanctions, however, is to prevent future disruption, and I don't see anything in your diffs that would make a TBAN - much less an indef TBAN - a necessary or even helpful sanction to achieve that goal. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency and those who may not be following closely, some of Crossroads's diffs are the ones I also refer to below in #Stern talking to; that is, there is some overlap here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support tban and bludgeoning remedy - per the behavior in this discussion. The inability to see that the sources they want to use are not appropriate for using in connection to a BLP and the continued IDHT behavior about that is what makes me support the tban. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth, my "hearing" of where my behaviour went wrong has been expressed repeatedly in my responses to this filing (and also here). I get that the community does not approve the use of SPS in that way, and I won't do it again. So I don't understand what you mean by WP:IDHT in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  It took what... three days and being dragged to ANI before you recognized what should have been obvious within the first 12 hours? And frankly, your reply that you cite doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that you really get the issue with trying to use that source - I do not get the feeling that you really understand that the guiding principle of BLP is that we err on the side of caution in all aspects - if something is iffy, we leave it out. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth, the second time I restored the stable content with the anarchist blog source to Article space, I then made my first comment on the topic in Talk and did not restore that source again. So I get that I shouldn't have restored it at all, but I did recognise (before any meaningful discussion had taken place) that it would be inappropriate to re-add that source, and to err on the side of caution, even while I argued that the content in question was not about a living person and that therefore SPS could be used. I shouldn't have compounded my initial error by following that sourcing discussion to other noticeboards, and I have reflected here on the needed change in my approach. But WP:IDHT doesn't seem to be a shoe that fits - unless you're talking about my continuing participation in the noticeboards, but that is part of the problem I set out to address in the comment I just linked. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Upon reflection, there certainly are aspects of the situation I have been slow to hear, and which I am now in the process of hearing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from WP:GENSEX, boardly construed, and support anti-bludgeoning restriction per Jeppiz, Red-tailed hawk, and Sideswipe9th. As an uninvolved editor, the case is pretty clear-cut. GretLomborg (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Of the three editors cited here, only one supports an indefinite topic ban. Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  So? My !vote is my own, I cited them because of their rationales and explainations, not because I was exactly following their !votes to the letter. To reiterate, the time period I support is indefinite, based on what I've seen. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef GENSEX t-ban. This has been a very long time coming, and the awful behavior has been tolerated for so long only because so many of us essentially agree with Newimpartial's pushed and pushed and pushed socio-political viewpoint. This is not an endless battleground for viewpoint-pushing and it has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have not been "pushing a socio-political viewpoint", nor has any evidence been produced here to that effect. I don't think that's what this ANI filing has been about, really. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  JoelleJay's, Crossroads's, and SandyGeorgia's diff lists are sufficient for now, though I would produce a deeper one. I'll save the effort for ArbCom, where I think your behavior will almost inevitably be examined if the current proceeding fails to come to a significant enough sanction to protect the project long-term from that behavior, which is only problematic across the GENSEX topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef GENSEX t-ban. I'm not involved in this topic or with this editor, but the examples cited here are clearly show WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. If this editor is able to avoid this type of behavior on other topics then eventually this ban could be lifted. Nemov (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN of any length per AndyTheGrump, but favor it being finite for reasons laid out by FireFangledFeathers. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• On the fence, still observing. I've laid out my main thoughts at #Stern talking to, and NI has responded with what seems to be real contrition and recognition of the issues. On the one hand, such acknowledgement is rarely seen here; recognition and contrition could be one route to lowering the toxicity at ANI, and I am loathe to overlook it. On the other hand, I just don't know NI well enough to say if they will be able to stick to their expressed intent. And, reading through this thread, it seems as if some sort of ban is already in the cards. I am hoping if a ban is enacted, it is not indefinite. Someone who has seen and acknowledged the damage in the content area of disruptive editing can be a good advocate for change; is NI the person who can do that? I don't know. But all this chest pounding about the influx of blah blah blah to this content area overlooks that every content area is in trouble on Wikipedia right now, so we still have to discourage bad behavior, while rewarding policy-compliant behavior. We have plenty of editors in this area who are policy compliant, yet everytime GENSEX comes up, we hear this chest pounding. Be part of the change you want to see. With a few more days of observation, I will feel in a better position to state whether NI's contrition and recognition of the problems can be a force for change, but I'm not yet ready to support or oppose a ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose sanction, support logged warning. I have to say, some of the comments by Newimpartial are not so good. Newimpartial is tilting in some of these, comments that appear to veer into questioning the basis of policy and what I would call, hectoring. That being said, Newimpartial is a user since 2008 with 20k+ edits and only one block in 2019 for edit warring, and I have seen Newimpartial around before and they seemed to make good comments and good edits, so I think they are worth giving a formal logged warning with a short leash and not jump to topic ban someone who makes mostly productive contributions in a topic. Andre🚐 00:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban on GENSEX Per the many diffs displaying Battleground/Uncivl/IDHT behavior. They can appeal in 6 months, there are thousands of eyes on the topic area, it'll be ok. Arkon (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban per the sustained battleground mentality and bludgeoning in the gensex area. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, insufficient evidence of a sustained topic-wide problem at the level that would require one. Many of the diffs listed (outside of bludgeoning on a single article) amount to editors disagreeing with Newimpartial's conclusions, and are no more personal or battleground-ish than is normal from anyone who heavily edits a controversial topic area. If we topic-banned everyone who eg. described an edit as a whitewash or noted the unfortunate existence of factions among editors in the topic area, we would have virtually no long-term editors in controversial topic areas left; and certainly many of the people advocating a topic ban on those grounds do not have clean hands in that regard. It simply isn't the sort of evidence needed to leap straight to a topic ban for an editor who has an otherwise (basically) clean record. --Aquillion (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support tban per Ixtal, Colin, and Levivich, among others. I am also concerned by the statement I get that obstreporousness is in my toolbox, but I am also able to play nicely with others. - being difficult to deal with should not be a tool used to win disputes, and the fact that Newimpartial considers it to be such a tool is concerning.

I weakly oppose the blugeoning restriction; I have concerns both that it will not control the problematic behaviour and that it could be abused by editors in disputes with NewImpartial. BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't regard obstreporousness as a tool used to win disputes; it is more like a bad habit I have to consciously act to break, but which is always there (maybe more a liquor store around the corner than a tool in a toolbox) if I cease to be mindful.

On the other hand, playing nicely with others is also there as a good habit I have to remember to maintain; I believe my edit history shows a good deal more of the latter than the former, though I know you've seen me in instances when obstreporousness was on full display.

I'm also curious how long a TBAN you have in mind... Newimpartial (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying regarding obstreperousness; I have struck that comment.

For the length of the TBAN; historically I've preferred indefinite, as editors can wait out time limited bans without improving their behavior, but in this case your comments have already addressed some of the concerns that lead me to that position.

Overall, I think I weakly prefer indefinite, with an explicitly defined very short appeal period (maybe two months?) to allow you to demonstrate improved behaviour and successfully appeal without editors objecting that the appeal is too soon. I suspect this will result in you returning to the topic area faster than time-limited ban.

However, without such a definition of an appeal period I would prefer a time limited one; three or six months seems reasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support a 6-month gensex topic ban. I do not like banning any editor from topics they have contributed extensively to; however, there are just so many warnings an editor can receive before a line is finally drawn and a bullet is bitten. I would like to remind everyone in this discussion about the Universal Code of Conduct and Unacceptable behaviour > Insults: "In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.". The only way to finally (hopefully) rectify this behavior is by a temporary topic ban.
  Newimpartial: you know very well that in many talk page discussions you mock and ridicule editors you disagree with. You've dismissed it as joking. Many see is as bullying because it is aggressive behavior camouflaged as humor; and you do it over and over again, and you've gotten away with it over and over again. WP:BLUDGEON states: "bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." -- this is a pattern that has become predictable and second-nature. It needs to stop. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 08:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it does have to stop. I agree and will a stop it, as described below. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Tentatively support 3-6 month TBAN, oppose permanent TBAN, mainly due to comments I perceived as combative or unnecessarily personal, unrelated to bludgeoning, that I don't believe have been addressed. For example, NI accused me of being another editor's "collaborator" and "coordinating" with that editor in a content dispute (a form of meat-puppetry); when I'd never encountered that editor before and didn't know them from Adam or Eve. All I did was support holding an RFC and fix it to make it neutral. I've also seen NI make disrespectful or insulting comments towards other editors, in edit summaries, or in some replies (which may, in some cases, be misguided attempts at playfulness, but it's uncomfortably hard to tell).

I hope that Newimpartial will take it in stride and meditate on this discussion. This type of conduct, regardless of intent, is part of the reason why I, probably like others, mostly stay away from contentious topic areas. DFlhb (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've changed my mind from oppose to support, after reflection, and significantly rewritten my comment above (wasn't yet replied to), since I think leniency would hurt NI more than it would help them. A short cool-off would be beneficial, not for punitive purposes, but because the core problem across all these diffs seems to be excessive emotional involvement in Wikipedia. For example, take NI's comments on Sideswipe9th's page (I'm losing all respect for your judgment of conduct issues and it will be a very cold civility). I'm lenient, but not that lenient; those comments are just hurtful, and borderline manipulative. Taking a step back from the biggest "triggers" will hopefully help NI reflect, change, and stay out of trouble over the long-run.

And re: the recent RSN discussion: it's self-evident that all statements in BLPs must follow WP:BLP. I don't know whether a temporary BLP TBAN or GENSEX TBAN would be most appropriate, but agree with Sideswipe9th on basically all points, including the fact that a permanent TBAN would likely be detrimental to the POV balance of the overall encyclopaedia. An ArbCom case investigating the overall topic area is indeed likely called for. DFlhb (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support gensex topic ban and bludgeoning remedy - The bludgeoning and tendentious arguments waste too much editor time, and despite people trying, I don't think anything else is going to work, since the bludgeoning of this thread continues. Suggestions that this is a mob trying to win a content dispute, that bludgeoning is just fervent argument, or that anyone was baited, have no basis, and are the reason I've come off the fence on this one. I think Gensex, not BLPs, is the right topic area per Levivich. Also endorse that NI has defamed people (BLPs) by using bad sources in an attempt to "win" Wikipedia. Newimpartial does not take advice from editors who disagree with their bad decisions until they "lose" at a noticeboard. And they only agree after spamming the noticeboard with the same arguments a ton of times as accurately recorded by Maine Lobster above. NI seems incapable of NOT bludgeoning every discussion, as evidenced on this ANI and in diffs. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban. Newimpartial's self reflection shows they have taken the community's concerns to heart. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN, support stern talking-to. I'm largely agreeing with DanielRigal here. My battery is about to die so I might expand later. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban upto and including indefinite from WP:GENSEX and support anti-bludgeoning restriction. This isn't an area I edit in so I'm certainly not here to "remove an ideological apponent". Reading through this thread and some of the provided diffs what I see, quite frankly, is clear combatative pov-pushing from someone who doesn't know when to drop the stick. How many potential new editors have been (or will be) put off when they get bludgeoned and wiki-lawyered at every step? It's toxic. The sourcing issue around the BLP vio and the accompanying arguments make me wonder whether they should be editing BLP's either.--DSQ (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban (prefer 3–6-month ban) & support anti-bludgeoning restriction. The evidence here is pretty cut and dry regarding the NI's actions. I generally don't like indefinite topic bans but won't object if it is decided that it is needed. I understand this is a sensitive topic and NI does seem to understand that they are wrong and wants to improve (which is why I think it should only be a temp ban), but it is also pretty clear that this is not an isolated incident despite repeated warnings. Having them take time off and edit less heated areas should be good for both them and the topic. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That was my intention. As OP, I never supported an indef tban or a block, just a temporary time-out. Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and OP comment

When I started this thread, I had no idea it would turn into this. I do not edit in the LGBTQ-area (though vocally pro-LGBTQ in real life) and do not know the editors in that topic area. I though and still think this was a pretty simple case. At WP:RSN, I saw a user (Newimpartial) trying to pass off an obviously unsuitable source and then WP:BLUDGEON the ensuing discussion at length. I am sorry to see so many users above showing no indication of even having read the discussion. I count at least four users above who simply argue along the lines of Newimpartial is great and any effort to tban them is bigoted without a word about the report or the case at WP:RSN; one even suggesting a boomerang without the slightest indication of what the reasons would be. The only possible explanation I can see is that these users believe that sanctions at WP should not be based on behavior but on whom our "friends" are. At least they have not offered any other explanation for their oppose votes than their opinion that Newimpartial is great and anyone saying otherwise is bigoted (I recognize, of course, that some other users have opposed my suggestion with perfectly relevant and policy-related arguments). I must say I find it deeply ironic that these same users claim my suggestion for a temporary tban is mob-behavior, while acting this way themselves. It would be immensely helpful if editors would comment on the actual situation at WP:RSN. Finally, for what it's worth, I do not consider Newimpartial an 'opponent' in any way and don't remember even one interaction with them apart from this one case related to WP:RS. I proposed a temporary tban in the hope of seeing them return. Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The situation at RSN is that I disengaged, albeit uneasily, from the discussion I was bludgeoning. I will not be bludgeoning again, and would also welcome a 30 day, three month, or six month TBAN from RSN as a mental health break. Even my blugeoning comments at the article Talk page are better to be understood as anarchist source issues rather than GENSEX or BLP issues, and you won't be hearing my small-minority view on those sources on-wiki again, either.

There simply is no continuing RSN disruption arising from me for ANI to manage, nor will there be in future. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Reply by Newimpartial

Added statement (to save editors' time)

* for those who wonder how I made such a blunder in the sourcing of the BLP article that I restored the blog source twice into article space, the long version is here. I will not be doing that, or anything like it, again.

* for those concerned about my history of BLUDGEON, and who are concerned that a bludgeon restriction (which I welcome) would be insufficient to prevent disruption because of my tendency to personalize disputes, my reflections on what I need to change are [153]. The changes I am committed to go well beyond simply not making multiple comments.

(End of added statement)

Original statement:

Jeppiz, I made a total of three reverts to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, none of which included any contentious BLP material, and all of which were article text that was part of the article's stable version. There were no BLP violations, as far as I can see. In fact, At the time, I did not see any {(tq|BLP violations}}, and I removed any some questionable material when I reverted. Now, it turned out that one source that I reverted-in was an WP:RSOPINION piece, which nobody seemed to notice until it was pointed out by Levivich; if I had noticed that I would not have used it. The other source was an anarchist blog but I did not insert accusations, or any form of insert what am understood at the time to be BLP content to the article. Clearly I misread one source and also misread community sentiment on the other, but I did not do the thing you accuse me of. (Also, since my mistaken reverts, other editors have reverted to remove material from the article that is sources to WP:RS anarchist publications, also not including any contentious material.) Would I revert again, under similar circumstances? No, I would not - I should have let the dust settle on Talk.

And yes, I bludgeoned that RSN discussion. I was frustrated at other editors interpteting WP:BLP as though it required that non-contentious, non-biographical information in BLP articles could not be sourced to SPS other than ABOUTSELF sources. I regret becoming invested in that discussion and would not do so again. It was not a positive for the community.

I have no doubt that editors who have been frustrated with my contributions in the past will seize the opportunity to try to remove an opponent from the GENSEX domain express their frustration as the !vote on this filing. I encourage the admin and the community to look at my contributions as a whole, however: I never edit against consensus, I always explain my actions as clearly as I can, and I do a large number of the shitty reverts agaist drive-by POV accounts who aim to taunt and belittle trans and nonbinary people like me at every opportunity - and I do so calmly and politely almost to a fault. Anyone who suggests that it is especially my contributions that disrupt GENSEX editing is probably either occupying an uncompromising POV of their own or just hasn't really examined my edit history. Having annoyed some editors who disagree with me on various things is not really the same thing as causing disruption to enwiki. My participation in the noticeboard discussions that followed my reverts was disruptive, but this disruption was confined to WP:IDHT on noticeboards and was not related to the WP:GENSEX topic in any profound way.

I would also point out, as a nonbinary editor, after all of the misgendering and gender-based innuendos, personal attacks, and accusations of POV that I have received over the years, it might be understandable if I had become a somewhat partisan editor. However, I really don't think that's what my record says - I continue to base my edits on the BALANCE of sources, especially high-quality sources, in strict accordance with WP's P&G. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC) added comment by Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Additional statement added by Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Redaction and replacement based on my reflection over thsee three days, by Newimpartial (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• • Short reply to Newimpartial. To the best of my knowledge, we never interacted before; your insinuation that my report is because of "frustration with your contributions" is inaccurate. My report is based only on your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in the past days. I don't know your past contributions and can have no issue with them. The report concerns your recent behavior and nothing else. Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    • That comment was not about you, it was about the other editors I expect will continue to join this discussion.
    • If your concern is limited to the BLUDGEON and the BLP reverts, I won't be doing either of those things again, so you don't need to be concerned. I see that I have gone past the community norm, and that won't be repeated. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think accusing editors of voting for a TBAN as trying to remove an opponent (something you have asserted twice in two separate discussions on ANI today) is simply an accusation of bad faith, and refusing to get the point. — Czello 23:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Upon reflection, Czello, you are right that my comment was not constructive and that I missed some key aspects of the filing. I have redacted that and similar comments above, and you have my apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you recognising this, thank you. — Czello 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Czello, I'm not a "whataboutist" by nature, but remember last month when you twice [154] [155] reverted to insert a pretrtransition photo in a Trans BLP infobox and also inserted a non-notable birth name into an article against both the relevant guideline and Talk page consensus? Both of those seemed like BLP issues to me, but when I responded with the new CTOP template - no accusations, no threats - you got all huffy.

aww:So you find me accused of a less sensitive kind of BLP issue, you push for an indefinite topic ban, and I am not supposed to think you are treating me as an opponent? How would you characterize the contrast between your letting yourself off the hook and your desire to see me sanctioned, then? I am no more likely to add content from anarchist blogs than you are to add pretransition photos to infoboxes, but for some reason you feel I require a spanking TBAN... Newimpartial (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

And after the relevant guideline (not policy, keep in mind) was shown to me, I immediately thanked the person who showed linked it, closed my own thread on whether the photo should be there, and let the matter drop without complaint. If you think a mild disagreement on a trans BLP means we're opponents, that's unfortunate - but I think that mentality is exactly why this TBAN proposal exists. How do you account for the other people supporting a TBAN? Are they also your opponents? — Czello 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Czello, I am here at ANI facing accusations of 3RRBLP violations based on the same number of reverts, concerning less sensitive material, than you introduced at Gabbi Tuft. Yes, I bludgeoned the ensuing discussion and yes, I was wrong to do so. But in this discussion I see a pile-on from a long list of editors I have disagreed with on GENSEX issues - and barring one who accused me of psychological abuse, without any evidence, none of the others have even cited a WP:CIVIL violation.

There isn't any evidence of DISRUPTION on my part aside from BLUDGEON, and I recognise I have to stop bludgeoning both for the sake of the community and for my own, quite apart from any sanction or ban. But for the editors like you, calling for an indef TBAN on gender and sexuality - what is that, besides either (1) punishing an editor for causing annoyance in the past or (2) removing someone who might make annoying arguments in future? I can't see any way in which the actual health of the project would be improved through a TBAN, given the frequency with which I reinforce and calmly explain our policy framework within this domain. I'm not saying other editors can't do this work, but I've been doing a lot of it, and to see editors I've disagreed with set that aside to remove my voice from the topic - well, some of them are clearly treating me as opponents, is all. If you can reflect internally and don't feel you are, that's great, but would you have !voted as you did if you hadn't disagreed with me in prior GENSEX discussions? Really? Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In answer to your final question - you may not believe me, but yes, I'm afraid I would have. To be honest, last week's disagreement is something I consider to be pretty mild (perhaps you don't, as you've mentioned it to my count four times now) and I even concede that you had the right guidelines where I did not. I don't hold any hard feelings there. Instead my belief that this is the right vote is based on longer trends I've noticed that others have echoed, particularly around a battlefield mentality on a topic area that clearly means a lot to you. Even where I'm not involved in the discussion (I actually can't remember many instances we've interacted other than last week) I still notice the things others have described in this discussion. The biggest issue I've noticed in the past 24 hours, though, is the assumptions of bad faith. You've said we're trying to "remove an opponent", assuming this is part of some ideological battle, or reacted with hostility to what was most likely an accident. It doesn't help the idea that there's a battleground mentality, which goes back my original statement of until such time they can separate their personal beliefs from their Wikipedia editing. I don't consider you an opponent, but I fear you consider me one. — Czello 13:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is your idea of me "reacting with hostility" to being misgendered, then you clearly haven't been following my story arc - there as a time when I might have reacted with hostility, but that was a mild rebuke at best.

The thing about the TBAN !votes here is that, in essentially every case, I can follow the interaction tool back to the instance when I pissed off the editor in question. Often that was my RSN BLUDGEON the other day, sometimes it was back to my controversial reading of WP:SIGCOV or a dispute over an article lead from years ago. But there is almost always one inciting incident where I pissed the editor off, and some of those relate to GENSEX but many do not, or only tangentially.

Do these editors consider me an opponent? I don't read minds; I have no real way of knowing. Do I consider them "opponents"? Not really. But while I don't see any likelihood of future disruption to be prevented by a TBAN, I do see a longish line of editors who feel that I "deserve" one because of disagreements I've had with them in the past. I know that's how ANI works - I'm not naïve - but it's not how the relevant P&Gs are supposed to work, and it makes me sad. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I did consider the first sentence to be hostile for what was an accident, but Colin below makes a fair point - I won't belabour the point and I understand you're probably getting it from all sides here, so I regret linking that. I apologise if this caused you distress. I think it's probably best, to avoid going round in circles, that I leave this thread here for now. I've made the points I intended to make; we may agree to disagree on editors' motivations in participating in this discussion. Have a good one. — Czello 13:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Czello, I see you linked to Newimpartial's reaction to my pronoun mistake. I checked your user page and don't see any comments about pronouns or being trans or non-binary, so I'll assume you are not. Please don't lecture members of another minority group about how upset they should or should not be when someone causes them offense and upset over an aspect of their identity. That incident, though accidental, was careless on my part and should overall be treated as a negative mark against me. Remember also this is AN/I and Newimpartial is being dragged over the coals, so they should be cut a little slack if their response to that sort of thing is of the "Oh FFS" variety. -- Colin°^Talk 13:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

none of which included any contentious BLP material. That you still state this, despite nearly all editors at the three discussion pages (including myself) saying the material contentious, is disconcerting. What is or isn't contentious can be subjective, and definitely something tainted by each of our individual viewpoints, certainly. Hence, it is easy to see one BRD cycle involving possibly contentious BLP material, but this should lead to a consensus agreement if the material is contentious or not and settle that manner. It seems that you have decided to double down against the consensus that the material added wasn't BLP contentious, which definitely does not help a case against inf def from the BLP space or any subset of it. I know we have had to de with editors in the past that initially refuse to accept some material as not being contentious, and thus removing material against consensus, but most if the big cases I recall, there was a consensus to determine that and said editors accepted it, even if they personally still thought it contentious. That lack of accepting that consensus is troubling. Masem (t) 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

non-contentious, non-biographical information - the material in question was about some egregious behavior from the subject's supporters, included in the subject's article because they are her supporters. Adding material to a BLP about the kind of person who supports the subject is obviously relevant to the BLP policy. Further, as multiple people have challenged the material, it's obviously contentious. It's a plausible misreading of policy, but one which was pointed out multiple times before the above statement, which is just kind of perplexing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not reinstate the material in question after multiple people had challenged it. Also, the relevant question for future disruption is Would I reinstate similar content in future and the answer is No, I would not. I haven't had issues with BLP editing in the past, and I won't in the future. This was a one-time aberration. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I had asked you to self-revert, AnimalParty had objected to the source, and then you simply deleted my request on your talk page asking you to self-revert by denying anything was wrong with the material. Even after multiple editors had objected to the sourcing, you doubled down on the source's reliability with extremely dubious reasoning that flies in the face of WP:RS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

My final revert to include material from this source was at 20:37; AnimalParty's objection was 20 minutes later. While I continued to BLUDGEON disagree with the two of you, I did not re-add that content again, once it became clear that multiple editors objected. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

They need to take a walk around the block, drink some coffee, do the Sad Keanu, and get their head on straight. Sennalen (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, Rhododendrites, I now understand that the community expects essentially all objections to the addition or re-addition of material in BLP articles to be subject to WP:BLPRESTORE. I was in error not to have recognised this, and will abide by it in future in all cases (whether or not covered by other CTOP sanctions). Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Note to closer - this would be a good instance to try to distinguish involved from uninvolved !votes. A simple interaction check will confirm that most of the !votes opposing sanctions come from editors I haven't interacted with (many of whom I don't know), while the !votes in favor of sanctions come from editors who would show recent interactions with me (mostly on GENSEX topics, yet no actual evidence of ADVOCACY on my part has been presented). I believe that the opinion of uninvolved Administrators is the gold standard in assessing the likelihood of future disruption. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that AN/I should only look at the opinions of those who had never interacted with you till today? You earlier claimed about the ban votes: "in essentially every case, I can follow the interaction tool back to the instance when I pissed off the editor". You're kinda saying "The more people get to know me, the more they are likely to request that they don't have to work with me again". That you've managed to "piss off" everyone you've worked with on the project and that all the sanction votes are bad faith grudges. I'm sure some of them may be coming from editors trying to remove a piece from the board. That comes with the territory. But plenty votes are coming from editors who are, frankly, on the same side of the board. Note that the opinion of "Administrators" counts no higher than the opinion of "editors". They get to play with more buttons, that's all. -- Colin°^Talk 16:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't express this well, but my understanding is that closure and/or enforcement is to be carried out by uninvolved admin. Obviously everyone can have a say in the discussion.

But I do still feel that people who !vote because they are annoyed with their interaction with someone are seldom the best judges of the likelihood that that person will contribute to future disruption. Frankly, I get that my tendency to be argumentative - not just the fact of bludgeon, but my style of comment - has led to this drama. I have to edit differently.

But if you read the indef TBAN votes with any kind of critical distance, I don't think you'll see any sober evaluation of editor contribution versus likelihood of disruption - rather, it amounts to "this editor has been bad and should be removed". I don't see a consideration there that is relevant to our behavioural norms - yes, I have been bad, I see how I have been bad, and I want to be better. And I'm also concerned that my being excluded from that area will remove some experience and nuance that I carry from situations where I can help. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

If you can point me to an AN/I that contained a "sober evaluation of editor contribution versus likelihood of disruption" I'd be surprised. NewImpartial, Sandy below highlighted the importance of friends not letting friends get to the stage where they are at AN/I facing sanctions. Here's some examples: "I would rather all editors on that page upped their game than got their editing rights curtailed.... A battle about what the LGB Alliance once said in a deleted tweet is not something you want to be earning diffs on for a topic ban." I advised you about how you were falling into the behaviour outlined at WP:ACTIVIST and said "Compromise is very much about knowing when to back down, and let someone else win an inch, even if you are right." When I came to warn you about edit warring I wrote "I really am not going to be the editor taking you to AE or AN/I or filing any reports. So this isn't a threat-warning, it is a for crying out loud, Newimpartial, are you trying to get yourself topic banned warning." And your response was not any kind of acceptance that editing in a topic area with sanctions dangling over it might require a better standard of behaviour than that, but boasts that your edit warring resulted in improved text. Understanding that edit warring is bad is basic stuff, Newimpartial, and you just dug in and kept digging till I ended with "Well its your account, hurtle your self towards a topic ban if that's what you want."

While I see some comments from you of the "I've been bad and will try harder" variety, I haven't really seen any recognition that perhaps the people commenting negatively about you have a point that you need to go away and have a hard think about.

You "being excluded from that area" will indeed remove an experienced editor. But that's the problem. Other editors see an "experienced editor" behaving and acting and editing like you are, filling talk pages with arguments about you said I said you said, edit warring, arguing to keep any old crap they find on the Internet if the can insist the source is reliable, and getting away with it. So they do likewise. I'd rather have an inexperienced editor who made mistakes but was who was open to learn, than an experienced editor who was disruptive and hostile to criticism. -- Colin°^Talk 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: over at RSN Jeppiz asked you if are aware of WP:BLUDGEON and you responded with: No. Is today really the first time you had heard of BLUDGEON or were you just being sly? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not been able to pay consistent attention to pulling away from engaging discussions, to avoid BLUDGEON, and so in that sense I have not been "aware" of it much of the time. After today, however, I will find ways to remain mindful, with or without a sanction being in place.

I actually see the point of a "BLUDGEON restriction" on myself and do not oppose that. But watching editors !vote to ban me from GENSEX for my having bludgeoned about Anarchist blogs and RS publications - a discussion only tangentially related to GENSEX - I find difficult to accept. Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

For a more direct answer to your question than is given above, Newimpartial has received talk page notices and taken place in numerous discussions in which they demonstrated awareness of WP:BLUDGEON, including (but not limited to) the following that I am placing in a collapsible box so as to not take up too much vertical space on the screen:

List of discussions that show Newimpartial is aware of WP:BLUDGEON

Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_11#Bludgeoning_of_D-preference_editors Talk:Anne_Frank/Archive_7#RfC_regarding_the_inclusion_of_content_regarding_Anne's_sexuality Talk:Matt_Walsh_(political_commentator)/Archive_1#Opposes_transgender_and_gay_rights? Talk:Nicole_Maines#Request_for_Comment:_Nicole_Maines'_former_name (see also: This diff, where Newmpartial cautions an editor against BLUDGEONING) User_talk:Newimpartial/Archive1#Just_a_thought User_talk:Jbhunley/Archives/2018/August#ANi User_talk:DeCausa/Archive_9#ANI User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_83 (see also: This diff, where Newimpartial cautions an editor about BLUDGEONing the page)

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support User is a consistent battleground poster who bludgeons, chooses to ignore consensus, tendentiously edits, etc. At some point, whether their cause is good or not, it has to stop.Lulfas (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think there has been a single time when I have chosen to ignore consensus or edited tendentiously. I have bludgeoned Talk discussions, but I won't do so any more, regardless of the outcome here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  You edited tendentiously at Talk:Gender, for one. This discussion and our talk page discussions which I linked to above are where there is evidence of your psychological abuse, intentional or not. This behavior is insidious and unfortunately the entire discussions must be read to be understood; a list of diffs won't do it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't shown evidence that I edited tendentiously at Talk:Gender, for example by moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion.

  I also find it troubling and ironic that you seem unable to discuss this topic without repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations of psychological abuse. I trust that this will be given due consideration in the closing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that I was moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions someone had taken in discussion, or that I have accused you of this? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  The signs of tendentious editing are documented here; the discussion at Talk:Gender relevant to sourcing requirements is at Talk:Gender#Simplified_Definition_2. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I feel psychologically abused. My feelings require no proof other than my statement as a witness. Folks can read the discussions and judge your behavior for themselves.

  It looks like Genericusername57 may have had similar difficulties with you regarding sourcing, based on this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  You didn't say "I felt psychologically abused". You linked to a discussion and said that there was evidence there of psychological abuse. I participated (a little) in that talk page's mega-discussion, and even I don't know where exactly you want us to look. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I said both things. I believe psychological abusive occurred. Regardless, my feeling of experiencing psychological abusive requires no evidence. Newimpartial repeatedly accused me of gaslighting, as the links to their talk page show. I myself felt gaslit throughout that discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Kolya Butternut: I'll grant that others have also cast aspersions, made unproven allegations and generally been uncivil but this seems slightly WP:POINTy and an unnecessary unproductive thread. We see where the editor in question made unfounded gaslighting accusations through the diffs posted, there's no need to redo the argument here and it will help nobody. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Comment withdrawn after further discussion with this editor. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is meant for triggering a conversation rather than me personally wanting an answer. NewImpartial, the issues raised above are broader than just bludgeoning, including interacting with other editors in a battleground manner on contentious topics and advocacy-driven approaches to editing and interaction. Might this be a good time to outline and do a substantial sincere evolution on those things? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have recorded my recent reflections on what I need to do, to limit my argumentative tendencies and to avoid personalizing disputes, on my User Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal on temporary banning Newimpartial from ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose Newimpartial be banned temporarily from ANI for a week. Statements from them can still be shared from their talk page by editors wishing to do so, but their bludgeoning in a thread about their bludgeoning elsewhere will make community discussion on other disruptive behaviour harder. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 01:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support. This could be enforced with a WP:PBLOCK that would allow discussion to continue unimpeded by bludgeoning. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this restriction is transparently silly, authoritarian, and that essentially no amount of replies from a subject at an ANI report about themselves counts as WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment above struck. I had misread the proposal; I would support a one-week PBLOCK as an immediate measure at WP:RSN. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: a user should be able to defend themselves zealously. BLUDGEON should not count in this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest this be withdrawn. Editors under discussion typically have a wide latitude in defending their actions here, and it is likely the closing admin will take this information into account. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. An editor defending themselves against accusations of bludgeoning by bludgeoning the discussion is inadvisable, but we don't have the right to restrict their participation in such a discussion on that basis. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As the OP of the suggestion for a temporary TBAN, I want Newimpartial to be able to take part. Can I also state I bear no ill-will at all to Newimpartial and have seen no uncivil behavior from them. They seem overly invested, and I thought and think a temporary ban may benefit them and the project, but I do want Newimpartial to remain on WP. Jeppiz (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stern talking to

Tewdar mentions at 09:44 22 February that a "stern telling off would probably achieve the desired outcome without any need for topic bans or other restrictions", so that’s where I am coming in. Beginning with:

1. Wikifriends of Newimpartial: please read User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned
2. Editors whose views are aligned with Newimpartial: please remember that the overall disdain that much of the community holds for the nastiness that occurs in the GenSex editing area affects perceptions of everyone who edits there. It is a relief to see that even those who may be aligned with Newimpartial's views are finally willing to stand up to these behaviors.
3. @Buidhe, Beyond My Ken, and ValarianB: I point out to you that both Rhododendrites and Iamreallygoodatcheckers asked clarifying questions rather than entering declarations. Specifically to you, ValarianB: where do you come up with, "This is a mob trying to remove an opponent from the game board", because I’m seeing the opposite (editors whose views align with those of Newimpartial's taking their behaviors to task). See my point 1; is your input really helpful to either Newimpartial or Wikipedia?

So, that’s the stern talking to for editors other than Newimpartial weighing in here.

I disagree with framing this as a bludgeoning issue, as the issue with Newimpartial is combativeness to the point of disruption. I have had fairly extensive interaction with Newimpartial both because of being a medical editor and because of J. K. Rowling, where retaining the FA status is a very rare success story on Wikipedia.

We were able to restore the prototypical GENSEX featured article to status through a months-long Featured article review, and my impression of how and why we were able to do that is that, from the outset, Newimpartial's combativeness was reined in. I found every other editor—of any POV or alignment with trans issues—collaborative and willing to see both sides and work to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines regardless of their personal views.

I am particularly discouraged by this discussion and this recent followup to this ANI thread, as they reflect that Newimpartial is not taking on board—and perhaps not even likely to take on board—the long-standing and serious concerns with their combativeness. I have quite a favorable impression of Sideswipe9th's competence as an editor, having edited extensively around them in both medical content and JKR.

The behavioral problem was exactly what I found early on in the J. K. Rowling FAR. I invite those here who are weighing in as if the concerns here are along "mob" lines to review my experiences in these JKR-related threads and make their own decisions.

• User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch115#Rowling other: January 2022, at the beginning of the JKR FAR. I did not take Newimpartial to arb enforcement here, as I didn’t understand the process well and still hoped things would work out by persistently pointing out to Newimpartial how often they unnecessarily personalized discussions and became combative. That conversation is summed up when Dennis Brown said to Newimpartial: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. It doesn't matter if you agree with the hole or not, it's not your hole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)”. Newimpartial, please reflect on that relative to current concerns about your tendency to not be able to drop the stick.

  In this subsection, if you read through the whole thing, you will find a list of the areas of concern I had with Newimpartial.

• User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch116#Query: March 2022, further along in the JKR FAR. Still having to remind Newimpartial to stop personalizing on the FAR. Read the whole thing; draw your own conclusions.
• Previous topic ban discussion

For the stern talking to, Newimpartial, I experience you as a severely combative editor whose behavior, in my opinion, brings ill-repute to the entire GENSEX area of editing. I have found none of the others intransigent in their views or in their application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Watching the very long-standing issues between you and Crossroads in medical content, before the JKR FAR, I was unsure which of you was at fault for the contention. The JKR FAR indicated to me that the fault lies more with you than with Crossroads. I do not think that either Wikipedia or your fellow editors are best served by allowing you to continue on this path.

Please do not show up on my talkpage with a side discussion about my views (the discussion stays here). Please DO take this as a very stern warning that your conduct is problematic and even those whose views align with yours are telling you it needs to change. Regardless of whether a topic ban is initiated here, you should have at least a 1RR restriction; Colin does not edit war, and you are well advised to listen to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to specify my agreement with your folliwing points (per my Thank, earlier):

• the issue with Newimpartial is combativeness
• We were able to restore the prototypical GENSEX featured article to status through a months-long Featured article review, and my impression of how and why we were able to do that is that, from the outset, Newimpartial's combativeness was reined in.
• That conversation is summed up when Dennis Brown said to Newimpartial: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. It doesn't matter if you agree with the hole or not, it's not your hole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)”.

I grok what you are saying. That is all. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That's welcome progress :) To everyone else lining up to ban or not, again, please read Barkeep's essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, not quite all. In the spirit of the discussion stays here, I'd ask you to read two diffs from earlier today, prior to your thoughtful and heartfelt comment, where I reflect on the ways I've violated community norms and where I specify that "I get that my tendency to be argumentative - not just the fact of bludgeon, but my style of comment - has led to this drama. I have to edit differently." You can count me among those who are telling me that my on-wiki attitude and behaviour need to change. Continuing along this path without taking a less combative approach wouldn't be a positive for anyone, for myself or for the community. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to see progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional reflections about the way I personalize disputes - an onwiki issue I believe you to have been the first to point out to me in those terms - may be found on my User Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• NI, I'm pretty sure we agree more than we disagree. I don't know that we're wiki-friends, but you're one of only a few editors I thought of when I read Barkeep's essay. I'm sorry that I didn't share my thoughts with you earlier. I've supported this "stern telling off" over other sanctions, because I have some confidence that you can listen and change. Even when I agree with you, your prolific responses to main points, side points, tangential points, conduct matters, and straight-up trolling can put me off of talk page discussions. You're not the only one out there turning one-sentence GENSEX content disputes into novellas, but you're a major player. I don't think it'll take an anti-bludgeoning sanction to get this out of you, but it would make me happy to see more "I'd like to address three of the major counterarguments" comments from you, including in this discussion.
  I have more thoughts on your editing patterns, but I don't want to overly add to the barrage of criticism (some constructive) heading your way right now. If you're up for it in a month or so, I'd be happy to talk with you at your user talk or over email. It saddens me to see you here, and I hope you're keeping your spirits up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Whenever you feel would be the right time, I invite your comments on my self-reflection on my User talk. I found your brief comments here quite helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm unaware of any precedent for a bludgeoning restriction in Wikipedia history. The closest I can think of were a number of "civility parole" restrictions placed by Arbcom on a number of editors in the 2006-2010 era, most notably Giano and a similar "belittlement" restriction on The Rambling Man around ~2016. None of them worked out well, being more effectively weaponized by their "enemies" to suppress legitimate dialogue from them and intentionally provoking so they could be sanctioned and leading to more ongoing drama. Many of the editors under those restrictions ended up community banned, partially because they were weaponized against the editor. I don't think anybody wants that here. I'm all for getting creative with sanctions, but I don't think crafting a custom bludgeoning restriction would work very well. I think the standard tool of a topic ban, perhaps carefully crafted to only apply to organizations and BLP material related to GENSEX (to allow a bit more freedom) would probably be more likely to end up with a productive editor and less disruption. I can only speak for myself, but if the sanction I just mentioned were implemented and this editor spent maybe 6 months productively in other topic areas demonstrating that they understood policies on BLP, sourcing, disruptive editing (bludgeoning, IDHT, battleground mentality etc) I would be thrilled to support lifting the hypothetical sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  I seem to detect here a possible willingness on your part to exclude Wikipedia policies and guidelines on GENSEX from a handcrafted GENSEX topic ban. If so, I feel if that could be done it would go some way to relieve one of my concerns expressed above - the loss of experience with the policy history and the possibility that that could be GAMED for POV purposes. However, very many edits I make on GENSEX are reverts of BLP violations through MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME violations; some of those are from IPs or fresh accounts but others, like this recent one by Czello are made by experienced editors. (Incidentally, lest these reverts be seen as one-sided, I also revert to retain MOS-compliant former names of trans people, which I know makes some other trans and bombing editors uncomfortable. But policy is policy.)

  I guess the other objection I have with this form of creativity is that my tendency to BLUDGEON and to personalize disputes is not at all limited to GENSEX topics, as Sennalen and Tewdar (both of whom have commented in this discussion) can attest. The friction I have had with JoelleJay in the past also had nothing to do with the GENSEX topic. So I think the change in approach I describe here may be more to the point. Perhaps "non-argumentative probation", where everyone understands that if I don't change my patterns, I will be sanctioned, would be the most promising strategy from the encyclopaedia's (and the community's) point of view. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And now you are. Copying my response to Newimpartial from User talk:Sideswipe9th to here. Have a look at the baiting personalizing battleground going on between you and Tewdar on your talk under "On being argumentative. Now try to convince me that a) Tewdar has read a single word I wrote; b) Tewdar is not baiting both you and Crossroads; c) Tewdar is not partisan, putting their earlier declaration in perspective; d) Tewdar is acting in your best interest; or e) you took on board a single thing I wrote on my talk page in January and March about unnecessary personalization. Tewdar may have laid the bait, but you wholeheartedly bit. At a time when editors like me are contemplating whether to support or oppose a tban, this is not a good look. Even while under scrutiny, the two of you are unable to avoid bringing up Crossroads, and this is precisely the behavior that makes GENSEX toxic.

In the same vein, Transarchist (an editor I know not) just did the same thing, so I'm likely to enter a declaration there once I finish shoveling snow. The baiting, biting, attacking, personalizing, belittling of other editors needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean; I have put and end to and removed from my Talk the discussion concerned. To paraphrase what Tewdar said earlier, change is hard. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. It's very simple: WP:FOC. And now Tewdar needs to take the stern talking to on board as well, because unless/until this aspect of GENSEX editor behavior changes, y'all are headed for an arbcase. As I pointed out in January and March of 2022, the points can be made without personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

baiting, biting, attacking, personalizing, belittling of other editors sounds like a bit of an overreaction to what was essentially a joke about a potentially lengthy response, no? I don't have a problem with Crossroads actually. After some initial, erm, intensive debates, we get on quite well whenever I encounter him these days, which isn't very often.  Tewdar  20:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant and unhelpful response. In the part of my post you re-quoted, I was speaking generally-- specifically in reference to the Transarchist thread. And if you think joking about anything between Crossroads and Newimpartial at this delicate stage was a good idea, some introspection is in order. There is a toxicity in GENSEX editing partly because the arbs failed to finish the job when it was before them, and the result is that the entire area is painted with a negative brush, in spite of the proof that collegial editing in the area is possible (J. K. Rowling), and in spite of a few of Wikipedia's finest editors working in that area without these kinds of behaviors (Colin, Sideswipe9th and Firefangledfeathers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Still sounded like an overreaction. But I shall try and take on board your advice about making jokes. I honestly just saw the section header, thought of the Butler title, and started rambling on without thinking of the consequences. Apologies to all.  Tewdar  21:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tewdar; there's a lot that needs to change in this editing area (including unfair perceptions considering the proof of good editing and editors), and everyone can help get things back on the right footing without another arbcase. We know how it can be done :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I personally don't believe it needs another arbcase. While I don't edit in that topic area anymore (working on finance and literature articles is more healthy mentally to me), I remember there being plenty of new-ish editors coming in with good intentions, a willingness to learn, and a collaborative mindset. Additionally, it is clear to me that compared to another contentious topic area I was briefly involved with (see WP:ARBSCE) and one I'm currently interacting with (WP:AA2) this topic area has both the amount of attention and lack of defined 'teams' (to put it someway) so as to prevent it from really going off the rails to where an additional case becomes necessary. Of course, I'm sure more active editors might disagree. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would ask folks who support only a stern talking to to look at my !vote which begins above with Support indefinite topic ban based on behavior on this ANI (sorry for the bouncing around). Their comments to me at this ANI make me question the sincerity of everything they've said here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The more of it I read, the more it looks like a theatrical performance, designed to steer people toward an interpretation that what we've witnessed is just some former bad behavior patterns unique to talk/noticeboard spaces, and now behold the new NewImpartial; rather than observe that it's an overall bad behavior problem at the intersection of GENSEX topics and that editor. The specific behavior that prompted this filing is just one of many wave crests (and most of that specific behavior has repeated continuously throughout this ANI discussion; there's nothing former about it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, I think the attribution of bludgeon and argumentative behaviour to the intersection of GENSEX topics and that editor has not been supported by evidence - I myself have pointed to prior instances from my editing outside of GENSEX (and indeed, the noticeboard filings that got me here were about the reliability of Anarchist web publications, and only tangentially related to GENSEX). I would also point out that other editors have engaged in bad behaviour in GENSEX topics, prior to and outside of my own participation.

What I am able to do is simply to take ownership of my own actions - I will not BLUDGEON future discussions, inside or outside of GENSEX, with or without a formal restriction. I will also do my best to avoid lapsing into my patterns of argumentative behaviour and will accept the nudges offered when I lean in that direction (as already happened last month).

Finally, SMcCandlish, if my exercise in striking through my inaccurate or argumentative comments in this ANI doesn't help you to distinguish between what I now expect of myself and my past behaviour, I trust that my track record in future will convince you eventually that the interpretation - that I am not underming the project through bludgeon or argumentativeness - has come to represent a simple, established fact. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN and support temporary anti-bludgeon restriction - Based on the arguments and evidence provided, do not believe a topic ban is needed, as NewImpartial has shown compromise, and willingness to compromise on contentious sources for citations, but their interaction with other editors has caused issues. --Cdjp1 23:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support temporary TBAN and oppose temporary anti-bludgeon restriction This one was more difficult. I find user:Newimpartial to be an extremely intelligent and prolific contributor. While we have been on opposite sides of an argument, for example on the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article, in the past I have found them to be a reasonable opponent. Lately though, I feel like there has been much more of an edge/activist angle to their edits. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a bludgeoning tool or as a weapon, and I believe that user:Newimpartial has lost sight of this. A short (say 3-month) topic ban gives them some time to reflect, and doesn't have any lasting permanent effect, except to remind user:Newimpartial that there are consequences to one's actions. I would also hope that user:Newimpartial doesn't find such a short and limited sanction to be objectionable. All it asks is that she stay away from gensex topics for 3 months. If user:Newimpartial objects to such a minor "punishment" (especially after writing that they understand how they have erred), I believe this says more about the user than the sanction itself. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:FD27:AF83:F025:53FA (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

More heat than light to an already heated situation. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 10:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it likely... ... that there are any more threads trying to "get rid" of editors from the GENSEX arena who are pushing against the "gender-critical" advocates, of whom there seem to be more and more every time you look? There are already threads trying to remove Transarchist, Silverseren and Newimpartial. I just wondered in case we could merge them into one big section entitled "People we'd like to silence", or something similar. It would make things a lot easier. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC) This is dumb. Arkon (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Frankly, this is starting to feel like we might need ArbCom to examine the GENSEX area and all the individuals involved here. This is starting to get way too "us vs them." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC) You're not wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC) This topic area might end up there (again...) but I'm still holding out hope the community can use the available tools to clean out the area before it comes to that. For future issues of disruption in this general vicinity, AE is probably better equipped to sort through it with more structure and less noise. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Totally agreed that AE/ARE are more functional (and evidence-based) venues. I rather think that had this filing concerning by actions been made there instead of here, it would be resolved by now with considerably less Sturm und Drang. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC) @Black Kite: I don't think this is a fair reading of how these threads have gone. I actually totally see your point on Tranarchist. That thread reads to me largely like people trying to punish someone for having outspoken pro-trans views off-wiki. I don't mean to say that every person to !vote on Tranarchist has !voted in a party-line way, but I see a scary paucity of evidence of actual disruption, and it reminds me of... well, a certain other past incident in which many community members expressed the view that a trans editor should be punished for criticizing transphobia in a way that didn't affect content. But I object to the notion that there's a pattern across these three threads, other than the topic area. Silver seren's was closed with little appetite for sanctions, and if you look at the topic area regulars who are (perceived to be) on the pro-trans side, you'll find quite a bit of support for sanctions for Newimpartial, including from myself. I think what this really boils down to is that whoever closes the two remaining threads should be careful to look for arguments based on policy and guideline—The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive—and not on "a bare [communal] desire to harm a politically unpopular group". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC) I think what you're seeing is that people who are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS feel entitled or even obligated to disregard normal content and civility guidelines, leading them here. Sennalen (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Since this is a subsection of my ANI, I would like to deny any implication that I am here to RGW. I only seek to see Wikipedia content that is written in WP:NPOV language and that maximally reflects the information provided in the highest quality RS available for each topic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) We're all just talking about "people" here. Sennalen (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Sennalen, forgive me if I've misinterpreted your remark and I'll happy amend or strike if I have but, as much as I think that Newimpartial has been disruptive on talk page discussions, see my !vote rationale above for my thoughts, I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree that they are here to right great wrongs. They are absolutely here to build an encyclopaedia. They have a passionate interest in improving our articles, and making sure that our content is wholly policy compliant, even if they have a differing view on how some policies should be interpreted. Of the oppose !voters that I recognise and have interacted with, I would also say that they are also all here to build an encyclopaedia. Speaking in general terms, like Newimpartial they are all editors who are here to make sure our content complies with the relevant policies, and while I may have had my disagreements with them at times I've never come away from discussions with any of them thinking "Wow, this editor sure is advocating for violating policy". Several of them I've seen active on some articles relating to this discussion and the one on TheTranarchist above over the last few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC) WP:BEINSCRUTABLE Sennalen (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I don't think I'm following your logic here, at least not in the way that you're probably intending it. Would you care to elaborate before I go off on a wrong tangent? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Anyone can turn down a wikifight they don't think they'd win. That's weak character evidence. People who are serious about building an encyclopedia will WP:STEELMAN opposing views. Sennalen (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC) You're getting dangerously close to saying something unacceptable. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:38D6:2866:26A1:4193 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC) You're right. "Have you ever been to Belgium in fact?"[156] Sennalen (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Still not following your logic. While steelmanning might apply in some content areas, in others it is entirely inappropriate. When you're editing in a content area like GENSEX or medicine, where the opposing viewpoint is inherently fringe, pseudoscientific, and not supported by reliable sources, writing for the opponent is inherently a NPOV violation. For example, transphobia and homophobia in GENSEX are two viewpoints that are ideologically opposed to the mainstream view of acceptance and normalisation of different sexualities and gender identities. Or homeopathy and anti-vaxxers are pseudoscientific opponents again to the mainstream medical view that homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo, and that vaccines are both safe and effective. Steelmanning in both of those cases would result in us writing content that runs afoul of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and numerous other content policies and guidelines. Could you state plainly what you mean please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Represent all point of views neutrally and with due weight - all points of view, not excluding homeopathy or transphobia. This does not violate any content policies and guidelines. Neutrality does not mean false balance, and due weight does not necessitate throwing any old rubbish into our articles.  Tewdar  09:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Black Kite, since you appear to be referring to me, when did I ever make even one edit to the GENSEX area? And when did I make even one gender-critical comment? I reported an obvious case of bludgeoning, and I objected to Silverseren's characterization. Since you now claim I have entirely other motives, please provide the diffs or strike your accusations. Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC) You appear to have missed the comment I made above, which said that I didn't believe the issue was with the OP of the thread. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Black Kite, this is a bad take and you should either substantiate it with names/diffs or refactor/strike it. You're nearly as much of an oldtimer as I am, and I have a poor memory but I'm pretty sure we've been on the same side of some issues. I have a lot of respect for you. You know as well as I do that in contentious topic areas like Climate change, Gamergate, GMOs, ARBPIA etc this same accusation gets thrown around constantly. While there are undoubtedly some SPAs hanging around, it seems like the vast majority of editors weighing here are doing so in good faith. Being this jaded isn't helpful to anyone. The WordsmithTalk to me 07:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC) The Wordsmith I think this may have been taken in the wrong way, clearly sometimes irony doesn't translate well to Wikipedia. But "jaded" is a fair take; the comment was really posted as an "oh, good grief" reaction to scrolling down ANI and seeing half of it being people trying to ban people from areas they edit, in many cases purely because they don't agree with them. I get the impression that there appears to have been quite a large increase in this type of thing recently, and not just in the area included in the multiple threads above. And I don't think that's a good thing; it's just depressing, really. If that's "dumb", then so be it; feel free to hat the whole the section if anyone wishes to. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC) References

Pouring gasoline on a fire is a bad idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Black Kite and GENSEX The comments above by Black Kite demonstrate a clear level of emotional involvement that makes me think that Black Kite should not be taking administrative actions in this topic area. Administrators should not give the appearance of bias, and saying that we should put editors on a list to ban is an extreme show of bias. I believe that this is conduct unbecoming of an administrator and that discussion is required to hold Black Kite to account for creating more heat than light above. 2600:1008:B116:BA3C:8867:F3FF:A9F:6C5A (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Newimpartial definitely has a problem with bludgeoning, which is not a new thing, and I'd support some sort of cap to moderate that, but would oppose a TBAN at this time. I'd also like to point in response to: Myself and many other editors have warned them [NI] in the past not to engage in EW with transphobic and homophobic editors and to interact with them in good faith — transphobic and homophobic editors should be indeffed. Transphobia and homophobia are inherently not "good faith" positions and one should not be expected to engage them as such. El_C 13:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  El C, I meant editors they perceive as transphobic and/or homophobic. Due to the contentious nature of the topic area if one has a hammer mentality every disagreeing editor appears a nail. You can even see it in this thread (not from NI necessarily) where a number of editors have alleged that this is an attempt by transphobic editors to shut out trans/ally editors from the topic area. I apologize if my wording (even in this reply) isn't well worded. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Dlimali

Dlimali (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is continously trying to promote Vitaliy Khomutynnik and is removing sourced information. They haven't stopped their disruptive work despite numerous warnings ([157], [158]) and clearly have a COI as there almost all of their edits are related this biography. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. 176.108.106.49 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be a discussion at Vitaliy Khomutynnik about this content dispute. This should be discussed there before escalating this further. Nemov (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It does look like the editor is attempting to promote this particular Ukrainian politician and cleaning up his page. Considering we have had cases of Ukrainian paid editors in the past, that it is a very sensitive area (and it already was before the war) + a BLP, and that the "accused" seems to be focused almost exclusively on this article, I think this is not so much a content dispute as a legitimate concern about paid, promotional editing in a touchy subject, and thus worthy of a visit to ANI. I see a couple of users, including an admin, have already reverted him and warned him, but a block might be warranted if he persists. Ostalgia (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• He is persistently trying to clean up the article, relying on policies that have nothing to do with his changes. Sounds like a paid editor trying to promote the name of the article. I think it's a paid editor trying to promote the name of the article.--Bexaendos (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm trying to promote neutrality per WP:BLP. Dlimali (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge chasm between neutrality and... whatever it is you're doing. Neutrality doesn't mean not reporting criticism, and it certainly doesn't mean promotional editing. Given that you persist with your behaviour I struggle to see an outcome that doesn't involve a block for you. Ostalgia (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Dlimali continues to blank content despite being warned and directed to find consensus. I have no idea if they're paid, but they're certainly not willing to work with the community. Time for an temporary block until the editor decides to follow guidelines. Nemov (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User making major changes to rail articles without discussion

Micga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Micga has a history of making disruptive moves without discussion, and was blocked in May 2021 for it. They have since accumulated numerous warnings about copying without attribution and further undiscussed moves. Today, they made massive changes and moves to Rail transport operations, Railway infrastructure manager (almost entirely unsourced), and now they're making changes to Rail transport company, no edit summaries for any of this. I left them a talk page message asking them to stop doing this and communicate with others, but they're actively editing now without responding. As they apparently have no interest in editing collaboratively, I believe this needs administrator attention and action. If this was the first time they'd done this, I wouldn't go to ANI, but there's clearly a persistent pattern in this user's actions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Some editors don't always check their talk messages regularly, so I'm willing to grant some leeway on the continued edits after the 14:53 notification, but if they don't come around soon, a block may be necessary to get them to come to the table and to prevent further disruption. Depending on their response, and other issues raised, some sort of topic ban may be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing disruptive about the edits, they were for clarification. I moved from rail transport operations its contents related to infrastructure to railway infrastructure manager, while the remaining contents related to service and rolling stock were renamed under railway undertaking. Rail transport company is in turn the umbrella article describing differences between the two, as well as outlining regional variations in their organizations (split vs combined).Micga (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, took a quick look at your edits today, and:

• This edit to Basel Badischer Bahnhof changes "located on Swiss territory" to "part of Swiss territory", but I think the rest of the text makes the point that it's not part of Swiss territory. I'm not sure which is correct because nothing is sourced in that section.
• There are more unsourced changes to that article, like one, two, three. Can't tell if these are good edits or not, I don't know enough about the subject.
• It's not just trains, though. I saw Anti-Russian sentiment among the contribs from today; that's a topic I know a little about, and I'm finding more serious problems there:
  • Maybe OR and non-NPOV addition of "In contrast to countries such as Germany" (in a huge unsourced passage)... is there a source that points out this contrast between Russia and Germany?
  • Adds the unsourced text: "The first one of these views has ultimately been completely discredited in a humiliating manner after 2014..." Also adds to that text the phrases "precisely specified" and "it was inherently flawed". Without citing a source, I question whether that's OR/non-NPOV
  • Adding Belarus and Poland to text about Generalplan Ost in an article about Russia. Why call out Belarus and Poland? Ost was about more countries than just Russia, it was also about many more countries than just Russia, Belarus, and Poland... but it's an article about Russia, so why mention any other countries, and if we do mention other countries, why specifically those two but not the other countries? You also added the text "in these countries", but it wasn't just those countries.
  • In this edit, changing Untermensch's translation from "subhuman" to "inferior human" is a mistake; the term is almost always translated as "subhuman" because it means not human, and that's a key part of Nazi propaganda: they didn't think Jews, etc. were inferior humans, they thought they weren't humans at all. In the same edit, I don't understand the addition of "foreseen", or the removal of "pre-existing anti-Russian sentiment within the German population", which seem to contradict the sources cited therein, unless I'm misreading it
• No edit summaries makes it hard to understand these edits

I suspect in some cases, you are copyediting articles without reading the sources? Please don't do that, you will end up unwittingly misrepresenting sources. In other cases, it seems you're adding unsourced text, which shouldn't be done, either. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of Belarus and Poland - the original text implied that the Generalplan Ost dealt only with Russia, which is false.Micga (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If (before version) In Nazi Generalplan Ost, Russia was designated... is false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russian, then (after your edit) In Nazi Generalplan Ost, Russia, Belarus and Poland were designated... is also false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russia, Belarus, and Poland. Levivich (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Added the missing refs to the citations from Anti-Russian sentiment mentioned above.Micga (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited edit on the Basel Badischer Bahnhof was an intermediate one among many “in making”, the final text is quite unambiguous. But sticking to the subject, what’s the problem with the rail articles? Micga (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the combined diff for Basel Badischer Bahnhof. "Unambiguous" isn't the problem. Why are there no sources for these changes? Or are there? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the rail articles specifically, you made major moves which changed the entire meaning of articles without any explanation, moved massive swaths of text around, much of it unsourced, and refused to use edit summaries to explain your changes at all. Had you actually explained what it is you were doing, we might not be at ANI right now. You also persistently violate our rules on copying without attribution. ANI is not limited to whatever concerns are brought up by the first comment in a thread; both your and my behavior is fair game for discussion here. I hadn't fully examined your other edits; I came here because the rail articles you made major changes to were on my watchlist. I was just going to stick to a talk page message until I saw the history of multiple warnings and a block, which raises this to firmly within ANI territory. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Popping in to say that I noticed this discussion because I still had Micga's Talk page on my watchlist from when I wrote this: [159]. Looking at their recent contributions, they seem to have taken this one to heart, which is good, but they're still doing something similar, that is, making large numbers of small edits to a single article, burying a much more substantial edit in the middle. Combined with the lack of edit summaries, this makes it quite difficult for editors watching articles to notice that larger edits have occurred. As an example, here's an unsourced edit that was dropped in the middle of 20 different edits done over the space of an hour and a half to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe: [160]. Depending on other editors' watchlist settings, they'll either have their watchlists blown up by all these edits, or just see this presumably unobjectionable one: [161]. I don't mean to allege bad faith or to say that making multiple edits to an article is inherently disruptive. But in the context of this ANI discussion it seemed worth pointing out. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Like Special:Diff/1141799904, specifying Luhansk and parts of Donetsk and Kharkiv as being outside the Pale of Settlement. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Micga you are copying without attribution, which is a real problem besides the others raised by Levivich, and aren't recognizing the problems with your edits. Unless something changes, I'll be supporting sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Where?Micga (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of unexplained content removals and addition of claims not supported by the added references in Talk:NATO–Russia_relations#Section_ordering_and_repetitive_content in the past. The edit comments weren't communicating the scope of the changes made, similarly to the asilvering's example above, and Micga didn't respond despite being pinged. The comment in the edit that removed a half of a section was outright misleading, leaving an impression that content was added rather than removed in the edit.

The content added by Micga to Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_vs._other_types recently is a largely unreferenced essay. (Most of the references are from the lead that has been removed by Micga; none appear to directly support the 'types of Russophobia' discussion.)

The identical issues with Micga's edits in a different topic area were discussed at ANI previously. --PaulT2022 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

IP renumbering prime ministers, governors, without explanation or discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

173.252.50.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is renumbering Canadian Prime Ministers and Governors of New York without explanation or prior consensus. Does this behaviour ring any bells? And am I justified in reverting them all? DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion a couple or three (i think) years ago about numbering; it certainly included the BC Premiers, NYS Governors, possibly Canadian PMs too, all of which seem to have been officially numbered in a way which was contrary to logic or common sense. No current opinion on what the IP is doing, but i will see if i can figure where the discussion was and any resulting consensus and if that applies to what is happening here. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

DuncanHill, it took place here; seems that there are two different methods of numbering, and the IP has been switching to the US-centric one, which for Canadian subjects is not correct (except for BC Premiers!). So, yes, i would say reversion of any Canadian PM edits changing the numbering away from the Canadian method are fully justified; i've not looked at the American ones, if they're going in the wrong variant direction they should be reverted, too. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I had to undo some more of the IPs mistakes. Within the USA, some of the states multi-number their governors, who have served non-consecutive terms, while other states number their governors only once, regardless of if they've served non-consecutive terms. New York is one of the latter group. As for Canadian prime ministers? they're only numbered once, even if they've (Macdonald, Meighan, King, P. Trudeau) served non-consecutive tenures. I would say the IP misunderstanding of these differing numbering schemes (no doubt caused by how US presidents are numbered), falls under WP:CIR territory. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See also the Barbara Bush page. IP appears to be overdoing it with telling us how old she was, at different points in her life. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: & @LindsayH:, it appears the IP is starting to mess with List of governors of Michigan & related pages, too. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

IP has now been blocked; i guess we just keep a occasional eye on the target articles in case the issue reappears after the end of the block. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 06:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nml25

• Nml25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also

• @Daranios, Onel5969, Onetwothreeip, and Daniel Case:

Concerning:

• Sexton Blake bibliography
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 3: 1946-1978
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present

Nml25 has created four articles with massive amounts of unsourced original research. Multiple editors have made an attempt to remove unsourced material. Nml25 continues to add this unsourced material back into the articles.

They were blocked by @Daniel Case: [162] for edit warring on 11 February 2023. Since the block has been lifted they have continued the editing behavior they were blocked for, reinserted unsourced material without adding references to independent reliable sources and reverting editors that object to the unsourced content.

These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:

[163], [164], [165], [166]

More (see article histories for all)

[167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172],[173]

See discussion here: Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Splitting the article and Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?  // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I had hopes after the initial block that they would learn, but unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. A longer block is warranted, but the length I am not sure of. The last time, as soon as the block was over they returned to the same behavior which led to their initial block.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what TimothyBlue is talking about. I have restored content after communicating with Daniel Case, who put in place the block and provided guidance on content. On February 19th I posted the following communication to him:

Pages have been restored and revised with more detailed citations as per Daniel Case's' suggestions.

Title info has been included to meet standards of verifiability as put forth by Daniel Case

"Sexton Blake tales were all independently published in story papers, (usually 1 paper 1 tale) with the title of the tale used as the title of the issue of the story paper, therefore it is necessary only that their existence be verifiable."

Example

1955

The Sexton Blake Library (3rd Series) 348 || The Case of the Frightened Man || Anthony Parsons || ||

Year, Magazine Title, Issue # Title of Story, Author

Here is the link that verifies it, easily finadble with the information provided.

https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=60576

ISBNs have been provided for all modern publications.

Comic Books plus has three pages of digital files for the Sexton Blake Library

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=2177

and a page of Union Jack titles as well

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=732

If citations are needed I ask that you use the citations needed function for guidance. Nml25 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I received no message from Daniel Case that the material was inappropriate. From Feb 19 to Feb 26 I have received no message from anyone that there was aproblem with the information provided in the Sexton Blake bibliography pages. Other edoitors made tweaks on the page. On the morning of Feb 26th I discovered that Onel5969 had hidden three of the pages. No explanation given. So I reverted it back. Then TimothyBlue reverted the pages. So i reverted it back. Again TimothyBlue gave no explanation and he appeared to have no knowledge of the communication with Daniel Case.

To recap:

I took advice on board from Wikipedia for citation of sources on the four pages in question, I corrected citation of content to meet that advice, I notifed Wikipedia that new content was posted, I requested I be notifed for any errors in citation through the needs verification function. Other editors looked at the pages, found no issues and tweaked content for more than a week.

What excatly did I do incorrectly?

@Daniel Case @Daranios

And again: The material is not unsourced. There are 9 citations in the Compiling the Sexton Blake Bibliography section of each page which describes where the material comes from.

TimothyBlue and Onel5969 have made the creation of this page a highly toxic experience.

It's all viewable here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANml25#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion Nml25 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Just wanted to say that I believe that the disupted content is "unsourced original research" is incorrect. Everything else can be read in the discussions linked by TimothyBlue. Daranios (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of it's sourced, most of it isn't. Restoring contested content without sourcing is disruptive per WP:BURDEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I informed Daniel Case, the admin that it had been revised and restored on Feb 19th to comply with his guidelines. There was no objection. TimothyBlue and Onel5969, who had not participated in that conversation, decided unilaterally to take down three pages. No examples as to how the content did not meet the guidelines. Nml25 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They contain massive amounts of content that is not sourced and is against WP: NOTDIRECTORY, as it would appear your other articles do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment and additional material: I believe these are additional examples of unsourced original research in articles created by Nml25 and should be considered:

• The Exploits of Fidelity Dove
• The Sexton Blake Library, The Nelson Lee Library
• Harry Blyth, Nelson Lee (detective)
• William Murray Graydon, Robert Murray Graydon, Francis Addington Symonds, John William Staniforth, George Hamilton Teed

 // Timothy :: talk  18:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

TimothyBlue you're coming across more like an obsessed stalker than an objective editor.

All of these pages were approved months ago by other editors. And true to form you make broad general claims without specific examples. Nml25 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Question to everyone: Is there any actual doubt about the accuracy of the content? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: Thank you for this question hitting heart of WP:Verify. Unsurprsingly, I myself have no actual doubts about the accuracy of the content, also seeing as most of it can be double-checked at the Blakiana website. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, but it's difficult to be certain without sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Aside from Blakiana, some of the old magazines are also available at archive.org, like Detective Weekly 251 I had linked here. In case you want to check out accuracy exemplarily yourself. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable or not, great big lists without any real context are against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The four articles starting this thread are just republishing the lists compiled by the Story Paper Collectors' Digest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this criticism that the lists are drawn directly from another publication seems inconsistent with the criticism above that the lists are unverifiable OR. Also, don't we frequently include bibliographies in author biographies as well as articles about prominent fictional characters? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't usually include weekly or bi-weekly magazine publications over many years in a biography section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We have list articles that are each many times the size of main articles, those lists include extra details that are unsourced (and could well be OR, I've made no comment on the OR issue). So no there is no inconsistency in my comments. What is seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN after the content of these articles has been challenged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: With regard to "seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN", the thing is that the ongoing discussion is about if the citations are not already present for publication information and plot-summary. There is only a small percentage of uncited "extra details". WP:BATHWATER applies then. Daranios (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We obviously disagree with how much is unreferenced, it's certainly not "a small percentage". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I have explained why I think the vast majority is referenced - though not by footnotes - in detail at Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?. Maybe you would like to explain why you think otherwise or where you think my argumentation is wrong over there. The other participants of the discussion have so far refrained from doing that. Daranios (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

When multiple people's arguments haven't explained the problem, maybe the the issue is your not hearing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The other ongoing discussion is whetber these should be merged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Which entry do you think is inaccurate? Pick one. Nml25 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Check the section for fans. The title is "FOR ALL SEXTON BLAKE FANS" It"s on all four pages (the section title is formatted manually instead of as a section title, (which would appear in the TOC) so you need to search for it.  // Timothy :: talk  12:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm staring at the wrong item, the "section" in question is not so much a section but the heading of an announcement that the editor copied verbatim into the article (with proper referencing). I have no opinion on the dispute, or on the editors involved, or on Sexton Blake, but I just thought this was worth pointing out. Ostalgia (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Timothy has a history of not reading things closely.... or at all. Doesn't stop him from having an opinion though. Nml25 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - despite the large wall of texts above, the editor continues to add large blocks of uncited material to articles, which is why Daniel Case blocked them for a week the first time.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:‎Onchigor

I reverted a few edits from ‎Onchigor (talk · contribs) because they made unsourced changes to articles like Blini and marked them as minor edits, for example: [174][175]. I gave them a couple user warnings for this and they decided to respond with You a spammer and mass editor [176] and go on a revenge reverting spree. Apparently I do not know Ukrainian orthography[177] although I am not sure why Ukrainian orthography is relevant here. At this point the edits are now vandalism.[178]. Mellk (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

He may not be acting in bad faith, but it looks like a deadly mix of WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Ostalgia (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the aspersion of me being hired for this destructive editing and vandalism[179] here on ANI after multiple warnings including one for personal attacks[180] there should at least be a block for that. Mellk (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The user seems to have stopped editing entirely. Maybe cooling off will do him some good. Ostalgia (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Staying on the original topic would be good, lads.

You don't get it, it's not vandalism, they are just trying to de-colonize the pancakes./lh a!rado🔫🦈 (C✙T) 06:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) I wonder what will be next. Mellk (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Next will be "mlyntsi". Because blin comes from proto-slavic "*mlinъ" ("mill" where flour is produced). See at "Etymology" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blini. "mill" by Ukrainian is "mlyn" and therefore "mlyntsi". According to Похлебкин "Слово «блин» — искаженное «млин» от глагола «молоть»." and "Позднее над «патриотами», желающими объявить блины чисто русским блюдом, посмеялись и в России." https://litresp.ru/chitat/ru/%D0%9F/pohlyobkin-viljyam-vasiljevich/o-blinah Not only you have the right to tell the truth. Onchigor (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) In English it is always called "blini". See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:EN. And this does not excuse your disruptive editing. Mellk (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Maybe. Onchigor (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC) No, it's not "maybe". Michael60634 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Why are you massively changing many articles in wikipedia the words "Kyivan Rus'" to "Kievan Rus'? This is vandalism. This is just your personal opinion without proper sources. Because language and words matter?. "Kyivan Rus'" in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyivan_rus and many sources, such as http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/64039/excerpt/9780521864039_excerpt.pdf or https://gis.huri.harvard.edu/golden-age-kyivan-rus Onchigor (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) No, I am reverting IPs that change "Kievan Rus'" to "Kyivan Rus'" because the article is Kievan Rus' and this must be consistent unless there is good reason to use a different name (there is also consensus at WP:KIEV). Your reverts were undone by other editors as a result. If the issue is WP:CIR then a block will be necessary because I only see disruption being continued. Mellk (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Ok, exist "WP:KYIV", but not exist "WP:Kyivan Rus". And articles with "Kyivan Rus" already exist. Your destructive editing distorts the articles. Onchigor (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Again, the article is Kievan Rus'. The result of the last requested move was a snow close.[181] Mellk (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) You changed all the words "Kyivan Rus" in the article "Ukrainian language" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_language. This is an article about the Ukrainian language, not russian, and therefore the terms are written in Ukrainian transliteration. The article says "Kyiv" and "Kyivan Rus", but you changed it to "Kievan Rus". Maybe you were hired for this destructive editing and vandalism? Onchigor (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) See WP:REVERT. But since you are now casting WP:ASPERSIONS I think you will need a block now. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Yes, probably according to WP:REVERT, my actions were wrong. Onchigor (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) After a brief review of their edit history, their comments about other editors, and the clear WP:IDHT view presented in their comments here, I'd support that. Michael60634 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) This is just your opinion. World-renowned Ukrainian historians do not think so. Onchigor (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC) World renowned Ukrainian historians without any published papers detailing their views? Strange. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Nice DARVO, Onchigor. Well done. Anyway, back to the original point everybody. — Trey Maturin™ 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass edits to TV pages changing the distributor in infobox

User:Vidpro23 has been mass changing TV distributors on TV show pages for months and has been repeatedly warned on their talk page and in edit summaries. They ignore the warnings. They use edit summaries after being reverted by saying "original distributor" and includes a source. The sources they are using list the companies he is adding as the international distributor, not original as it states it should be here. Literally this consists of all of their edits. Mike Allen 15:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In the Infobox television template, the "distributor" parameter should contain the series' original distributor. MikeAllen and 86.15.93.32 keep reverting pages whenever I try to add a series' original distributor to them, even when I source it. Vidpro23 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vidpro23, this extra topic isn't needed and should have been added in a reply to the original topic. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Notating here that the two editors above created separate threads about the same incident. They are now combined, and the section title edited to reflect that it is about the incident as a whole. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Simply reverting back (for both parties) isn't the right way to handle it. But other than that, this seems to be more of a content disagreement/discussion than a user behavior issue, and really shouldn't be an AN/I report. As someone who edits a lot in the television project (with a lot of those being in Template:Infobox television, I see a lot of the distributor values to be wrong, poorly sourced, or incorrectly used per the template docs. Yes, it's supposed to be the "original distributor" - but one of the changes @Vidpro23 made and was reverted was on The Rifleman ([182]) reverting back to Peter Rodgers Organization. Peter Rodgers didn't even come into existence until the 70s, so how can that be the original distributor of a show from the 1950s? Work out the content issues the way it's supposed to be - through WP:BRD. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick look at the user's talk will show years of warnings and no response from Vidpro23. At this point, I believe it's beyond a content problem. The Riffleman source he added just shows that Four Star bought the syndication rights. The distributor parameter shouldn't even be used on that article, since it aired on ABC which is in the network parameter. They aren't improving anything when they are still adding false content (while misreading the sources they introduce). I already tried BRD (through their talk page and edit summaries) to no avail. Mike Allen 19:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay so I'm trying to find out what the issue with User:Vidpro23's edit are as they do appear to be correct. Lets take the Hogan's Heroes articles as a recent one randomly. The Infobox television clearly states that the Distributor is for the original distribution company or companies, I think we can all agree on that. So why @MikeAllen: did you revert Vidpro23's changes and revert to a company that didn't exist in any form until 2006 at the earliest? 35 years after Hogan's Heroes finished? As far as I can tell, Vidpro23 is making the correct (or at least correctish) changes and people are reverting them back to modern distribution companies that is directly against the instructions of the infobox. Can I ask why that it is people are insisting on inserting and maintaining clearly incorrect values for the distributor field? It's not about who owns the rights now, it's who owned the rights then. There is actually a serious problem with a lot of TV and movie articles with people "updating" the infoboxes to modern companies which are not correct. And I see an IP reached out to User:AdamDeanHall who is one of the culprits behind such updating. Canterbury Tail talk 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

86.15.93.32 is not happy that I'm giving television programs their proper original distributors. Vidpro23 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it seems that 86.15.93.32 is another major editor behind this incorrect "updating" of distributors. I'd like to hear back from MikeAllen and 93.32 on why they think reverting to A) unsourced and B) clearly not the original distributors is acceptable behaviour. Canterbury Tail talk 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Vidpro23 it's not just me, it's also other users. There are also not happy about that too. 86.15.93.32 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So you admit you're trying to push an "updating" of distributors so they're incorrect? Additionally this edit and summary are very telling. Note despite your continuous claims otherwise, Vidpro23 has never attacked you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Like I stated in the previous summary, the 1965 source they are adding they are the international distributor (see here). CBS Television Distribution was added a year ago. The distributor field probably shouldn't be used at all since it aired on CBS (under network), it all seems redundant. Also an easy fix to all of this, don't add any distributors at all in the infobox, especially if no source backs it up in the article. Mike Allen 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

an easy fix to all of this, don't add any distributors at all in the infobox, especially if no source backs it up in the article - Yes, you nailed it. I definitely see where some of this could require discussion at the article level, as there are certainly (many?) instances were what's there now is not right, but what's being added may not be exact either. Vidpro23 needs to be open to that, if they have not already. @Vidpro23: and @MikeAllen: I have opened a discussion on the infobox template to discuss clarity of definition for the parameter and/or to suggest its removal if not useful (which we have done with other parameters in that template). You're both welcome (and encouraged) to give useful input there if you have some and so desire. Vidpro23, are you willing to hold off on further mass changes until everyone is on the same page pending outcome of discussion at the infobox talk page? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I could hold myself back for a while. Vidpro23 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Problematic editor, darts articles

I hate bringing folks here, but I'm not aware of other options and I unfortunately think a topic ban may be needed. JRRobinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very passionate darts editor, who unfortunately does not understand Wikipedia sourcing guidelines which (understandalbly) results in frustration: Are you actually an idiot!!?? This is one of the big darts tournaments, outside a televised tournament. Why does it need extra sources anyway?? And it certainly has general notability in the darts world!! Just because you know nothing about darts, doesn't mean you can ruin it for anybody else. While this is a second cousin once removed from the N:SPORTS issues, this is a larger sourcing where JRR continues to only use social media and primary sources and is unwilling to understand why that isn't acceptable. primary, primary, primary & social media. Side of ownership here: You guys just don't get darts, do you?? Why don't you actually leave the darts pages to darts fans who know what we're on about.

Thoughts or other suggestions on how else to handle this? Star Mississippi 02:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This user has warnings about unsourced additions on their talk page going back to 2007. I daresay someone who has made over 42,000 edits and ignored rules for this long isn't about to start following them. I see no other remedy besides a block, unfortunately. A short-term block was tried in September and clearly hasn't made a difference, and there's a persistent history of battleground behavior. Reading this comment from their talk page in response to a warning, where they said What do you mean disruptive editing...?? And besides, it was some idiot who changed it from Jamaica to England... It's not my fault if the only sources are just not brilliant Twitter ones... really seals the deal for me. Their response to being informed why their articles are getting deleted again and again (and I want to emphasize this is dozens of deleted articles)? These players should have articles on here. They've participated in major darts events. They're more notable then loads of other sportspeople on here. There's nothing on darts in WP:NSPORTS, it needs updating URGENTLY. We all have our interests (and some of us even choose our usernames based on them), but I cannot see how this editor is a net positive. They're so biased towards darts that they are incapable of putting Wikipedia policy ahead of their personal interest. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by policy ahead of personal interest?? What I'm doing is helping improve articles which have been either neglected or been undervalued. And I do wish that you all understood my angle from this. If you look at Wikipedia's article on encyclopaedia, it describes it as a "reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either general or special to a particular field or discipline". Now, I don't claim to be the best or most knowledgeable source of darts, but making darts related articles more accessible by giving summaries of affiliate tours and main events is to broaden the knowledge of everyone. The fact is that these articles have had no questions about them in the years that I have being doing them, and all of a sudden since Christmas time, certain users (mostly American ones it seems, for some reason) have tried to put their own stamp on these pages, when there has been no complaints about them before. The fact is that unlike most other sports, darts definitely has a more limited range of sources available to it, hence using the primary sources is normally the only way to get the best information about it. I'm not the disruptor here, I work well with people, if I was being very rude, I could've been well more insulting. The fact is that all our articles had been on here not causing any problems, and yet suddenly, everyone has just gone hell for leather in trying to say that they're of little to no interest, yet have adequate sourcing material (I'm not saying perfect, but at least adequate). I just want to help expand the encyclopaedic knowledge that this website is surely most known for. JRRobinson (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

yet have adequate sourcing material (I'm not saying perfect, but at least adequate). this is part of the issue, @JRRobinson. What the organization says about itself is not adequate. Articles require independent, reliable sourcing, which you have not provided. That you could have been more insulting is not a factor in your favor. Star Mississippi 14:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm just saying that I showed restraint, as calling someone a profanity or an expletive wouldn't get anyone anywhere. And don't block me, the amount of good I do on here more than outweighs the supposed "conflicts". JRRobinson (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not screaming at and attacking people is the bare minimum, not something worthy of praise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

don't block me, the amount of good I do on here more than outweighs the supposed "conflicts" - First of all, your incivility cannot be "balanced out" by the contributions you make to Wikipedia; civility is a policy that is held in equal importance with other policies. You are not permitted to break one as long as you are satisfying the other. Second, the best thing for you to do right now is to admit that you have behaved uncivilly and promise to hold yourself to a higher standard. This is a collegiate, collaborative atmosphere. That may be difficult for some editors to accept due to different cultural standards and backgrounds for each editor, but it is still a requirement just as much as properly sourcing your statements or not reverting four times in 24 hours. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that it seems no other recourse than to block them. The combative attitude and personal attacks, as exhibited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Baltic Sea Darts Open simply sealed the deal for me. They do not seem to understand that other editors can understand their position, and at the same time require that WP policies be met.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not combative, and it was hardly a personal attack. You just don't see it from mine or the regular darts fans' perspective. I put as much detail in as I can, it's not easy sometimes, I grant you, but what I do is more positive, than negative, and certainly not threatening. JRRobinson (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You called someone an idiot. Saying "it was hardly a personal attack" only shows that you may lack the understanding of what a personal attack is to such a level that it is actually disruptive to leave you free to edit Wikipedia. Your claim that you didn't realize that saying to someone "Are you actually an idiot?" is a clear and unambiguous personal attack is so beyond the pale, it strikes me as actually worse than the attack initially; I am actually more inclined to block you now (not less) since you said such a thing. Had you apologized, retracted the attack, and expressed any amount of contrition, I'd have archived the thread and we'd be on our way. Now, that you've responded by claiming that calling someone is an idiot is "hardly a personal attack", I'm seriously considering blocking you. Your move, dude. What say you now? --Jayron32 18:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In the hopes of keeping an editor with a long editing history, I would support a TBAN from darts related pages broadly construed as there seems to be a lack of understanding of notability and sourcing in that area. Gusfriend (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Calling someone an idiot is clearly not appropriate. JR, what have you to say about this? --Jayron32 12:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'd concur with the TBAN - the person they called an idiot is the person who advised such (rather than anything more severe, and I also don't believe we're at a point we could reasonably claim such an action was preventative), but yes, this feels like an ancillary to the whole NSPORTS dispute, with clear guidelines not being met. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposed above. I gave him two opportunities to walk back his personal attacks, he ignored me each time. Something needs to be done; and this is a good first step. --Jayron32 19:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

IP 4.7.132.22 nothere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

4.7.132.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has made numerous edits to Carnival Eats, not a single one of which has held up to scrutiny. Every single edit was reverted. This is the only page they are editing (targeting) [183]. They have been warned 4 times on their talk page about disruptive editing. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• NOTHERE really applies only to accounts, and next time please report such quotidian disruption on AIV. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading edit summaries

Dyaluk08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received more than several notices about writing edit summaries that are problematic in different ways.[184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191] One of their most recent edits was summarized as "grammar fixes and pic captions", which leaves out how they removed subsection headings and infobox parameters as well as included unsourced claims. This user has never written on a user talk page, so it is possible they have no idea of its existence, which suggests a different issue (i.e., failure to communicate). KyleJoan^talk 10:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Their account was registered in 2017 and they have 8500+ edits (only main/article and talk namespaces). This is a strange WP:CIR case. Is a partial block possible? e.g. blocking their access to main/article namespace. It could convince them to use their talk page or see this report. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Since this report was created, the user has written at least one more misleading summary (i.e., "removed overlinking in lead" for an edit that clearly did more than this). This edit shows them linking to their own user talk page, so I'm not sure I still believe that they don't know it exists. KyleJoan^talk 00:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a temporary block would be in order. Just to get them to visit their talk page. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked from article space, with a hopefully helpful pointer to their talkpage in the block log. Bishonen | tålk 02:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC).

Tousif.15 is not an admin but is posting blocked messages to editors who are not blocked

Tousif.15 has posted block notices on two other editors' talk pages.^{Editorwiki225,Shaksboy} The Tousif.15 account was created on 6 October 2022 and is not an admin.^log I have no idea whether the accounts that he/she has marked blocked should be blocked. But it is really confusing having non-admins posting blocked messages to editors who are not blocked.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Editorwiki225 (who is not an admin) is doing it too.^Tousif.15-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... well neither account should be posting blocked messages... however I suspect there may be sock/meatpuppetry going on with Tousif seeing how the block messages work and Editorwiki pretending to get angry about it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If not, then I'd say block for disruptive editing. If so, we should take this to WP:SPI so we make sure we got all of his fakeblockers. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There has been edit warring between at least Tousif.15 and Editorwiki225 on Selfiee. The third editor mentioned has also edited there. Gricehead (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the block messages might just be an honest mistake — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how posting a block template could be considered a "mistake", however i'm just gonna AGF and leave you all be. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @AstatineEnjoyer: I'd suspect it's because the user was looking for a warning template, but mistakenly found and used a block template (many block templates are named Template:Uw-foobarblock similarly to warning templates Template:Uw-foobarX). – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now that makes sense. Sorry about that. Most warnings I've seen are uw-[heresy]1 or stuff like that I like Astatine (Talk to me) 01:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Editorwiki225 for vandalism. I don't think there's any sort of socking here, just some silly editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Primefac and Draft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I am being discriminated against by user Primefac who is rejecting my articles because she is MAD. She kicked me out of the chat room the other night after she began cursing at me using the F word and then kicked me from the room and declined my article because she is vindictive. There is nothing wrong with my article and she declined it out of spite. Is being liked a requirement to be published on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmorale29 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The decline of Draft:DC is in order. The tone is unacceptably promotional. The draft would need a rewrite for tone, as well as to assert notability, before it could be accepted. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak to the other accusations there, but that denial is proper. Draft:DC reads like an advertisement (and is also not properly titled, if its a draft about Black Note Graffiti). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I have notified Primefac, since Dmorale29 did not. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I wonder what the statistics are of WP:BOOMERANGs on ANI posts whose OPs can't even be bothered to have the courtesy to notify the user they're talking about, even though they were clearly notified to. Surely it'd have to be higher than those who do. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read about paid editing. Note that An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. Your on-wiki edits makes it clear that you have a financial interest in your articles. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

To make it clearer, he states he is the owner/operator of Draft:Dcypher Studios — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

OP indeffed for UPE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

And the draft's deleted per G11. Tails Wx 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Not only that, but in addition to Draft:Dcypher Studios, there's also Draft:David Morales and User:Dmorale29/sandbox, both of which are identical to the Dcypher Studios draft. Tails Wx 03:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I G11ed the lot of them. --Jayron32 13:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Tails Wx 13:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, since when did Primefac "kick you out of the chat room", and curse? I'm doubting it's on WP:IRC but if it is, I concur with the others above: the draft reads like an advertisement and Primefac has done nothing wrong declining the draft. Tails Wx 03:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It was IRC, and I've looked at my logs from the time period in question - primefac did not use the dreaded F word, nor were they "cursing" in general. After reminding the OP on IRC about the paid editing disclosure requirements and being pretty clearly lied to, I UPE-blocked and G11'd the draft. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank goodness Primefac didn't use the dreaded F-word! :) Tails Wx 03:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I was about to in the short while we had them on IRC. They were completely unwilling to listen to anything that wasn't blind assent, and kept trying to shout me down with irrelevant articles (in this case, Nirvana). I let General take over for me simply because he had logs and had more context than I did (the conversation Dmorale's complaining about happened while I was asleep, and I don't stay connected to IRC while away from the computer). Even before then, however, I got the sense they were lying to me just based off the state of the article; blatantly promotional articles like this one aren't written by accident. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 03:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Um.... actually, I did cuss them out (roundabouts 11:30 UTC on 1 Mar)... we had spent the last half hour playing the game of "this was deleted improperly" / "here's how to fix it" / "this is stupid I don't want to do it" / "then you won't get what you want" / "I did everything right" / "clearly not, here's how to fix it" / repeat ad nauseam. As much as I hate to admit it, I lost my cool, and told them that the time they had spent complaining to me could have been spent emailing the photographer; more specifically or you could just ask the f'ing photog to send a f'ing email. Not my finest hour, I will admit... Geordie can attest to their petulance if necessary.

As far as the draft goes, as the chat here indicates it was clearly promotional and I felt that wasting some other reviewer's time with an adv decline was silly. Primefac (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you join Andy for the trout dinner I suggested below. He could use the company. --Jayron32 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I can attest that Dmorales' conduct was petulant, demanding, entitled, repetitive, and insulting; I could barely not keep my cool and came very close to swearing myself. I would say that primefac swore, but used the work "fuck" as a meaningless intensifier referring to the photographer and the email, rather than swearing "at" Dmorales. Geordie (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe an admin can take a look at their unblock request before it gets any longer or any more off topic. Someone might also want to take a look at Draft:David Morales since it seems redundant to Draft:Dcypher Studios. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interesting postscript to this story: [192]. --Jayron32 19:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if they appealed to ArbCom instead of UTRS or if UTRS kicked it to ArbCom. Given their behaviour in their unblock requests those seem the most likely options. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 19:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Never went to UTRS, just checked to be sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump blows his top

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Self report. Do I need to notify myself? Whatever.

See [193]. Grossly uncivil. And, in my steam-coming-from-my-ears opinion, entirely merited. See User:Eyagi's entire tendentious and repetitive POV-pushing mass-child-rape-warcrime whitewashing 'contribution' history for context. And then ask yourselves if you wouldn't feel the same way.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Eyagi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Eyagi filed by Acroterion, and Eyagi's user page and talk page, it seems like a NOTHERE/RGW "WGR" situation. The context makes Andy's response understandable (which tbh surprises me, I didn't think it would). Levivich (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

After reading the evidence, Eyagi gets an indefinite block and AndyTheGrump gets a trout and a request to be less grumpy. Comment on the content, not the contributor, please. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• "AndyTheGrump blows his top" sounds like a kids' story book. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Or a movie that used to be screened on 42nd Street. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have requested that Andy, without any technical block, refrain from editing for six hours or until the steam leak has been fixed, whichever comes first. Bishonen | tålk 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC).
• Andy should enjoy a nice dinner. I suggest broiled trout with a nice mesclun salad (March is a great time for fresh spring greens), and a pleasant beverage. Invite some real life friends along and forget Wikipedia exists for a while. Endorse the indefinite block of Eyagi for gross sealioning and poking the bear. --Jayron32 13:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• Noting the thread immediately above this one, we should not be surprised that experienced editors who are trying to enforce the encyclopedia's policies sometimes lose their cool when confronted by determined SPAs, POV-pushers and spammers. Apparently my ANI thread concerning Eyagi was too straightforward. Maybe I should have used a zippier heading. I could have titled it Ramona the Pest is Tired of having to be Nice to POV-pushing Nationalists. Thanks to Cullen for finally dealing with the the problem editor, they've been on my last nerve for a long time. There are others like them who pop up in that topic area from time to time. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• The only thing I wish had been done differently is that Eyagi had been indeffed earlier. Endorse block wholeheartly. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• Well, it's not like we should expect an editor with the username AndyTheGrump to be like one of Santa's elves or Barney the dinosaur. He tells in advance what's coming. Kudos for finding a different method of bringing this editor and their POV pushing to ANI's attention (or bringing them back to ANI's attention).

There should be an essay warning us of being wary of newish editors who make so many very long posts to the talk pages of controversial articles...like, "There is a proportionate relationship between the number of discussions by an editor that must be collapsed and the likelihood that they will eventually be blocked as a time waster". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Of course please feel free to revert or change it, but I have taken the liberty of adding Liz's First Law of TLDR to WP:LAWS, paraphrased as "The number of discussions by an editor that must be collapsed is directly proportional to the likelihood that they will eventually be blocked as a time waster." Levivich (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, everyone. As effective as my outburst seems to have been in bringing Eyagi's behaviour to wider scrutiny, it clearly shouldn't be recommended as general practice, and I'll try to find more orthodox methods to deal with such things if they happen again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

My favorite technique is to write the message the way I really want to say it, anger and all, then delete that, take a breath, and write something more politic. It's cathartic. Just make sure not to accidentally post the first version! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Andy, you really lost it there and we shouldn't hint that it was OK due to the situation. Nor in the context of a way to bring the situation to light. But still just a big trout is all that is needed and thanks for your work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this is not the first time AndyTheGrump has responded with uncivil attitude, as he insulted me a few months back aswell. I do not understand how this person continues to be able to edit Wikipedia. He is very uncivil and biased, and will begin insulting you if you do not agree with him. MicroSupporter (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

MicroSupporter, the issues you were having were not due to you disagreeing with Andy, they were due to you having massive WP:CIR issues and being disruptive all over the project. It honestly seems rather foolish of you to bring this up on the administrative noticeboard and bring attention to yourself, given that any admin who looks at the edits you have been making will see a massive number of problems. Mangling text into incomprehensible nonsense [194], edit warring to include nonsensical language [195], adding unsourced content [196] then re-adding it with sources that blatantly do not support it [197], weird and unhelpful retargeting of redirects [198] Unsourced and unexplained changes to nationalities in an BLP [199] redirecting titles to pages in other languages [200], refusing to engage on talk pages and edit warring instead [201] canvassing support at AFD [202] [203] [204] etc etc etc. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

MicroSupporter, would you care to provide evidence for 'biased'? Actual evidence, with diffs. Evidence that indicates actual bias, not disagreement with you over what is appropriate article content. Lots of people have done that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV pushing and Disruptive editing by User:Rasnaboy and User:Bhagya_sri113

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Related to South India article, South India is majorly using Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, and Tulu as their primary languages. But this gang pushed their mother tongue's synonym "Dakshina bharat" to this article. Native people don't even know what the heck is "Dakshina". Because it is a derivation of Sanskrit and Hindi which are not widely spoken by South Indians. All of them own aka names for "South India" in their own languages. But this gang pushed this "Dakshina Bharat" nonsense into the main summary. This term is not even used by scholars and historians to address South India. They mostly use "Deccan" and "Peninsular India" to refer South India regions. Even if it is valid, this should be in Etymology section.

• 1 - On may 15th, 2022 An ip injected his POV into the main summary of the article without a valid consensus and solid refs.

  1 2 345 - within 2 days of the POV injection, Random Wikipedia readers started to revert the Rasnaboy's POV with leaving the reasons like "Sanskrit and Hindi not even spoken by most of the population of South Indians and South Indians have their own aka names for "South India" in their own languages such as Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and Many".

  1234 - Rasnaboy is authority for the POV, so he started to do editwarring with the users since the POV injection. He did that more than 20 times. He was saying "It's a generic term".

• 123 - Bhagya sri's involvement in his POV reverts. She was being as his sock when he unable to cross the three revert rule.

On the talk page, An editor revealed that it was unsourced injection. But he pushed the poorly sourced reference to legitimize his POV. I asked him to submit solid refs that supports his claims. When he was unable to cross three revert rule, his sock Bhagya sri reverted the edit to his POV version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwikia (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The term "Dakshina Bharatha" has been retained in the article after a discussion with fellow editors (see [205]). The primary reason for the inclusion is that South India is not just Tamils' land but also that of Telugus, Kannadigas, and Malayalis (if it were Tamil Nadu article, maybe we need not retain it). It is the primary term of Telugus and Kannadigas who form the majority of South Indians (albeit with slight spelling variations) and Malayalis too use the term "Dakshina" as their primary one. The term is culturally understood by Tamils as well. I'm not sure why User:Bobwikia is so vehement in opposing it (perhaps owing to its Sanskrit origin, which some of the Tamils with Dravidian-Party ideology often oppose). I did not push my POV but said at the discussion to even remove it if the other editors felt so. Nevertheless, the editors agreed to it later in that discussion and even suggested some changes to the spelling. Only with this consensus did I retain it in the article. Since I reverted two of newcomer Bobwikia's edits last week (one in Dravidian languages and the other in South India articles), maybe the user feels that I'm bullying, which I'm not. I even gave a friendly soft notice on Wikipedia's policy on edit warring to the user on their talk page but they immediately countered it on my talk page by accusing me of threatening them, bullying them, disruptive editing, and so forth. Here, they're even calling me a sock, pushing my mother tongue, etc. I wish the user were more civil and worked collaboratively. I would be more than glad to discuss and work with them. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the ip's edit only. But I didn't know you were the one behind that IP. Please talk with sources. Wikipedia doesn't need your personal POV and conspiracy theories. Who gave you the authority to add your preferred aka name to the main summary when South Indian languages have their own aka names for "South India" ? What's the proof that South Indians have this "Dakshina Bharat" as primary synonym?

1. You didn't submit solid sources when you add the term (It proves your agenda)

2. None of the sources says it's generic term for "South India" when it itself is derived from Hindi and Sanskrit.

3. Most of the scholars and historians used "Deccan" and "Peninsular India" to refer "South India", not your own made version "Dakshina Bharat". This term used in Northern regions to describe South India.

4. Also this should be in etymology section even if it is considered reliable. Because South India has 5 major languages.

5. That consensus should done with uninvolved editors who are not subjected to be biased for its related topics.

But you were doing disruptive editing only. On the consensus page, one of your fellow editors said "If you insist on retaining this appellation based on Sanskrit, I suggest you modify it to Dakshina Bharata or Bharatam, since the south has not resorted to schwa-dropping, which is dropping the a in the end of words that Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages have done." and it seems you two had the same intention.

As a friendly editor, I asked you to show valid references but you failed to submit. Because summary needs Wikipedia's verifiability. South India article is tagged as a good article. How could you add the term "Dakshina bharat" without quality consensus and reliable sources? and You know, the term should be in etymology section. Thanks for the response. Bobwikia (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Bobwikia: Much of what you write above would probably be more effective if it were on the talk page of the article. Since there is no actual edit warring going on (Rasnaboy's last three edits are on Feb 28, 27, and 21) this is really better addressed on the article talk page.Also, it probably isn't a good idea to make hasty sock accusations [206].--RegentsPark (comment) 22:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Respective Regentspark, He's not even responding. That's why I came here. Please take actions about the article matter. There's Nothing to accuse him a abusive sock. He did consistently push his pov. When random users reverted the pov edit he started editwarring and when he unable to cross three revert rule, bhagya sri undo that users revert. I'm sorry if that comment made you all misunderstood the context.

  About the Article matter, I won't compromise. This is an unacceptable imposition and POV pushing to the good article. I wanna be friends with all the editors who contributes good. I wanna learn from them. There's no need to judge a book by its cover. Thanks for the understandings. Bobwikia (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it can be frustrating when you post your side on the talk page and it is generally ignored. But, perhaps you're not approaching this in the right spirit. In your very first edit on the page you make the "Pushing POV" accusation. On the post in the talk page, you make sock puppetry allegations. Neither are conducive to the spirit of an informed discussion. If I may make a suggestion, dispassionately lay out your reasons on the talk page and do so with the assumption that the other editors are editing in good faith. DaxServer has commented in that section, and you can ping them (along with Bhagya sri113). For now, I'm going to close this thread as a content dispute but feel free to comment on my talk page if you need help.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats from 199.7.159.46

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP address 199.7.159.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making "actual" threats against multiple accounts. The threats are related to the current administrative review. Thanks in advance for your quick action.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [207]. I also notified them for you. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 12:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

And here are other 5 diffs: [208], [209], [210], [211], [212]. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 12:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NLT. Thanks for letting us know. --Jayron32 13:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canvassing by BeanieFan11

BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has notified 24 Sports WikiProjects of an ongoing RfC related to Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912. The issue is that seven of these WikiProjects were not relevant to the articles being discussed:

1. Biathlon - Not part of the Olympics until 1960
2. Basketball - Not part of the Olympics until 1936; a demonstration event was held in 1904, but no basketball players are being discussed, and as far as I can tell we have never had articles on the individuals who played in that event.
3. Baseball - Not part of the Olympics until 1992; a demonstration event was held in 1912, but no baseball players are being discussed, and as far as I can tell we have never had articles on the individuals who played in that event.
4. Badminton - Not part of the Olympics until 1992
5. Cricket - Part of the 1900 Olympics, but no cricketers are being discussed
6. Ice hockey - Not part of the Olympics until 1920
7. National Football League - Never part of the Olympics; a demonstration event was held in 1904, but no American football players are being discussed

These notifications to irrelevant projects make it clear that this was not an attempt to bring relevant editors into the discussion, but an attempt to canvass editors to the discussion to influence the result.

I also note that after seeing these notifications, but before I noticed that some of the Wikiprojects were not relevant, I posted a request on BeanieFan11's page as I had some minor concerns about the wording; their response to that was to say that they were almost done, and continue issuing new notifications (WikiProject Sailing, WikiProject Running, WikiProject Rowing, and WikiProject National Football League) with their message rather than a neutral template. If the wording was the only issue I wouldn't have opened this discussion, but it is relevant, and the failure to use the template after the request to do so particularly so.

Canvassing concerns related to BeanieFan11's WikiProject notifications were recently discussed at User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• You couldn't have discussed this further with me? You really had to bring me to ANI over this? Also, what's non-neutral about saying "You may be interested in a discussion regarding the mass draftification of a thousand Olympians"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  As for the notifications – having something like this approved would be major and could affect many other projects if similar proposals were made then citing the Olympian precedent – I felt active sports editors should know about MAJOR things going on in sports. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't think that such a discussion would be productive; the last discussion at ANI was only two weeks ago, and in that discussion you were uncompromising and dismissive of the concerns raised.

  The issue is that it lacks context; by itself it is shocking and sounds unreasonable, and will generate a knee-jerk against the proposal, but when put in context is less so. However, as I said, my concerns there were minor. BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  How would you prefer it to be phrased? While I personally don't see an issue with the phrasing of their notification, maybe Beanie would be willing to update their notifications. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would prefer Template:Rfc notice be used. BilledMammal (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Would you have opened this ANI had they used the Rfc notice and notified the exact same group of projects? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes; the only reason I opened this thread was because they notified the irrelevant projects. If the only issue had been the wording I would have limited my response to the message I posted on BeanieFan11's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for answering that. I thought as much, but I just wanted to be sure. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• An ANI thread over whether a few too many Wikiprojects were notified of a discussion in a way that is factually neutral is overkill. This entire thread is -- at best -- a mountain over a molehill and completely unnecessary at worst. Courcelles (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• While you could argue some notifications as unnecessary I don't see a problem with the notifications themselves. They're neutral in tone and they don't appear to be trying to sway a group one way or another. Isn't the point of canvassing that you're trying to sway the vote one way or another? I don't see any attempt to do so in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The message isn't the only way to sway the vote; it can also be swayed through the audience. BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent - I don't see an issue with the tone of the notifications, but I understand you feel it doesn't paint the entire picture, which it doesn't. But you can't paint the entire picture of this discussion in a few short words. Any more included in the notifications and it could be argued that they may be trying to sway the discussion.

  Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion... - May I ask how you see them as selectively notifying (groups of) editors? Even though some of those projects don't have athletes included in the nominated list they are still Olympic sports and may have an interest the overall discussion. The only project that didn't have a stake in the Olympians discussion in the NFL project imo. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  "may have an interest the overall discussion." seems to explain "how they you see them as selectively notifying (groups of) editors?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oof, that was a silly grammar mistake on my part. I guess I'm interpreting the text as picking out specific editors, or leaving out specific groups because of knowledge of how they may vote. I don't see this as cherry picking, but that may just be my opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I respect your opinion, in the larger sense I think this is a grey area that would benefit from sustained community discussion but on the specific issue here I think after the last ANI discussion BeanieFan11 should have known better than to push it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• We just had a big ANI about, in part, Beaniefan canvassing. As for this proposal, first Beaniefan opposed it, then he asked to delay it, then he tried to pre-empt it before it was launched, and now he's canvassing again by notifying WikiProjects for which these articles are not in scope... why those WikiProjects? Because they're sports-related. Because they will bring likeminded voters. Not cool. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, do you see all 7 of these projects as being out of scope? I ask because, not having reviewed the articles Lugnuts created, I could see several of those listed by BilledMammal as having an interest in the precedent that this could set. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and the explanation is right in the OP: none of the sports notified were Olympic sports for the years at issue. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see the problem with the audience. I was made aware of the proposed mass deletion as a result of BeanieFan's neutrally-worded notification, and I am someone who has consistently voted to delete many, many early Olympian sub-stubs. (Indeed, I have nominated many such Olympians for deletion.) This is an important sports-related discussion, and it seems reasonable to notify sports-related projects to solicit input from knowledgeable and interested editors. It simply is NOT the case that all sports editors are wide-eyed inclusionists. See, e.g., Levivich, Alvaldi, and me. Sports-related projects are a natural group from which to solicit input. I would, on the other hand, be open to suggestions as to how to render the notification more neutral. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't see the problem with limiting the audience to sports pages? The Olympics is both a sporting and political event, why was WikiProject Politics or WikiProject International relations not notified? These are primarily biographies, why not notify WikiProject biography? Isn't that actually the most pertinent wikiproject of them all? Think about that for a second, notifying 24 sports pages but *not* WikiProject biography. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Come on, now. The Olympics is a sporting event, and a non-neutral notification to those projects is not canvasing IMO. Your characterization of the Olympics as a "political event" is dubious. Your contention that notice should have been provided to WikiProject International relations is also dubious -- I certainly wouldn't have thought that the International relatins project should be notified. That said, if you or others think a non-neutral notice should be provided to that project, they are free to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion about keeping politics out of sports notwistanding what do you think of the failure to notify WikiProject biography? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think notifying the Biography project is fine, would not be canvasing to do so. However, I don't see that the "omission" of that project is a "failure" let alone a violation of any guideline or something that warrants any sanction. Cbl62 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So you feel that when notifying the community of a discussion about sports biographies it is appropriate to notify 24 sports projects but not a single biographical project? If we were having a discussion about Christian statues and I only notified religion groups and not art ones that would be a problem, so why is this ok? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the notifications. It seems like a plainly preposterous proposition that BeanieFan carefully curated these specific groups to sway the discussion, where the alternate explanation, that BeanieFan mistakenly notified a few projects about sports that weren't at those early Olympics in good faith, either not knowing they weren't there, or more likely, not thinking it was all that important to even check. I'm not sure most people would have known that those specific sports were outside the strict scope. I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG WP:TROUTing to the OP for a rather blatant WP:AGF violation, but otherwise, there's nothing to do here. --Jayron32 17:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I find Jayron32's analysis convincing. That the user went down a list of Olympic sports and notified the projects of those Olympic sports seems fine. The objection to the inclusion of WikiProjects focused on demonstration sports is odd (surely, those could be relevant), but I do find it more likely than not that notifying the badminton, ice hockey, and biathlon WikiProjects was a good-faith mistake rather than some sort of malicious attempt to canvass the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am skeptical of that explanation because this behavior fits into a pattern of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS; in the last discussion we see them criticized for their choices related to notifying WikiProjects, and here they push the boundary further by notifying irrelevant Wikiprojects.

  Regarding demonstration sports, the participants aren't Olympians. This is also why we have never had articles on them - database like olympics.com and olympedia.org limit their coverage to Olympians. BilledMammal (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "in the last discussion we see them criticized for their choices related to notifying WikiProjects", there was no consensus that notifying the NFL WikiProject about NFL players was inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  There wasn't, but there also wasn't a consensus that it was appropriate. Considering this, their decision to push the boundaries of canvass even further is problematic and a behavioral issue. BilledMammal (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• We just had a massive ANI thread which included BeanieFan11 promising not to canvas or to undertake activities which could be construed as canvassing. If that conversation hadn't just happened I would be with Jayron32 and Red-tailed hawk on this one and say that it was an honest mistake from an honest editor but it did and we can't just ignore that. AGF is not a suicide pact. This is an ongoing behavioral issue and needs to be addressed as one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  My take as well. If it was anyone else, wouldn't blink an eye. But this is part of an ongoing pattern. The selection of projects (all sports, but not Olympic sports (NFL isn't Olympic sport), and not the projects actually tagged in the articles, not WP:BIO, etc.), and the non-neutral wording (framing this as the deletion of almost 1,000 Olympians, which is not really accurate, as these aren't "Olympians" as we think of them today, because back then anyone could compete in the Olympics, and none of these people won a medal), are the continuation of a general problem of canvassing and trying all kinds of tactics to "win" deletion-related disputes. For Beanie, it seems it's not enough to just !vote in a discussion, he has to try other methods, and it causes disruption, it takes a lot of time up from other editors, and it skews the consensus process. This is what we saw with canvassing and "IAR keeps" a few weeks ago, and it's what we're seeing with this RFC now. We're moving in the wrong direction. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Neutral notifications to interested WikiProjects should not skew the process (indeed, you and I both were drawn to the discussion and voted to support it). To the contrary, neutral notifications to interested/knowledgeable wikiprojects are beneficial to the process. Indeed, WP:CANVAS expressly authorizes and encourages such notifications: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Whether that wording always permits notification of WikiProjects which "may have an interest in the topic under discussion" is debated. However, that wording isn't relevant here because seven of the WikiProjects they notified, particularly WikiProject NFL, have no interest in the topic under discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at Beanie's contribs, I don't see a list of "interested WikiProjects", I see a list of "sports WikiProjects", which isn't the same thing. (Some WPs that were notified are not interested, some that are interested were not notified.) I also don't see the notification as neutral. If it was neutral notification of interested WikiProjects, I'd have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is non-neutral notifications of non-interested WikiProjects. But mostly I have a problem that non-neutral notifications of non-interested WikiProjects is just the latest tactic in a series of tactics deployed to try and stop the RFC. Levivich (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This is even less of a big deal than the previous RfC, which ended in no action. It should come as no surprise, then, that the same people are responding to this one with the same hyperbole as before. This should just be preemptively closed and BeanieFan11 should be left alone. Toa Nidhiki05 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Close this, it will only create more heat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) Per WP:SOFIXIT I have added notices to WT:WPBIO and WT:POLITICS, implementing the suggestions above. (I would have used {{rfc notice}}, except it didn't seem quite suited to notifications of a Village Pump RfC—it would have linked to the talk page instead of directly to the discussion.) Shells-shells (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a possible oversight in not notifying a broad enough diversity of projects, but it's very hard to see any malice or deception here. Sure Beanie could have notified other projects, and maybe should have, but it's petty to quibble about "why not THIS project??" --Animalparty! (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would describe this as concerning but not actionable. BeanieFan11 is well aware that they're under scrutiny for WP:GAMING behavior regarding this very specific area of "inviting editors to discussions relating to the removal of sports biographies". Getting heavily involved in this specific RfC was extremely inadvisable and suggests that they either do not understand the concerns that were previously raised or that they are willfully ignoring them. There's no clear policy violation here, but unless something changes, it will be one more data point to show a pattern of behavior when this ground is inevitably retread at ANI in the near future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not canvassing to post a simple notification to WikiProject pages associated with the Olympics. If you find yourself engaging in a research project to cross-reference those neutral notifications with the precise year in which various Olympic sports transitioned from "sports" [and thus, apparently, completely irrelevant to the RfC] to "Olympic sports" in order to try to say certain notifications are canvassing, and thus to take someone to ANI where much community time/effort can be expended... you may be in too deep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Strange behavior from IP

I"m not sure if this is even actionable, however I"ve noticed some strange behavior from the IP 195.244.164.66. Recently(ish) they seem to have been posting some sort of rant that varies between posts, something to do with Russia and Wikipedia. I'm not sure what it's about or if it's even actionable, however I figured I would post here just in case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mattythewhite

This admin reverting without any discussion (and committed 3RR) as well as accusing and blocking several IP addresses for block evasion without mentioning which user evaded. 2001:448A:50E2:513C:28FA:9CDA:FF60:2EB6 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

links to 3RR violations? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems a rangeblock may be in order. See This IP which is blocked for block evasion and on the smae range as the above IP. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

/64 range blocked. Got to love how block evaders will come to ANI with a giant sign saying "Look at me!" RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

They are VERY smart. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't every IPV6 block be a /64 range block? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Disruptive editing by TrangaBellam

• TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Naliboki massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With regret, I would like to report the TrangaBellam behavior regarding the Naliboki massacre article and its talk page. To keep it brief. There has been a discussion for some time about the content of one of the sections. TrangaBellam not engaging in the discussion did change the section title, I reverted it inviting user to join the discussion. Twice. Then the user made a much larger edition, which I also reverted, invoking the WP:BRD rule and inviting discussion. It started WP:EDITWARRING. Afraid of breaking the WP:3RR rule, I withdrew the last one, asking TrangaBellam to voluntarily withdraw from the changes and join the ongoing discussions. TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, in which he acted as if they were new WP:CONSENSUS. He refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so. TrangaBellam accused me of "engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV", without claryfing what he means about that.

To me, this is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, as expressed on WP:CONSENSUS: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. The way he acts and the way he addresses me leads me to believe that his actions are intended to make me break WP:3RR and receive sanctions as a result.

I asked him nicely to start over on his talk page without any bad blood. But TrangaBellam and once he said on Talk:Naliboki massacre: I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues I decided to aks admins for help.Marcelus (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI BRD isn't a rule, its an optional method of seeking consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of this, but it is a good custom, in addition, proposed by Gitz6666 to me to resolve conflicts in relation to this article, which I accepted, and it started discussions that TangramBellam ignored. (I'm still puzzled why Gitz6666 didn't apply this rule to TangramBellam, but he applied it consistently to my changes). There is still the issue of ignoring the ongoing discussion and making your own changes without getting WP:CONSENSUS. Marcelus (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So you are aware that it is an optional method of seeking consensus yet you misrepresented it as a rule? Why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I used "rule" in a colloquial way, but good point, it shouldn't be called that, there is a difference within Wikipeda meta pages. Marcelus (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you also using consensus in a colloquial way? Consensus appears to have been against you[213], not against TrangaBellam. Also far from ignoring them I'm seeing a *ton* of participation from TrangaBellam on the talk page (30+ edits in the last day), a charge of bludgeoning would be more fitting than a charge of not participating... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have skipped the part where you repeatedly implored Gitz666 to revert me but he found nothing wrong with my edits. Neither did AdoringNanny, et al. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus - this report should be filed at AE. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Can I move it right now? Marcelus (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No you were correct the first time, this is the appropriate venue to discuss stonewalling[214]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Yes. - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, moving it then Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus This topic area is covered by AE restrictions. The user is aware of it see this - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You cannot move this thread because other editors have participated. Obviously, you can open an AE thread after this discussion comes to its conclusion. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Should I move it with discussion or just start everything over? Marcelus (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Start over. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Close this with a note that you are moving it to AE. ArbCom and admin. are aware of were this should be filed. (by the way ArbCom TB should be added to the case, I’ll touch more on it later) At AE link to the most recent discussion here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

How to close it? Marcelus (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: my reading of the TP discussions, which admittedly were fast moving -- Section title; New version of section; etc -- does not suggest that Marcelus enjoys the consensus for their preferred edits. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I enjoy some of the changes, but the point is that my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removed. Nonetheless there is no point of discussing it here, because I opened new request on WP:AE and plan to close this one. Marcelus (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Please reply -- does anyone object to the closure of this thread? Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't object Marcelus (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't object to the closure of this thread either, but I suggest @Marcelus to seek advice from an admin or an experienced user he trusts before opening a report to AE. His behaviour at Naliboki massacre was less than optimal, so to speak, and the possibility of getting a WP:BOOMERANG is high. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate? I'm not perfect, but I wasn't ignoring your (and others) comments and I was trying to find a compromise. I'm being totally honest now. Marcelus (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I know you're honest, I don't doubt your good faith, but it is as if you, notwithstanding your 4000+ edits, were a newbie completely oblivious of our rules on cooperative editing. Since we disagreed on article content, I know you won't believe me, so I suggest you seek third party advice before starting a thread at AE. But it's too late, I'm afraid... Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Once again I hear accusation with nothing to back it up Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I did my best to provide something to back up my accusation at WP:AE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  I object to the closure of this thread until the issue of stonewalling (both Marcelus's accusation against TrangaBellam and TrangaBellam's accusation against Marcelus) is addressed. It is unfortunate that GizzyCatBella badgered Marcelus into opening a discussion elsewhere but the issue which was brought to ANI is an appropriate issue to be addressed at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Horse Eye's Back, perhaps you should start a subthread and list your concerns there so that others can answer them? It'll keep the thread tidy. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Lets give it a minute, if I'm the only objection it doesn't seem appropriate to force the discussion to continue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-summary aspersions

• Coldtrack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prolonged reverts and attempt to include something into article without consensus and without sources has led Coldtrack to resort to this kind of edit-summary dismissive tone and name-calling since December (in descending order):
blatant troll
troll's nonsense
earlier troll
deliberate trolling
trolling vandalism
blatant troll
I would rather to avoid being called troll by editor whose arguments imply that sources used are western propaganda not everyone is willing to swallow, to paraphrase him (1, 2, ). I am trying to enjoy my favorite hobby, and I am certainly not here to troll editors who believe we should put genocide denial and skepticism in the same sentence because, regardless of sources, he has an opinion on Bosnian war and genocide (3, 4, 5) - if these long tirades are not sign of right-greet-wrongs attitude, I am not sure what is. But to stay on track focused on issue of unacceptable usage of edit-summary, I will stop here. If he can't restrain himself while reverting on such a sensitive matter like Bosnian Genocide/BG Denial and Srebrenica, in such a sensitive scope like Balkans, which is under ARBEE / ARBMAC, then, under condition that you find described unacceptable, editor should be restricted in a way you find most appropriate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• I left them an "only warning"--this is ridiculous. If there had been earlier warnings I'd have blocked--and of course they should know that such edit summaries are unacceptable. If another admin thinks I'm being too nice, by all means drop a block. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I would like to thank Drimies on swift response, but this is a months-long abuse of edit-summaey with almost every single revert being used to label me and/or my participation as described, and it is happening on article(s) with extremely sensitive matter, which is part of the scope under WP:ARBEE. There is no reason to think that such a strong editor's POV on the matter, which he expressed in in those long exposes, will allow change in attitude. However, I didn't come here thinking any draconian measures should be applied, but array of limited restrictions at community disposal range is wide, starting from really very mild with scope limited to specific subject matter. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    • There had been earlier warnings. The Discretionary Sanctions warning was on the page; Coldtrack knew this was a contentious topic. I have instituted a pageblock on the Srebrenica massacre per the Contentious Topics restriction at WP:ARBEE and formally warned them that more stringent sanctions would be forthcoming if they continued to edit tendentiously and attack other editors. --Jayron32 16:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
      • User:Jayron32, I appreciate you, but the DS warnings cover a wide variety of behavior and this was very a very specific issue. Thanks for the pageblock; I hope it helps. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Please see this recent block where Santasa99 is concerned which he didn't volunteer in his complaint, then please examine his recent behaviour on Srebrenica massacre. I believe I had a reason to identify his behaviour as trolling. If it wasn't, then I will refrain from using that word in future. In the meantime, all I can say is that this editor is removing something per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because there is a list of alternative standpoints, and not all of them are "denial", and what's more, Santasa99 has been pushing this POV for four years even though gong back almost 20 years, there have been many alternative titles for the subsection which have been balanced. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
      • If you have reason to identify someone's behavior as trolling, then ANI is the place to do so. Edit summaries are not. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Please see new thread below. The conduct of Santasa99 has been far from blameless here. The sanctioning really ought to be distributed even-handedly both ways. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Juicy Oranges, if you think sanctions ought to be spread around, you might ask User:Jayron32 to look into the matter. I am here for the very narrow matter of the harassment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment not sure Coldtrack compatible with this project, based on this post to Drmies talk.. YMMV-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It is the choice of the admins/community what they wish to do with my account. I'm not going to use the term "troll" any more to any editor. I was accused of vandalism and yet my wrongdoing has been personal attacks which I withdraw outright. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Not to put too fine a point on it, but we define WP:VANDALISM thusly: " editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge". Well, harassment obstructs our purpose. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:TarifaXxx

TarifaXxx (talk · contribs) has been (re)adding copyrighted pictures without permission to Roger Schmidt (footballer); user won't stop, even after pictures are deleted from Commons for copyright violation. [215] [216] [217] [218]

I suspect TarifaXxx is Nxlo03qda (talk · contribs) and its multiple sock accounts, who had the exact same behaviour at João Félix. (too many diffs to post here; see between 25 September 2019‎ and 4 July 2019) SLBedit (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You might find someone who'll block from here, but this should be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: TarifaXxx is edit warring at Roger Schmidt (footballer), now with another copyrighted picture. User will not stop until it gets blocked. SLBedit (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not call users "it".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Account equals it, i.e., until his/her account gets blocked. I will continue reverting his/her copyright violations, as those reverts are exempt from 3RR: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." SLBedit (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

75.36.89.142

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 75.36.89.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Olga Kachura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This anonymous user made changes to Olga Kachura on the 1st of March inserting a false quote in place of one from the originally-cited source, which I manually reverted the same day. Today the 2nd of March they have again replaced text with a different set of false quotes as an attribution. Based on the content of the false quotes and the fact that Olga Kachura was a Donetsk separatist colonel, I have reason believe this is politically motivated and a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX if not WP:VD (though I'm not entirely sure what they think vandalising an encyclopaedic page would achieve?)

Said user has only made a edits on two prior pages which appear to be good faith from my limited viewing, but I just wanted to escalate this here before it devolves into an edit war that I have neither personal investment in nor the time and energy to engage in.

Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you discuss your concerns about this content dispute with the /not/ anonymous IP anywhere before coming here? That may be the easiest path to resolving your question. Very Average Editor (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I hadn't, for a number of reasons, but when I went to the talk page for an ANI notice it appeared that in the intervening time between noticing this and posting to the noticeboard the IP account had already been placed on a 72hr block and the edit manually reverted by a different IP account. Given that the issue is already being actioned separately with admin involvement, I'm happy to have this thread closed or otherwise withdrawn. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mako Komuro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is long term edit warring with a dynamic IP editor in the Mako Komuro article in a BLP dispute.[219] It may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. I filed a EW3 report on one of them.[220] Their IP has changed again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Mako Komuro for a month. That should handle it for now. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Last night I blocked the /64 range for 3 months. There were hundreds of edits to the article since early January 2023, not counting a few earlier edits over a year ago. The range has edited no other article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Severe AIV backlog

The "Bbb23 sucks" LTA is active, and is vandalizing ancient IP/user talk pages from many different IP addresses. I'm having a hard time keeping up with the pace of the vandalism, and AIV is severely backlogged because of the sheer volume of reports I've had to file. Could I get more eyes on this? I suspect the IPs being used may be open proxies, but I don't know how to check. Apologies if this thread isn't keeping with the spirit of WP:RBI. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have worn themselves out, at least for now. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@SamX: I glanced at several by following your contribution history, and most of them make one edit and then are blocked by Materialscientist as webhosts for a very long time. I saw one that had not been blocked but still has made only the one edit. I'm curious how you find them in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think it would be a good idea to draw attention to this onwiki given that the vandal seems to be aware of our behind-the-scenes processes, so I've sent you an email with that information. I'd be happy to send any other administrators or RC patrollers a similar email if requested. — SamX [talk · contribs] 15:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Received the e-mail, SamX, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:DONTGETIT by IP Editor User:121.133.40.84

121.133.40.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I have had enough with this IP editor as they would not listen to reason and just keep reiterating their point. The keep arguing on Talk:WJSN and varies users talk pages. I need them to stop. They have a history of this behaviour as can be seen by their contributions. I am going to sleep now so I may not reply in a timely manner. Lightoil (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm telling the truth. But he or she doesn't admit it. Why i am to be ignored? It's so unfair. I brought a number of reliable sources to prove the facts. But this user ignored me and reverted my edits. Including User:Lightoil, they are discouraging the will to contribute to right editing. I'd like to be Arbitratied. 121.133.40.84 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

surely, I don't know where you live so i don't know your sleep time. How can I know? 121.133.40.84 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

About telling the truth, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. About being arbitrated, try WP:DRN, Arbcom will not waste time on that. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 16:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I already verified the fact from various sources. but he or she just ignored it. 121.133.40.84 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Fake barnstars and GA topicons on userpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ishola0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ishola0&oldid=1142658620

Was just wondering if there's any sanctions needed for a user that is blatantly forging barnstars and GA topicons? I'm not sure the precedent for this. It does seem to be a blatant violation of the policy WP:Signature forgery though. Looking forward to your thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• This user has been engaging in COI editing, signature forgery, and otherwise disruptive editing. In this diff on Meta, the editor admits to COI editing to create Wikipedia page for my self and my business. The user has created several drafts, including Draft:Musa Muhammed Olayinka, which has been repeatedly rejected for being non-notable. After I rejected that draft, the user impersonated my talk page, including signed barnstars in a manner that was consistent with committing WP:Signature forgery. I'd understand a new editor doing this once by mistake, but after the edits adding the forged barnstars were reverted by Casualdejekyll, the user re-instated them (a related MfD has been opened).
  My best guess at this point is that the user was trying to make their user page look like that of an experienced user so that a reviewer would look over their submissions more favorably. I'm not sure if this is UPE, or if this is someone trying to write an autobiography, but in any case this user simply needs to be blocked to prevent future disruption to the English Wikipedia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• The citations for the draft autobiography are clearly bogus and/or content created by the subject. WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've blocked indefinitely as a promotion-only account and deleted the latest draft. I'm not sure if the MfD needs to play out, the page can just be blanked as it's essentially hoax content.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Floq seems to have already gone ahead and blanked everything but the kitten. Now that the editor cannot re-add the content to their user page, I'd say that this has been resolved. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Floq would never blank a kitten; we need them for Bishzilla's army.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Anne Ammundsen, bludgeoning, COI, and general competence issues

Anne Ammundsen (talk · contribs) is a descendant of Charles Asgill, a British soldier who was briefly condemned to execution during the Revolutionary War in a series of reprisals between loyalists and patriots (Asgill Affair). This is her primary subject of interest on Wikipedia. In recent months, she has been aggressively trying to insert material she published about the situation basically anywhere she can. I and several other editors (primarily Victoriaearle and Drdpw) have been pointing out that her edits fail to understand Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to judge due weight and what makes a reliable source (among the sources she's trying to add is her own work published in a local history journal, interviews with herself, and an 85-year-old book by a noted very racist historian, which is probably not what you want a modern wikipedia article to be based on). Her edits to the articles have mostly been to create massively unweighted articles that extensively quote letters and fail to understand summary style, focused on trying to play up Asgil's imprisonment with purple prose to "correct" the perceived shortcomings of other biographies. Myself and many others have tried to explain the problems with her edits to her, to no avail. She has continually bludgeoned RfCs and talk pages (she came to my attention after she posted on Wikipedia:Closure requests about a discussion on Talk:George Washington, in which she refused to accept or understand consensus and what an RfC closure actually resulted in,[221]) and despite a number of uninvolved editors agreeing there were issues at a COIN thread last month, the issue persists. Anyone who edits contrary to her wishes to stuff her journal articles or letters into articles is spuriously accused of having a bias towards Washington. This, coming from someone who clearly cannot edit impartially about one's ancestor, is pretty rich, but it also shows that she's just refusing to get the point after people have repeatedly explained the problems with her edits. Given she is unable to edit impartially and is on a stated mission to right great wrongs, I'm recommending a topic ban from all the related articles, including Asgill Affair, George Washington, Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, Josiah Meigs, Moses Hazen, etc. so that disinterested editors can improve things. And maybe give her a enforced opportunity to read our policies and guidelines quoted above, because explaining it to her is like talking to a brick wall at present. ~~~~ Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• At the minimum we need a topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to maybe 1812 to just be wide enough to completely wall off the entire period... and quite frankly I'm more inclined to an indef block for disruptive editing than such a topic ban. Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• I saw this matter when it was the COI Noticeboard, when I was there for a different matter (that is, I am not involved). The bludgeoning and failure to get the point has just gone on and on with this editor. I'm inclined towards agreeing with Courcelles; the obfuscation seen at the COI noticeboard means it's unlikely anything less will work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• If this is how it ends, so be it. If Wikipedia does not welcome 'experts in their field' - which after 20 years is inevitable in my case - then that is your affair. I admit that my IT abilities are not up to scratch, but that is a generational disadvantage (for me) and one I am unlikely to be able to improve. I thought Wikipedia was a cooperative, and that with reference formatting (my greatest dread) help would be on hand? However, it frustrates me beyond words to see vital information buried deep down an article, instead of being honest and up-front and admitting that this episode was Washington's greatest error of judgement. Peter Henriques's words, not mine. It caused an international crisis and nearly derailed the peace talks. Other aspects of the story dismissed as irrelevant and unimportant because they do not put Washington in a good light. I am really exhausted from this battle, and it isn't one worth fighting any more, because if nothing else I am massively outnumbered, so how can there possibly be the "consensus" Wikipedia is so famous for? If you fight your corner alone, without support, then that is what happens. My book, to be published by one of America's leading academic publishers, Lexington Books, about it all is likely to be out by the end of the year, and I must accept that that will be the pinnacle of my success. I must also accept that Wikipedia will continue to be out of kilter with the new story surrounding these events, because it does not fit with other editors agendas. This is down to the fact that I found information never found by anyone else, and people don't like it. Except Lexington Books, who say they are "very excited" by my findings. It is a shame Wikipedia dismisses me as being of no value. Anne (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  There are plenty of instances of a book author finding things out that nobody has found before. That doesn't make their findings suitable for an encyclopedia unless and until they are confirmed by a substantial proportion of others who are equally expert in their field. If Wikipedia had existed in 1905 it wouldn't have published anything in Albert Einstein's papers of that year until they had been accepted by others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 at Srebrenica massacre

I held off making this report yesterday after seeing User:Coldtrack made a revert, but abstained. I am sorry but it simply is no longer possible to work with User:Santasa99. Not very long ago, he was blocked for edit-warring - having violated 3RR not once but twice, and still refused to self-revert when given half a day to do so (in which time he was active). After a relatively long period of stability, Santasa99 recently returned to remove "sceptisism" from the article (the very subject for which he was blocked before) here. No consensus. No discussion. Then again on 20 Feb, and today. Per the report I have linked at ANEW, Santasa is the only editor who has been hell bent on this one revision going back to 2019. A couple of points of interest: his "defence" in late 2022 accused Coldtrack and me of WP:TAG TEAM which the two of us demonstrably denied, and argues also that there is no consensus for the addition of "sceptisism". There within lies a veiled confession that he is alone against two who approve the other revision. Not an all-out consensus, but certainly no excuse for the way Santasa has behaved either. Well his TAG TEAM argument will not work in the current paradigm because I have not touched the article in 2023. This leaves the question of WP:ONUS. Now bear in mind that going back 15 or so years, many times a variation that I and CT approve has been on display (as adumbrated in linked ANEW report). As it is we who have the encumbrance of ONUS being the ones to approve inclusion, we believe that ONUS was satisfied based on the list which predated either of us editing the article. Satasa is aware of this, which is the reason he sought to conceal the sceptisim aspect of the list by removing some of the bugbears to the revision which suits his ambition. The article appears not to be in need of protection at the moment, but I strongly recommend either a topic ban for Santasa, or indeffing him. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - This is interesting case, which could end with WP:BOOMERANG. I am experienced editor and I rarely fall into a trap like this or pushed myself to the brink of being warned let alone blocked for disputes like one we had on genocide denial. I do manage fairly successfully to navigate all our guidelines and policies while editing in Balkan scope under WP:ARBEE; so far, beside this entrapping, I managed to edit for 15 years without a log warning let alone blocks. And although I have made a mistake and miscalculated timeframe making one more revert minutes earlier then I should have, there is more to this case than it was reported by Juicy Oranges. The filing editor obviously missed to inform community about not that innocuous way they and Coldtrack participated. We had dispute on the article Gazimestan speech. The moment I left that article and its TP discussion, Juicy Oranges and Coldtrack followed me to article Srebrenica massacre with this edit by Coldtrack, and Juicy Oranges chipped in with this edit, and from there on started reverting me there, and followed at Bosnian genocide denial with first Coldtrack's edit, and then at Proposed Croat federal unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina first edit Coldtrack and first edit Juicy (confirmed here), with reverts. There should be noted that Juicy and Coldtrack never edited in these three articles until they decided to follow me from Gazimestan speech, and for all intents and purposes tag-teamed and used their same POV to take turns and edit-warred across all three articles, while evading a risk of being themself reported for 3RR. Whole this time they were very well aware what they were doing: see edit-summary with a message by Juicy Oranges to Coldtrack; soon enough Juicy Oranges informed Coldtrack leaving him directions what to do (or not do) literally shielding him from breaching 3RR. Sometime in September they were already exchanging these kinds of messages here, which is interesting because now Juicy informed Coldtrack that they owed them for something they missed back then, to which Coldtrack replied like this. After Juicy Oranges filed the report Coldtrack noticed that report was idle for few hours, so in the message to Juicy they thanked them and informed them not to "exacerbate things" by making more reverts, but left two provocative edit-summaries referred to me with "blatant troll", and "troll, vandalism"; or that I should have my eye checked because I refused to accept his accusation that what I am doing is "egregious and stiff-necked behaviour to sell a point". Later, they were thanking to Juicy.

I actually intended to go straight to ANI, while fully acknowledging my miscalculated 3RR and by fully accepting responsibility for that misstep, and file a report on both editors who are showing some clear signs that they are now taking things into their hands to start fixing great wrongs within Balkan scope, skipping consensus and labeling RS as "so-called reliable sources" and referring to sources with "simplistic narrative sold by mainstream media", only to came across my 36 hours block at the time. At Gazimestan speech TP, just hour(s) earlier, I received blunt ad-hominem from Juicy Oranges.

Two editors never acknowledged that they need consensus to include or change something so controversial in such sensitive articles.

౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I refute the above about "following" Santasa99 anywhere. This concerns his defence of December 2022 and BOOMERANG is not in order as I have neither touched the article in 2023 nor have I violated a policy. Reading the above in full, all that matters is one thing, Santasa was blocked for a certain behaviour, and he persists in that very behaviour. I see from the above that a circus has been built around CT calling Santasa99 "blatant troll". Please be advised that this thread is not about what CT has said and and from what I can gather, has been sanctioned for. Calling someone a troll is wrong, but it does not excuse this editing behaviour from Santasa99. This thread is to look into the behaviour of Santasa99 taking into consideration his block in December. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)