Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) at 15:43, 2 January 2022 (→RafaelJC12: Human shield). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:43, 2 January 2022 by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) (→RafaelJC12: Human shield)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

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

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347

Maneesh

Maneesh is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people --Guerillero 12:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Request concerning Maneesh

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:GENSEX

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

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

Explanatory note discussing key points from diff 10

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory note for diff 11

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I have since specified that Maneesh was reverting to remove or alter stable content against IMPLICITCONSENSUS, which is what edit warred against consensus was referring to. I believe I have amply demonstrated this, though more diffs could, of course, be provided if necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting to a BOLD changed version is reverting against the last good (consensus) version. Are we speaking the same language? As far as the discussion on Talk, I participated in that, but the stable version should remain whole the discussion takes place. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sesquivalent: concerning your comments at 00:15, 23 December 2021, and particularly your comment of Maneesh, that he seems to have prevailed on the question of how MEDRS writes about it - that is not the conclusion I for one would draw from the ongoing discussion at WT:MED, which seems much more open-ended than you have implied. There is one specific issue (a sidebar) where there is now consensus to remove something Maneesh wanted removed. However, this cannot reasonably be construed as evidence that Maneeh was justified in revert-warring over the removal prior to talk page discussion about it, nor can it reasonably be seen as evidence that consensus will favor Maneesh on each of the other issues he was revert-warring over or attacking or insulting other editors over, on talk, as though that would somehow justify his disruptive actions.

You must by now have read the diffs Shibbolethink has presented, which include clear WP:CIVIL violations and ad hominem attacks. Your attempt to excuse these as one sided pathologies, in the GENSEX area is first based on a false premise (which I will discuss below), and secondly is only itself explicable from the preconceptions you yourself have brought to the topic area. For example, in this intervention, you described mainstream sources on gender identity as people and organizations with an axe to grind and "trans affiliated" academia and medical organizations, which is a different population than the relevant areas of academia or medicine as a whole - this claim that medical specialists in trans issues are a different population and a narrow, involved and COI (for grants etc) subgroup is entirely unsubstantiated and in fact represents a well-known dog whistle. Likewise, in this commwnt you made entirely WP:OR and unsubstantiated claims (with unexplained premises that I interrogated here), all to call into question a near-unanimity of MEDRS produced in that discussion, while offering absolutely no substantiation for your WP:POV argumentation whatsoever.

To return to one-sided pathologies, I will absolutely WP:AGF about this, and credit your perspective as emerging from inexperience, but removals or recusals from the GENSEX field have by no means been "one sided" as you describe. In particular, actual trans activists (of whom I am not and have never been one) have frequently been removed from the topic area, either by formal topic or community bans as a result of their own pathologies (directly parallel to those Maneesh has shown, though emerging from a different life experience and perspective) or because they have not been able to handle the psychic load of toxicity of a subject area where they lack the emotional distance that can come with highly theorized views. Rhe hemorrhaging of editors from this subject area has not in fact been "one sided" to the detriment of those holding gender-critical perspectives, in the way you describe. Newimpartial (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Maneesh

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

Statement by Maneesh

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

On WP:GENSEX

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

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

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

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

Revert-warring that preceded the above outburst.

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

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

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

Maneesh promoting the same POV in the Talk page of Man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been advised by well-meaning editors to not bother explaining to the mob-like mentality here saying things like It is generally accepted today that gender identity is not a choice that an individual makes. but it is difficult to be silent in front of such aggressive ignorance. MEDRS describes such instances: "Previously reported cases, the majority of whom eventually developed or chose a male gender identity, had clear evidence of fetal androgen exposure with impact upon external genitalia and therefore likely on the developing brain., "...male external genitalia and are therefore raised as females may choose a male gender identity spontaneously in later childhood or adolescence.", "These changes, especially the last, usher in the final stage of gender identity development. In the final analysis, a gender identity is chosen by the adolescent as he/she enters adulthood. This is not a choice that is made at any single moment, but a series of choices made over a period.". This is merely a reflection of the fact that GI has multiple definitions and is an ambiguous term that generally reflects something about testimony of some aspect of sex. The fact MEDRS can describe the involvement of choice should not surprise anyone. Little literature really concerns itself with "choice", as it veers off into neuroscience of free will. Fun stuff, little relevance to practical matters like treating distress associated with sex (the focus of psychometric measures which can obviously be measuring attributes that involve choice). If GI is merely taken to mean testimony of what one identifies as well it shouldn't be hard to believe that its easy to find sources that wrap all that up into pap like "Individuals are a complex mix of interacting characteristics. Identity is a choice between these characteristics.". The bottom line is that admins shouldn't try and make blanket statements here on ideas have long been known to be difficult to summarize across RS. Maneesh (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is turning into Alice In Wonderland. Bilorv claims that merely using the word "transwomen" is some sort of dog whistle I can understand that uninvolved admins do not understand Maneesh's subtler transphobic dogwhistles like "transwomen" (not "trans women")... yet if you look on google scholar, there are many many many instances of, presumably (who knows, Bilrov's rules may have changed in the last second), inoffensive publications that use that spelling. What in the world is going on with admins here... Maneesh (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I just can't keep up with all the blatantly false assertions coming from admins, of all people. From Joe: mockingly comparing trans identity to claiming to be an alien, etc... yet the diff in question does not mention "trans identity", it is specifically about intersex and is making the plain statement that intersex people can identify as anything they want much like people without an intersex condition since those conditions do not constrain identification in any way. How has admin integrity collapsed in this way? Maneesh (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of false claims about me here. The latest is that I've used the phrase "thought police", plain searching will show that is not true. Maneesh (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The response to any defense to "I didn't say that" is generally some other misrepresentation along the lines of "you didn't say that but you did say..." Maneesh (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You can see the offense taken with the claim that "transwomen are male" in other users comments. Shibbolethink's fictitious claims (near here) about Kleinfelters ("males" are not strictly "males"). Remarkable how the same calls for blocking are not made. Most of this stems from widespread ignorance on the inoffensive things that MEDRS says about these topics. Maneesh (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding NewImpartial's complaint: " Removal of sourced article content to comply with the POV noted above.", essentially the same edit (that removes source article that complies with the same "POV") was achieved 9-0 consensus (including my support) lead by Crossroads. Maneesh (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

How long will this go on? Now Sideswipe9th's complaint that I assessed his interpretation skills in an offensive manner with: You clearly do not have the ability to interpret such scientific work correctly. and what a shame if editors with such embarrassing interpretation skills are not corrected here.. I sent a letter to the authors of the paper in question on PubPeer and, unsurprisingly, verified that Sideswipe9th's interpretation is not at all correct. Maneesh (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Now there is a claim by Lmharding that His edits are not encyclopedic and are distracting with him doing 3R violations as well.. I don't think the claim about the encyclopedic nature of my edits has merit. The link in the claim. There were many edits, I am looking through them carefully and I can see the following 2 reverts by me: 1 2. Am I missing another? The second revert was the result of a consensus that I initiated on the talk page that was a direct response to claims by that very user that Klinefelter "males" are not strictly "males" for the sake of academic study. How does this violate 3RR? Why is lmharding claiming this? The other discussions that involve those same editors initiating on my talk page, I'm not sure how that qualifies at "bickering'. Maneesh (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

NewImpartial's also complains (and reverted) the addition of the elementary fact of MEDRS that Klinefelter *males* are *males*, was passed by consensus 4-0 including my support. Maneesh (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Crossroads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ping RegentsPark.

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

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

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

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

I've looked through Shibbolethink's latest pile of diffs and I don't at all see how they can be construed as he does. Crossroads 22:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

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

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

Statement by GoodDay

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

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

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

I see the core of this AE report as coming from a content dispute, rather then an editor's behaviour. Recommend that administrators dismiss this report. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Be cautious, in choosing to topic ban. It might establish an unintended precedent. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sideswipe9th

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

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

My asking Maneesh to self revert
Maneesh refusing to self revert
My attempt at explaining BRD
Maneesh accusing me of tendentious editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do largely agree with the points that @Tewdar, Nableezy, and Dennis Brown: made, that we do need a review to establish consistent language in this topic area and to account for language evolution over the last decade or so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Admins, Maneesh is continuing to be disruptive over at the Sex differences in medicine talk page.

Klinefelter *males* are *males*
You clearly do not have the ability to interpret such scientific work correctly. and what a shame if editors with such embarrassing interpretation skills are not corrected here.
klinefelter males are males this time in the edit summary
Personal attacks on an editor, whom has relevant experience in the topic area, and who has just joined the discussion.
Another example of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and edit summary/content that has been identified as problematic.

Some examples from the last few hours, taken with the comments here and on their talk page it is clear this disruption is intended to continue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As a courtesy to the editor whom Maneesh was engaging in personal attacks against, I have notified them via template of this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh, you may not have mentioned thought police, but you definitely mentioned censoring. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything Shibbolethink has said in their replies. The most recent diffs in particular shows quite a heavy BATTLEGROUND mindset from Maneesh, where every contribution is a victory or a defeat. It is incredibly difficult to collaborate with them in any meaningful way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Springee

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

Update in reply to comments made by Bilorv and I believe a few others regarding the Man article. It was claimed that Maneesh "edit warred against consensus". I don't see that this claim was ever backed by diffs. I don't see it. There was an small edit war regarding content in the article lead. That seemed to be NewImpartial vs other editors and it was clear the current consensus of editors was against NewImpartial and with Maneesh (example diff ). Looking at the talk page history of the Man article I see nothing that shows a consensus for this content in the lead was ever established. Springee (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I don't see this edit warring you are claiming other than your edit warring. Implied consensus can be challenged simply by making an edit. In the case of the material in the lead of Man, a different editor first removed it. You restored it then Maneesh reverted your edit. That reflected a potential new consensus. Why didn't you go to the talk page next? You are the editor that was at 3rr. Springee (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Statement by Aircorn

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

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

Statement by IP editor

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

Statement by Dtobias

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

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

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

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

@RegentsPark:: I strongly disagree with the concept that somebody should be topic-banned merely for holding and expressing a belief that gender identity is a choice rather than an inborn characteristic; it's not the job of Misplaced Pages to police "wrongthink". The manner in which a belief is expressed might transgress civility and warrant sanctions, and trying to get the belief embedded in an article would require reliable sources and could be regarded in some cases as POV pushing or bias, but merely holding the belief isn't a bannable offence as you seem to be implying. The "mainstream" view in this area is in constant flux, and what's the "right" view now might be heresy tomorrow or vice versa. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv:: One thing I can say about your contribution is that you're not mealy-mouthed about it... you openly state that people who express blasphemous views against the gender identity religion need to be banned. Others are claiming they're not really for using bans to enforce ideological purity, just against uncivil behavior, but you say the silent parts out loud, giving a clear view to firmly oppose if you favor classical liberal positions of intellectual truth-seeking. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv:: "In pain" is your choice of language, not mine; I don't consider that the most useful way to characterize the state of having to encounter people with opinions that strongly disagree with mine. And I completely agree that if one wishes to have their view reflected in articles, one needs to document it with reliable sources; that is a pillar of Misplaced Pages. But demanding the immediate banning of a user for merely expressing their view on a talk page in the course of a relevant discussion is unreasonable. Insisting that people alter their epistemology and ontology so as not to "invalidate" somebody's identity is not a reasonable position. It would be like saying it is Islamophobic to fail to acknowledge as fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet, or that it is anti-Catholic to disagree that communion wafers are the literal flesh of Jesus. Somebody could certainly express those views in a sufficiently taunting way to make it harassment if aimed directly at specific individuals for the purpose of demeaning them or their beliefs (and religious beliefs or the lack of same are often an important part of somebody's identity), but merely stating them in the course of a discussion of relevant issues wouldn't be. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe:: Another admin saying that merely stating a viewpoint (consistent with the definitions of Male and Female on Misplaced Pages itself) is inherently ban-worthy. And do you have reliable sources for it being a minority viewpoint? Polls I've seen in both the US and UK show wide variation depending on exactly what question is asked, but often show substantial majorities favoring views that go against the activist positions grounded in "Trans women are women", such as when polls ask if trans women should compete in female sports. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh:: The "proper" language to use is constantly changing, through some odd cultural process where you can't find anybody specific to blame, but it does, and if you don't "get with the program" and figure out if, this week, you're supposed to capitalize Black as a race or not, or if "trans woman" is one word or two, or if "Latinx" is the proper way to refer to a particular ethnic group, you'll be slammed as using something-or-other-phobic dogwhistles (or is that "dog whistles"?). But, to cite another thing from the Alice books, a word means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:: Now I'm being proposed for topic banning; no specifics are presented to justify this. How do I defend myself? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

My (hopefully) final comments: While I've said some things above in defense of Maneesh, I can't defend the degree of rudeness shown in recently shown diffs. I just hope that if sanctions are applied to that user on grounds of this incivility, this isn't construed as a precedent in favor of imposing ideological litmus tests regarding one's beliefs on such things as gender identity. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

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

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

Statement by Sweet6970

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

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

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

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

@Shooterwalker: I wonder why you have referred to the expression ‘thought police’. I’m pretty sure that has not been used by anyone on the page which gave rise to this dispute. I proposed a section at What Misplaced Pages is not, the section heading to be ‘Misplaced Pages is not the Thought Police.’ Please note *not* the thought police. There were then numerous responses from editors who disagreed with me i.e. bizarrely, those who disagreed with me appear to be giving support to the view that Misplaced Pages *is* the thought police. I’m still trying to get my head round that. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tewdar

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

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

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:Maneesh)

I support a TBAN for Maneesh. I think we should continue to be a stickler about formal awareness rules until the DS system is reformed, and I encourage everyone to sign up to be updated. That said, Maneesh's edits since the DS alert and his doubling down on comments made prior are sufficient grounds for a sanction. He continues to defend an anti-trans dogwhistle ("identify as ... aliens") and outright transphobia ("transwomen are obviously also men").Many editors in this topic area, including ones that frequently disagree with each other, have expressed deep frustration with the level of discourse. There are tough, good-faith debates to be had, but basic respect for trans people shouldn't be optional. I don't see any other way to a higher level of debate.I know that posting here means one's own conduct is up for review, but if bringing up a Newimpartial comment from 2 years ago is meant to be a defense of Maneesh, well, that sucks. I would oppose any sanction against Newimpartial, if that's their point, because (again) it was two years ago. And if it's unrelated to a defense of Maneesh or a call for action against Newimpartial, then it's just space-wasting mud-slinging. Firefangledfeathers 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

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

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

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

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

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

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

Shibbolethink's evidence is convincing to me. The conduct isn't collaborative. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by OID

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

Statement by EvergreenFir

I'm INVOLVED so I will just comment here.

The question that needs to be asked is:

Is an editor's behavior counter to the standard language used by professional organizations and/or widely considered rude or offensive?
- If so, has the editor been informed of this issue?
  - If so, have they disregarded that information and continued the behavior?
    - If so, how persistent, egregious, and disruptive is that behavior?

We're not talking about the Oxford comma or two spaces after a full stop (correct and incorrect, respectively). We are talking about an evolving language around a stigmatized group of people in contemporary Western societies. As with any contemporary group's moral campaign to self-define and reduce stigma, we have a shift in language. People opposed to this process (i.e., who hold that stigma) will mock, ignore, belittle, or object. It's not new "political correctness", it's a typical process undergone by a society as its norms change (cf., the shift from Negro to African-American).

In this case, we have major academic and professional organizations like the American Medical Association and APA, as well as the CDC and WHO, establishing their nomenclature standards and stances on these topics. And even if an editor thinks this is "incorrect" or "dumb", it's the standard and Misplaced Pages should reflect that. If violation of that standard is recognized by these groups as "offensive" even if they were the standard terms used in the past (e.g., retarded, cripple, lame, transvestite, schizo, etc.) then Misplaced Pages should work to uphold standard.

Last, when most people learn they've inadvertently violated some norm and caused offense will response with something like "oh, sorry, thanks for letting me know. I'll adjust my behavior going forward". If the response is to whinge about political correctness, kvetch about having to appease people, etc. then you've made your POV clear. And, if that POV continues to cause disruption, then intervention is warranted to stop than disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

RP, I think you are misreading the diff. He was remarking that genetic sex is one thing, gender identity another, and that sentence was about genetic sex. Im also very much troubled by the idea that "accepted norms" are to be enforced through bans here, especially when the person seems to be steering away from that discussion entirely. I think this has largely been an exercise in talking past one another, with Maneesh discussing genetic sex, and others discussing gender. Our own articles show this same confusion, with a trans woman being a woman assigned a sex of male at birth, but a woman being an adult female, and a female being, primarily, a genetic sex, but also can refer to a gender. Maneesh was discussing female as a genetic sex, not as an identity. And the only way to read his comment as indicating some disreputable motive is if you read it as though he is discussing gender instead. nableezy - 00:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally agree with Shibbolethink at this point. The stridency on display in that talk page is something else. nableezy - 02:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Bilorv

This discussion is astonishing. We have here an editor who repeatedly says Transwomen are male. Why was this user not speedily blocked? As well as unencyclopedic—in direct contradiction with the language used to refer to transgender people in mainspace—it violates the Universal Code of Conduct. If we do not wish the WMF to impose their will on us, then we must take action ourselves.

Not being well-informed is one thing (we don't expect everyone to recognise that thetans are fake the first time they hear about them), but doubling and tripling down on knowingly harmful comments is not good faith behaviour. I can understand that uninvolved admins do not understand Maneesh's subtler transphobic dogwhistles like "transwomen" (not "trans women"), but the user made themselves clear with Transwomen are male. Their comments are not limited in scope to biology/sex (where, I agree, Misplaced Pages does use the words "male"/"female" differently). They make these comments when discussing gender/gender identity.

Black Kite is concerned by this encyclopedia becoming hostile to those with certain POVs. Yes, but we should be more concerned by this encyclopedia becoming hostile to those with certain identities—namely, transgender and non-binary people. How Maneesh has not been blocked indefinitely on the spot, never mind topic banned, is beyond me. (Indefinitely not infinitely, mind, as they can be welcomed back when they acknowledge what has been unacceptable about their comments.)

Aircorn says it is simply not true that we are inclusive. We are inclusive to certain groups and not others. I hope they can spell this out as their comment currently implies that Misplaced Pages is not (meant to be) inclusive to transgender people, which I am sure is not their intention.

Dennis Brown says we are talking about medical articles, not cultural articles, so is apparently having a different conversation to the rest of us. Man is an article under the scope of anthropological, sociological and cultural WikiProjects, and its lead should summarise all sections of the article rather than just Biology. At this talk page, Maneesh said Transmen are, of course, female in the context of gender (not sex), and at the article they edit warred against consensus to remove all mention of transgender people.

The lengths people will go to do disagree with Newimpartial at any opportunity, regardless of the case at hand, is truly disappointing. I expect much better from users such as Crossroads, or at least, I did a couple of years ago. — Bilorv (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dtobias: I am sorry that you are in pain. But if it is ideological purity to require Wikipedians to believe that homosexuality is not an illness, women deserve equality with men and transgender people are valid then I am an ideological purist. The UCoC requires this so that nobody is unwelcome on the basis of identity. I am not a liberal and am here to build an encyclopedia based on existing sources, not to "seek the truth".— Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink

Hi, I just stumbled upon this dispute via the WikiProject Medicine board, in a notice posted by Maneesh pointing users towards Talk:Sex differences in medicine. I tried to lend some expertise as someone with a medical background, advanced degrees, with graduate level coursework in these topics, and who has worked on a few projects related to gender/sex differences in infectious diseases (my area of expertise as a virologist - I consulted on one study where we examined the effect of Klinefelters/Turners on influenza severity, and another where we investigated the impact of these disorders on disease recovery, neither of which are yet published but both of which I have faith eventually will be :)).

Anyway, I attempted to use this modicum of academic experience to describe how different professional bodies discuss this topic. In the process, I was repeatedly belittled and told by Maneesh that I know nothing, and that I have no business discussing the topic.

Example interactions:

"You don't have much expertise here, it is obvious. None of your reasoning makes much sense."
"You have no expertise here"
Nothing you say is supported by clinical science, you seem determined to be ignorant"
"You are very confused. Those organizations don't say what you think they say. Please improve your scientific literacy."
"Are you for real?"
"I am floored that you posses a medical degree and that you would diagnose Klinefelters without a karyotype." (to be clear, I only possess 3/4 of a Medical Degree, but all 5/5ths of a PhD. :) )
"You are really something"
"I do not believe you did any serious work anywhere near this condition."

Overall, I would say from my brief interaction with this editor that they regularly do not AGF and are quite adept at battlegrounding, almost defaulting to it. Looking over these diffs presented above in the OP, it is clear there is a long history of similar behavior, with many warnings and admonishments from all manner of other users.

For the above reasons, including numerous GENSEX DSes this user has violated and continues to violate, I would recommend this user receive a GENSEX TBAN. I make no judgments on any other involved users here and whether or not they should receive any admin actions, as I haven't examined their involvement, and don't really have the time/energy, and wouldn't know where to start in this excessively long AE posting. And here I thought past Covid leak threads were bad! :) (edited 04:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC))— Shibbolethink 02:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent I'd like to point out that my complaints about Maneesh have nothing to do with their opinions, which I personally don't find objectionable in the slightest. Their behavior, however, I do take issue with. — Shibbolethink 22:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent in general, I advocate for TBANs rather than site bans when it comes to problematic behavior. I think there are certain topics that people get worked up about, and it prevents them from being rational, courteous, etc. I have seen no evidence that Maneesh has had these problems outside of this topic area. If anyone were to show me such evidence, then I would advocate for a site block instead of a TBAN. I also would remind you that site bans (and TBANs) are meant to be preventative not punitive and, in general, asking people to "cool off" rarely works, in my experience. I'm advocating that we stop this disruptive behavior from preventing consensus formation. If there were a user posting the complete opposite opinions, but with the same attitudes and behaviors, I would hope they would be TBAN'd as well. If you know of such a user, I would be happy to support their being brought to AE. In general, AE and ArbCom do not adjudicate content disputes, but behavioral ones. So we should not get caught up in what "side" of a dispute someone is on. Should we consider the content dispute as a motivation for their being brought here? yes, of course! But that doesn't mean we leave editors around who are engaging in such horrible behavior. That incentivizes everyone else to leave the discussion. I know that if Maneesh continues to behave this way, and nothing is done about it, you can expect me to stop commenting on this article talk page altogether. Which, I imagine, would make them rather happy. :P As a related thing, see: Misplaced Pages:Expert retention. — Shibbolethink 22:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent this is not the place for content disputes. Please stick to discussing the matter at hand: behavior. I don't believe Maneesh has provided any reason for us to believe he has content expertise, other than that he is interested in arguing with many users about the smallest details of these articles. — Shibbolethink 19:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Some more diffs:

Escalates many small disagreements to needing dispute resolution/straw polls/RfCs Many times this is done over obvious details not needing citations.
I honestly don't know what this is, but it appears to be taunting/trolling/griefing.
WP:IDHT and WP:WIN A very combative edit summary

All around, I would say this editor's presence in these articles is detrimental to consensus-building. They are not interested in collaboration or working together: . They appear most of all interested in their preferred style being used throughout the articles they edit most frequently. Overall, I would characterize this as "not collaborative." — Shibbolethink 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

A good example of how Maneesh responds to friendly criticism/advice. Emblematic of the broader WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality at play here. — Shibbolethink 21:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shooterwalker

This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff. I insist on some kind of action, even if it's just a clear warning, otherwise this will continue to fester. There are two paths for the Misplaced Pages project here: give this a pass, in which case people will be emboldened with more and more disruptive behavior, making this topic even more frustrating to edit, let alone violating WP:NPOV. Or hold editors accountable, and let them know that yeah, you have to be decent to each other, and look for common ground, or you will be removed from this project so that more level-headed editors can come to a WP:CONSENSUS without you.

I'll admit that the content disputes I've participated are much lower stakes. But the fundamental policies that lead to good content and good conduct still apply here.

Behaviors that raise massive red flags:

In an area where there is a content dispute, pretending that there isn't one. "There is only one correct viewpoint. Conveniently, the correct viewpoint is also my viewpoint, and correctness is my reason for removing other viewpoints. (verifiability and neutrality be damned.)"
Using WP:UNDUE to completely remove (instead of proportionately trim) one of the significant viewpoints on a topic. (To say nothing of which is more significant.)
Complaining you are being WP:CENSORED and attacking your opponents as "thought police" when, in actuality, you are completely removing other viewpoints from articles.
Engaging in WP:INCIVILITY, personal attacks, and Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing, and then complaining that any accountability for your behavior would be tantamount to WP:CENSORSHIP.

One of those behaviors would be a red flag that the editor might be creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Taken together, they are strong evidence that the editor is certaintly, willfully creating a battleground, that they know deep down that Misplaced Pages functions on consensus, but they believe they can manipulate the system into winning their ideological WP:BATTLE. I am currently focused on battleground behavior that harms an entire topic area, but this comment would be much longer if I looked at harm that effects individual editors.

I've been in content disputes where you can at least present the viewpoint of your opponent, instead of complete erasure. I would shudder to think of allowing editors to be so one-sided on other sensitive topic area, even scientific areas such as abortion or climate change. I believe that the editor at issue (though this would also apply to other editors in this topic area) is deliberately choosing language that pushes their point of view, instead of focusing on common-ground scientific language such as chromosomes, anatomy, or even "assigned male/female at birth". And if editors are not sanctioned for their disruptive behavior, this will eventually end up at ArbCom. And the only question will be how much damage will be done to the project before the disruptive behavior is finally addressed. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor tagged me for mentioning the common "thought police" defence, so I'll just acknowledge that there was a relevant discussion at WT:NOT that alerted me to this dispute. I'll just quote their comment on this Arbitration page, because it strikes me as the same kind of verbal gymnastics at issue, where someone promotes a WP:BATTLEGROUND while claiming they themselves are being persecuted. Quoting them, I proposed a section at What Misplaced Pages is not, the section heading to be ‘Misplaced Pages is not the Thought Police.’ Please note *not* the thought police. There were then numerous responses from editors who disagreed with me i.e. bizarrely, those who disagreed with me appear to be giving support to the view that Misplaced Pages *is* the thought police. These kinds of rhetorical games are as brazenly transparent as they are disruptive. Just stop. For the sake of the project, and for yourself. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sesquivalent

Gender identity topics have by far the highest capacity for asymmetric warfare to remove editors from one side only. This is a self exacerbating problem if complaints are taken at face value; the more topic bans the more lopsided things become.

People hold differing views of what is real in this subject, so it's very common for someone to say something that sounds outrageously wrong to others. But the side with more "traditional" views (here Maneesh) will never bring formal complaints against the one with "gender theory" views (here the OP, Newimpartial) for offending them. Only the other way round. Posting to administrative complaint boards becomes a way of winning content disputes by removing more and more editors from the side that does not treat the other's views as punishable acts.

I have very little and very recent participation in this subject (one talk page) but it is already obvious that Newimpartial is both the leading BLUDGEONer in the topic and very thin skinned in interpreting others' comments as being phobic or unfair to various degrees, while at the same time holding highly theorized views (not that there's anything wrong with that!) according to which such judgements are made extremely broadly. Newimpartial has had their own comments maliciously or over interpreted on wanting "homosexuals to die out" when it obviously referred to the terms not the persons, but is now pushing equivalent overinterpretations of Maneesh comments to conquer the talk page space. Asymmetric warfare of this sort should not be incentivized by allowing it. Sesquivalent (talk)

@Shibbolethink, the behavioral evidence you cite and the conclusions you draw from it concern AGF and BATTLEGROUND, not the GENSEX topic itself, but you call for a topic ban rather than, say, a short site ban to cool off. That's in spite of not having a problem with Maneesh's opinions (and/or his expressing them). If there is no problem with the opinions, you are in effect saying that the editor should be punished for the pathologies, arguably one sided pathologies, in the GENSEX area; were it any other topic area the solution would be different, but this area is specially contentious, so a vocal or battle prone user of his opinions should be specially kept out of there, to keep the peace. That would be exactly an incentivization of asymmetric warfare as I described. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, Maneesh seems to have some expertise himself, and topic banning (which tends to run for much longer than site blocks) is the opposite of Expert Retention. How can we judge between (1) your suggestion that he has some strange preoccupation with this subject, making him prone to combat in just this one area, and (2) the alternative interpretation, that he happens to have relevant knowledge on the topic (e.g., he seems to have prevailed on the question of how MEDRS writes about it) leading to exasperation with others who are combatively challenging him over basic trivia on the level of 1+1=2 to people familiar with the literature, that exasperation furthered as people debate points and subpoints tangential to the basic 1+1 fact. In the second view this is a generic AGF/BATTLE matter, as well as raising the issues I named above. Also, you posted eight diffs but everything is from one week's discussion at a single talk page, possibly a first foray into the area, which supports the idea of localized exasperation. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, there isn't a content dispute between us, but the question of whether GENSEX should be used in the analysis here at all. Your further diffs are all, as you say, behavioral, just like the earlier ones, in ways that are not particular to GENSEX. The particular GENSEX complaints others have made (re: "transwomen are males" in a stated sex differences MEDRS context, and "aliens" in a list of examples) are stretched readings of material where a reasonable meaning should have been obvious, and trying to fuel an AE case with those is (in my opinion) an illustration of the asymmetric warfare problem. As would a sanction with no consideraton of the OP's behavior. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by lmharding

While I will not be commenting on his personal beliefs, as he is entitled to them no matter how politically incorrect they may be, I will say that WP:BATTLEGROUND is an issue as noted by other users and all users who have tried to give him advice have been subject to Maneesh's bickering. The fact that his views offend is not the point. We are just here to focus on his edits. Kind reminder to everyone here that associating political beliefs with a user as a way of dismissing can be seen as a personal attack, not going off topic about how his attitudes make us feel. His edits are not encyclopedic and are distracting with him doing 3R violations as well. A topicban will hopefully suffice and if that fails, other solutions that may be more permanent may have to be utilized. Another user, another WP:DROPTHESTICK. Look at this interaction for even more proof that this may not be the last we hear of Maneesh here. 19:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Statement by Cutepeach

This doesn't appear to be anything more than an attempt to remove an editor from a topic. Shibbolethink's diffs show that Maneesh actually has a much stronger grasp of the topic than he does, and that they gained consensus for their edits. Yet again, AE is proving to be a kangaroo court where administrators adjudicate claims without even checking the veracity of the evidence presented, meting out the harshest punitive measure when a warning would suffice. Merry Christmas y'all! CutePeach (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maneesh

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

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

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

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

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

~~This and especially this suggests to me that this is an editor who may probably should not be editing in the gender area. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)~~
This is extremely confusing. I read the entire discussion on Talk:Sex differences in medicine and came out of it thoroughly confused. On the one hand, it is true that Maneesh needs to understand that gender identity is a sensitive area and that a light touch, rather than a dismissive one, is the higher road to take. However, it is also true that Newimpartial occupies a rather large part of the discussion, perhaps to the point of bludgeoning. Perhaps, then, that high road is not as easy to take as it looks. I'm not too keen to issue warnings or bans in an area where the behavioral issues are muddy but it does seem to me that the editors participating in Sex differences in medicine (and I mean all of them) need to hash out a consensus on the terminology, shove it up there in the yellow area of the talk page, and then make everyone stick to it. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The second diff that Black Kite refers to is definitely problematic and @Maneesh: if you don't see why, then we do have a problem. I get what you're trying to say, but it is generally accepted today that gender identity is not a choice that an individual makes. The implication that it is, which is what your post is making, is unacceptable. If you don't see that, then I agree with Black Kite that you should probably not be editing in this area. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: The usual way is to start an RfC, everyone gives their arguments, and an uninvolved editor closes it with a decision that is then binding, at least in the short term. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Since Maneesh is digging a deeper hole, I now think a topic ban is necessary. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: While it may be the case that gender identification issues in medical articles need additional thought, the reason why I think Maneesh needs a topic ban is because of their insistence that gender identity is a choice that a person makes (the comparison to basketball players and aliens). That is contrary to accepted practice (as Evergreen Fir cogently states). Gender identification issues in medical articles is a content issue that is best left to the talk page of those articles, and that was my initial reaction, but the doubling down on the choice issue is a problem and we can, and should, topic ban an editor for their inability to conform to acceptable norms. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Dtobias: Maneesh is welcome to hold whatver views they like but they are in the process of being topic banned for repeatedly doubling down on an unacceptable on. Once is forgiveable. But repeatedly? Note that there was absolutely no need for Maneesh to make this "choice" argument in the first place and to keep on pushing it is either a deliberate action of some sort or they just don't know when to stop. In either case, a topic ban is the minimum required action.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only in death raises some interesting points. And while Maneesh may lack some tact, we are talking about medical articles, not cultural articles, and they aren't the same, my friends. Gender related disputes (in general) have turned into a real shit show, and I worry we are overcompensating, when we should not be doing so (and potentially causing harm) in medical articles. Wikipedians in general sometimes worry more about feelings and less about facts. We need to find some common ground, based in science. That's all I have to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
RegentsPark, handling at each article talk page is why it is a shit show. Until policy sets firm guidance that applies equally to ALL medical articles, this is going to happen. I have zero faith in this happening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The bothsidesism on display here is pure distraction. It is abundantly clear from the initial diffs that we have an editor who a) has a strongly held, minority view on gender; b) has proved themselves incapable of putting that aside and editing in the topic area without causing disruption; and c) made several comments that disparage trans people (transwomen are male, transmen are female, mockingly comparing trans identity to claiming to be an alien, etc.) in a way that, as Bilorv notes, is contrary to our new UCOC as well as the good old civility policy. I support banning Maneesh from all GENSEX topics, as a minimum sanction. – Joe (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that User:Joe Roe has correctly distilled the situation and agree that at the very least a GENSEX ban is required. And I strongly support what Seraphimblade says about the problem with requiring yearly renewal for DS alerts. I wonder if a bot solution to this would be possible? Doug Weller talk 10:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thinking about this since I posted above, it's my opinion that User:Dtobias should also at the minimum be topic banned. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with a topic ban for Maneesh here as recommended above. While their work seems to be limited to the medical topic area in regards to transgender issues - and thus going to be open to more controversial statements related to the clinical discussion of the nature of transgender identity - they seem to lack the tact and self-awareness of how they discuss these issues without raising the ire of other editors, that it does create concern with the potential for on-going disruption even if this was closed with no action that they don't seem to be aware of these problems. --Masem (t) 00:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

No action. Seraphimblade 00:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User who is submitting this request for enforcement Crossroads 00:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Article regarding which enforcement is requested Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions Additional comments by editor filing complaint (There does not appear to be a standard template for page restriction requests despite AE being for those too, so I did my best to follow the structured format.) I am requesting page restrictions in the form of WP:Consensus required. This article in the last 2 days has been host to no less than 3 edit wars each with multiple editors on each side, all of whom are as far as I know extended-confirmed. Similar issues extend back further in time. Whatever changes to the article end up sticking has to do with whoever is more willing to revert than with any actual consensus. Edit war 1: Paper author encouraging wide distribution of survey: (then another editor saying that if included we need to include their added material - where a primary source, the study itself, is being used to rebut a secondary source, the Wadman article in Science. ) Current result: kept but with rebuttal sentence just mentioned. Edit war 2: Science describing the "most explosive" finding of the paper: Current result: removed. Edit war 3: Describing the websites surveyed as "anti-trans": Current result: label added. There is no way any of these changes can be said to have true consensus; each result is from revert-warring. So, while consensus required going forward is vital, it should also be applied to the changes which caused the report and the sanction, meaning that all changes since the last stable version should be reverted. Admins may also be interested in WP:1RR, which I have no opinion on other than that it is clear that 1RR alone will not solve the problems here, since someone else can just revert. "Consensus required" is necessary. Let me know if giving out any notifications is required. Crossroads 00:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Silver seren: No, it is not at all just me, and dismissing Pengortm like that is a WP:Personal attack. In edit war 2, I was uninvolved, and Mathglot was on Pengortm's side for that one in favor of the text. The text was forced out anyway. No talk page consensus exists for any of these edits. I was hoping this wouldn't get bogged down in behavior discussions, but the problem here is WP:FACTION-style reverting being used to force through changes. If "consensus required" isn't for this sort of situation, what is it for? And it is common for the stable version to be restored per WP:NOCON in such heavy controversies, because there is no consensus for these changes, while a new, actual consensus develops. Crossroads 00:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Editors should not be claiming a talk page consensus exists that does not exist. The quotes here by Loki in no way specify support for that addition of "anti-trans", despite their claim here that those editors do. By no means is that a clear consensus. (And if those editors do later support that new wording, that doesn't resolve this issue.) Crossroads 00:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial's claims are unsupported and untrue. A consensus required restriction on the page restricts me as much as anyone and I would still want it even if "anti-trans" stays or even if all three edit wars stay unchanged. Loki's claim that I am saying there is still no consensus is not true. I can only guess they are referring to this, where I listed quotes from sources for an explicitly open-ended purpose and inviting others to find more, Sideswipe9th accused me of being tendentious, and I replied that it was too soon to declare it settled since the discussion had started less then 3 hours before. That isn't denying the pattern there at that moment. Crossroads 05:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial's claim that this was a consensus-required violation is not true as I explained there. Disagreeing with them is not wikilawyering. It was WP:GAMING on their part to force a reversion to their version which had never been stable or had consensus. Newimpartial tried using this same talking point at an AE report at the same time , and around that time they sided against another editor being reported who admins unanimously sided with, and a few days later they reported that same editor for a consensus-required "violation" that was shown to not be a violation. Everyone who has commented here so far except for XOR'easter is heavily involved either with this article or in the gender topic area, with some of the commenters even making the reverts mentioned in the report, so admins should evaluate accordingly. Crossroads 17:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Discussion concerning Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy Statement by Sideswipe9th (ROGD controversy) I've just placed a template notification on the article talk page about this filing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Aside from a brief contribution in November, I've not been involved on this talk page until this evening. Reviewing Crossroad's provided diffs, I concur with the statements by Silver Seren, and Loki. This is a very clear example of Two against many. This filing seems somewhat vexatious, and I'd suggest Crossroads removes it. Otherwise I think Loki's suggestion of Consensus Required restrictions being imposed against Crossroads as well as Pengortm is worth considering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Silver seren I'm not sure what "multiple editors on each side" that Crossroads is referring to. If you look at the article history, it is just multiple users (6 by my count including myself?) reverting Crossroads' changes and telling them that they're incorrect on the talk page. The only account that has been recently agreeing with them reverting alongside them is User:Pengortm, whom seems to be a clear POV editor that is edit warring across multiple articles with a number of editors. Consensus seems to be working perfectly fine on the talk page. The issue is just that the consensus is not on Crossroads' side and so they've been repeatedly claiming that no such consensus exists, as they have just now done again in the latest section on the talk page. Silver seren 00:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Actually, now that I re-read their statement above, I can only assume that the "all changes since the last stable version should be reverted" request is an attempt to revert the article back to before the consensus made changes were done, since it is those changes that Crossroads disagrees with. Silver seren 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Pengortm I am not sure what the best solution is to the issues on this page, but we could certainly use third party admin perspective here. We are not doing a good job of productively collaborating to build something better. Update: reading up on Misplaced Pages:Consensus required, this seems like a good solution, but I also hope an independent admin can take a look at edit history/talk page and perhaps might have other suggestions. -Pengortm (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by LokiTheLiar I agree with a consensus required restriction, but mostly to restrict Crossroads themselves. As I've just pointed out on the talk page of that article, they are reverting edits supported by six people (five on the talk page + me who made the edit) as "no consensus" when the only opposition is themselves. In fact, since the restriction in question may be imposed on a user rather than a page, I'd rather it be imposed on Crossroads as a user rather than the page in question, since really nobody else is trying to edit against consensus but Crossroads. Loki (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Update: we're now up to 9-2 in favor of this most recent edit and Crossroads is still claiming there's no consensus for it. Loki (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof This is wildly premature; there's extensive, ongoing discussion on the talk page, with multiple perspectives and a wide variety of sources being presented. If Crossroads does not feel that consensus is being properly created here, their next step should be to open an RFC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Newimpartial I have no intention of investing much time in this filing, one way or another. However, I feel that I would be remiss by not pointing out that Crossroads has a history of WP:GAMING consensus-required restrictions in particular and claims to consensus in general. He has insisted that text under active dispute at, and before, the time a consensus-required restriction is placed, is deemed (by him) to have consensus for his preferred version, so the restriction does not apply (to him). However, he will not accept a clear consensus in favor of a change if he is the one editor (or one of a small minority of editors) who dissent. Given this dynamic, a "consensus-required" restriction serves Crossroads merely as another STICK - diffs available on request, but this is very easy to demonstrate so I don't think they're really necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC) @Crossroads - are you suggesting that any the other editors commenting here are more INVOLVED on the page in question than you are? If so, why? If not, then what are you saying? And as far as your account of the Kathleen Stock disputes are concerned, I believe the Admin can read for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC) And since I have been asked for evidence, above, this discussion documents Crossroads insisting that his preferred (but contested) version was not a consensus-required vio, and for wikilawyering about consensus, see for example this section, notably this edit (check the summary) - there was a fair amount of FILLIBUSTERING by Crossroads (and Pyxis Solitary) before Crossroads grudgingly (almost) admitted what the consensus actually was. The parallels between Crossroads' behaviour after the consensus required restriction was placed at Kathleen Stock (per the links /diffs I just provided) and his behaviour and expressed intentions in relation to this filing show a remarkably consistent pattern - deny that (or "question" whether) consensus exists for edits he doesn't like, and insist that old versions have consensus even when they have been explicitly contested by other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by GoodDay If this is based on a content dispute. Have an RFC on it. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion Not a fan of consensus required restrictions in general, since I feel they encourage WP:STONEWALL behavior - obviously reaching consensus on every edit is ideal, but in order to get to that point, people need to be encouraged to come to the table and negotiate. If too much force is given to any one default outcome then it encourages people who support that outcome to refuse to engage or compromise beyond the bare minimum necessary to say no, to reject any consensus short of a formal RFC, and so on. This isn't a problem specific to any one article or subject (it is why there are an absurd number of RFCs for every minor detail on Donald Trump, which had consensus-required restrictions for ages), but the already-torturous nature of talk-page discussions on that article makes me particularly skeptical that such a restriction would help there, especially given that the entire reason it's being brought here is a refusal to accept a less formal consensus on talk. GoodDay's suggestion of an RFC for this specific case is reasonable, but it would be unreasonable to insist that every contested change go through an RFC even when there is a broad, general consensus for it on talk, which I fear would be the result of any such restriction. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by XOR'easter This seems the wrong forum to resolve whatever might be happening on the Talk page in question, and I'm not sure how imposing CRP would help things. XOR'easter (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by DanielRigal Really? It is bad enough that we have to have an RfC on a minor element of well referenced and uncontroversially valid content (what is being referred to as "Edit war 3" above) but we also have to have this as well? Is this really a good use of our time on Christmas Day? Anyway, this is venue shopping at the very least. In the interests of peace on earth and goodwill to people of all genders, let's just close it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shibbolethink Speaking as someone pretty new to this topic area, but not new to this topic, it seems any restrictions would be unnecessary. Talk page discussion/RfCs/consensus formation appears to be working as intended here. If, as some editors suggest, there is an issue with users continually pushing back against consensus or acting against consensus, that is a matter that should be brought up in a different venue/capacity: WP:EWN, WP:ANI, or back here to WP:AE as fits the particular context. But such venues do not take kindly to content disputes, so it should be very clear that the issue is editor behavior. At this time, I don't see much reason for the admins to do anything here.— Shibbolethink 19:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Procedurally, there is certainly nothing wrong with requesting page-level sanctions here, as that's certainly an available arbitration enforcement remedy (and maybe we should have some standard way to do that). That does raise the question of who should be notified about this request; I know I would at least like to hear from anyone involved in major edits to the article recently. Seraphimblade 01:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Looking at this now that people have had a chance to weigh in, it appears that these are content disputes which already are being extensively discussed, and one is the subject of an RfC in process at the time of this writing. Given that it does not seem that lack of talk page discussion is a problem, I see no need to impose a remedy enforcing it at this time. Seraphimblade 18:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC) While I'm mindful of this request occurring over a holiday, there seems to be little need for enactment of a remedy here. Unless another uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this request with no action. Seraphimblade 19:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC) I agree with Seraphimblade on all points, including AE is fine for requesting Arb related page sanctions. As for the request, someone is always going to be on the short end of consensus, which itself is not a reason for page level sanctions. As for his question re: who should be notified, I would tend to think that an article talk page notification is the most neutral way to notify, instead of trying to hand pick editors. Not sure how we codify that, but I'm guessing via Arb clarification, since that is where the authority comes from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No action. Seraphimblade 00:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Crossroads 00:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Article regarding which enforcement is requested: Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(There does not appear to be a standard template for page restriction requests despite AE being for those too, so I did my best to follow the structured format.)

I am requesting page restrictions in the form of WP:Consensus required. This article in the last 2 days has been host to no less than 3 edit wars each with multiple editors on each side, all of whom are as far as I know extended-confirmed. Similar issues extend back further in time. Whatever changes to the article end up sticking has to do with whoever is more willing to revert than with any actual consensus.

Edit war 1: Paper author encouraging wide distribution of survey: (then another editor saying that if included we need to include their added material - where a primary source, the study itself, is being used to rebut a secondary source, the Wadman article in Science. ) Current result: kept but with rebuttal sentence just mentioned.
Edit war 2: Science describing the "most explosive" finding of the paper: Current result: removed.
Edit war 3: Describing the websites surveyed as "anti-trans": Current result: label added.

There is no way any of these changes can be said to have true consensus; each result is from revert-warring. So, while consensus required going forward is vital, it should also be applied to the changes which caused the report and the sanction, meaning that all changes since the last stable version should be reverted.

Admins may also be interested in WP:1RR, which I have no opinion on other than that it is clear that 1RR alone will not solve the problems here, since someone else can just revert. "Consensus required" is necessary.

Let me know if giving out any notifications is required.

Crossroads 00:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren: No, it is not at all just me, and dismissing Pengortm like that is a WP:Personal attack. In edit war 2, I was uninvolved, and Mathglot was on Pengortm's side for that one in favor of the text. The text was forced out anyway. No talk page consensus exists for any of these edits. I was hoping this wouldn't get bogged down in behavior discussions, but the problem here is WP:FACTION-style reverting being used to force through changes. If "consensus required" isn't for this sort of situation, what is it for? And it is common for the stable version to be restored per WP:NOCON in such heavy controversies, because there is no consensus for these changes, while a new, actual consensus develops. Crossroads 00:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors should not be claiming a talk page consensus exists that does not exist. The quotes here by Loki in no way specify support for that addition of "anti-trans", despite their claim here that those editors do. By no means is that a clear consensus. (And if those editors do later support that new wording, that doesn't resolve this issue.) Crossroads 00:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial's claims are unsupported and untrue. A consensus required restriction on the page restricts me as much as anyone and I would still want it even if "anti-trans" stays or even if all three edit wars stay unchanged. Loki's claim that I am saying there is still no consensus is not true. I can only guess they are referring to this, where I listed quotes from sources for an explicitly open-ended purpose and inviting others to find more, Sideswipe9th accused me of being tendentious, and I replied that it was too soon to declare it settled since the discussion had started less then 3 hours before. That isn't denying the pattern there at that moment. Crossroads 05:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial's claim that this was a consensus-required violation is not true as I explained there. Disagreeing with them is not wikilawyering. It was WP:GAMING on their part to force a reversion to their version which had never been stable or had consensus. Newimpartial tried using this same talking point at an AE report at the same time , and around that time they sided against another editor being reported who admins unanimously sided with, and a few days later they reported that same editor for a consensus-required "violation" that was shown to not be a violation.

Everyone who has commented here so far except for XOR'easter is heavily involved either with this article or in the gender topic area, with some of the commenters even making the reverts mentioned in the report, so admins should evaluate accordingly. Crossroads 17:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

Statement by Sideswipe9th (ROGD controversy)

I've just placed a template notification on the article talk page about this filing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Aside from a brief contribution in November, I've not been involved on this talk page until this evening. Reviewing Crossroad's provided diffs, I concur with the statements by Silver Seren, and Loki. This is a very clear example of Two against many. This filing seems somewhat vexatious, and I'd suggest Crossroads removes it. Otherwise I think Loki's suggestion of Consensus Required restrictions being imposed against Crossroads as well as Pengortm is worth considering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Silver seren

I'm not sure what "multiple editors on each side" that Crossroads is referring to. If you look at the article history, it is just multiple users (6 by my count including myself?) reverting Crossroads' changes and telling them that they're incorrect on the talk page. The only account that has been recently agreeing with them reverting alongside them is User:Pengortm, whom seems to be a clear POV editor that is edit warring across multiple articles with a number of editors. Consensus seems to be working perfectly fine on the talk page. The issue is just that the consensus is not on Crossroads' side and so they've been repeatedly claiming that no such consensus exists, as they have just now done again in the latest section on the talk page. Silver seren 00:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, now that I re-read their statement above, I can only assume that the "all changes since the last stable version should be reverted" request is an attempt to revert the article back to before the consensus made changes were done, since it is those changes that Crossroads disagrees with. Silver seren 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pengortm

I am not sure what the best solution is to the issues on this page, but we could certainly use third party admin perspective here. We are not doing a good job of productively collaborating to build something better. Update: reading up on Misplaced Pages:Consensus required, this seems like a good solution, but I also hope an independent admin can take a look at edit history/talk page and perhaps might have other suggestions. -Pengortm (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by LokiTheLiar

I agree with a consensus required restriction, but mostly to restrict Crossroads themselves. As I've just pointed out on the talk page of that article, they are reverting edits supported by six people (five on the talk page + me who made the edit) as "no consensus" when the only opposition is themselves. In fact, since the restriction in question may be imposed on a user rather than a page, I'd rather it be imposed on Crossroads as a user rather than the page in question, since really nobody else is trying to edit against consensus but Crossroads. Loki (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: we're now up to 9-2 in favor of this most recent edit and Crossroads is still claiming there's no consensus for it. Loki (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

This is wildly premature; there's extensive, ongoing discussion on the talk page, with multiple perspectives and a wide variety of sources being presented. If Crossroads does not feel that consensus is being properly created here, their next step should be to open an RFC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial

I have no intention of investing much time in this filing, one way or another. However, I feel that I would be remiss by not pointing out that Crossroads has a history of WP:GAMING consensus-required restrictions in particular and claims to consensus in general. He has insisted that text under active dispute at, and before, the time a consensus-required restriction is placed, is deemed (by him) to have consensus for his preferred version, so the restriction does not apply (to him). However, he will not accept a clear consensus in favor of a change if he is the one editor (or one of a small minority of editors) who dissent. Given this dynamic, a "consensus-required" restriction serves Crossroads merely as another STICK - diffs available on request, but this is very easy to demonstrate so I don't think they're really necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads - are you suggesting that any the other editors commenting here are more INVOLVED on the page in question than you are? If so, why? If not, then what are you saying?

And as far as your account of the Kathleen Stock disputes are concerned, I believe the Admin can read for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

And since I have been asked for evidence, above, this discussion documents Crossroads insisting that his preferred (but contested) version was not a consensus-required vio, and for wikilawyering about consensus, see for example this section, notably this edit (check the summary) - there was a fair amount of FILLIBUSTERING by Crossroads (and Pyxis Solitary) before Crossroads grudgingly (almost) admitted what the consensus actually was. The parallels between Crossroads' behaviour after the consensus required restriction was placed at Kathleen Stock (per the links /diffs I just provided) and his behaviour and expressed intentions in relation to this filing show a remarkably consistent pattern - deny that (or "question" whether) consensus exists for edits he doesn't like, and insist that old versions have consensus even when they have been explicitly contested by other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

If this is based on a content dispute. Have an RFC on it. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Not a fan of consensus required restrictions in general, since I feel they encourage WP:STONEWALL behavior - obviously reaching consensus on every edit is ideal, but in order to get to that point, people need to be encouraged to come to the table and negotiate. If too much force is given to any one default outcome then it encourages people who support that outcome to refuse to engage or compromise beyond the bare minimum necessary to say no, to reject any consensus short of a formal RFC, and so on. This isn't a problem specific to any one article or subject (it is why there are an absurd number of RFCs for every minor detail on Donald Trump, which had consensus-required restrictions for ages), but the already-torturous nature of talk-page discussions on that article makes me particularly skeptical that such a restriction would help there, especially given that the entire reason it's being brought here is a refusal to accept a less formal consensus on talk. GoodDay's suggestion of an RFC for this specific case is reasonable, but it would be unreasonable to insist that every contested change go through an RFC even when there is a broad, general consensus for it on talk, which I fear would be the result of any such restriction. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by XOR'easter

This seems the wrong forum to resolve whatever might be happening on the Talk page in question, and I'm not sure how imposing CRP would help things. XOR'easter (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DanielRigal

Really? It is bad enough that we have to have an RfC on a minor element of well referenced and uncontroversially valid content (what is being referred to as "Edit war 3" above) but we also have to have this as well? Is this really a good use of our time on Christmas Day? Anyway, this is venue shopping at the very least. In the interests of peace on earth and goodwill to people of all genders, let's just close it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink

Speaking as someone pretty new to this topic area, but not new to this topic, it seems any restrictions would be unnecessary. Talk page discussion/RfCs/consensus formation appears to be working as intended here. If, as some editors suggest, there is an issue with users continually pushing back against consensus or acting against consensus, that is a matter that should be brought up in a different venue/capacity: WP:EWN, WP:ANI, or back here to WP:AE as fits the particular context. But such venues do not take kindly to content disputes, so it should be very clear that the issue is editor behavior. At this time, I don't see much reason for the admins to do anything here.— Shibbolethink 19:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

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

Procedurally, there is certainly nothing wrong with requesting page-level sanctions here, as that's certainly an available arbitration enforcement remedy (and maybe we should have some standard way to do that). That does raise the question of who should be notified about this request; I know I would at least like to hear from anyone involved in major edits to the article recently. Seraphimblade 01:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this now that people have had a chance to weigh in, it appears that these are content disputes which already are being extensively discussed, and one is the subject of an RfC in process at the time of this writing. Given that it does not seem that lack of talk page discussion is a problem, I see no need to impose a remedy enforcing it at this time. Seraphimblade 18:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

While I'm mindful of this request occurring over a holiday, there seems to be little need for enactment of a remedy here. Unless another uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this request with no action. Seraphimblade 19:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Seraphimblade on all points, including AE is fine for requesting Arb related page sanctions. As for the request, someone is always going to be on the short end of consensus, which itself is not a reason for page level sanctions. As for his question re: who should be notified, I would tend to think that an article talk page notification is the most neutral way to notify, instead of trying to hand pick editors. Not sure how we codify that, but I'm guessing via Arb clarification, since that is where the authority comes from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopædius

Request concerning Encyclopædius

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Encyclopædius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:COVIDDS

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

08:44, 24 December 2021 Sadly even the Church has been infiltrated by the globalists/Big Pharma, Justin Welby is saying Jesus would have had the vaccine. I bet Pfizer gave him a nice check. Even the Salvation Army, who my grandfather's brother was once the leader of in Australia and Canada has gone all woke and saying white people should apologize for their racism. As Elon Musk rightly says, wokeness is a "mind virus" intended to divide the masses and eat away at society. Institutions we used to trust can no longer be trusted. These comments, which do not appear to be in jest, show that Encyclopædius appears to hold a conspiracist worldview.
17:15, 27 December 2021 Describing a tweet by the FDA advising against using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 as "propaganda"
Talk:Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic##Pure_propaganda (27 December 2021) Total failure to understand WP:MEDRS, uses newspaper articles and single trial studies to support Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, against general medical consensus.
Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#And_now_the_pushback (27 December 2021) Same as above
08:24, 28 December 2021 There are a number who want a more globalised system of governance, that's not a conspiracy theory. Many of them have invested heavily in Big Pharma and are profiting from the vaccines, those I was referring to. Sure, there's a lot of disinformation and crazy claims on social media, and it's often not easy to find the truth, but I believe I'm well justified in personally believing that COVID is a planned pandemic and that controls such as passports and passes could lead to a global social credit system gradually being introduced. I believe the media, various institutions and various prominent people have been paid off to optimize the number who are vaccinated, and suppression of alternatives goes hand in hand. This was posted in response to this AE request, but was subsequently removed by Encyclopædius. I don't think I need to comment on why this is problematic.

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

They are aware of this request. They reverted the notice, with the reply Utter nonsense. What's the matter, the truth is a threat eh?.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is far from Encyclopædius's first rodeo with COVID-19 misinformation. They were pushing the exact same line about Ivermectin back in September, see Talk:Ivermectin#Misinformation, and still appear, months later, to have absolutely no grasp of WP:MEDRS. Their comments on their talkpage from the 24 December appear to show that they have a conspiracist worldview, which is incompatible with editing an encyclopedia. In a conversation back in July at Talk:Antibody-dependent_enhancement#Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic Encyclopædius also displays a conspiracist worldview, talking about Big pharma diff and claiming that Youtube/Twitter/Facebook delete most videos of non anti vaxx scientists claiming this and "credible" mainstream sources won't cover it because there is an agenda to vaccinate everybody. diff I think a permanent topic ban from COVID-19 is the minimum necessary sanction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In response to XOReaster, I should note the edit they made to their talkpage in June 2021 implying that there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, referencing the Maricopa recount. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Encyclopædius

Statement by Encyclopædius

I strongly disagree with the way Misplaced Pages echoes a certain narrative put out in the media when there are sources which contradict them. As somebody who believes in a neutral encyclopedia which is free to edit, I detest this level of control and response to anybody questioning the "narrative". I've tried to ignore COVID on Misplaced Pages but the propaganda with the horse and tweet is very obvious. I do believe that there is a global agenda to vaccinate the world population and that many people and institutions are bought and paid for, including sources we often use to claim key points. I have good reason to believe that. I don't care enough about the subject matter to feel the need to edit it or discuss it often though. I will avoid editing articles on this subject as I largely have been doing, even if I believe they are compromised, so any ban or response is unnecessary.₪ Encyclopædius 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of what I think about the pandemic being very suspicious based on extensive research I've done, my viewpoint has no place on Misplaced Pages and is certainly not threat to content. I just believe that articles should be neutral and there's something gravely wrong with immediately trying to ban me from a topic for pointing out mainstream sources (not fringe) in India and Philippines which say Ivermectin is a success in treating Covid and linking some scientific papers to point out that the claim in the article not entirely true. I don't have a history of editing medical articles and am not interested, why would I be aware of guidelines for writing medical articles if I never edit them? Articles I've strayed into with biology and earth sciences I've always used scientific papers along with books and presumed for this they were valid sources. The bottom line is I want Misplaced Pages to be neutral and accurate and not try to suppress certain information to meet a narrative. I'm seeing the same editors editing and protecting articles, particularly those who've spoken out about the vaccines, and I am concerned that they are not neutral editors and operating in a coordinated way. Other than this I have no interest in pursuing this or anything related to COVID.₪ Encyclopædius 08:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment In two years, where is the evidence that I've been trying to pollute the encyclopedia with bizarre COVID conspiracy theories to warrant a ban? I don't edit medical or COVID articles and have never been of that mindset. I don't think I even mentioned Covid or conspiracies on my talk page before. All I asked was for articles on a few people speaking out against the vaccines to be neutral, and use stronger sources to make big claims. If the Ivermectin article was more neutral I wouldn't have commented. For somebody innocent without an agenda Alex you sure don't act like it. Banning me would just prove I'm a threat to your operations. ₪ Encyclopædius 09:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Question for arbitrators Why do you think I am liable to edit COVID-related articles or speak about it again in a problematic way, do you not think I get the idea from this that it's clearly a no-go zone if you want peace? Where is the evidence that I'm constantly causing problems in this field to warrant a ban? All I've asked for is to try to be more neutral and use good sources for strong claims in articles on claims related to questioning the vaccine and alternatives. If I promise to not edit or talk about it on here again, why wouldn't you trust me on that?

Comment I have no problems with gender, sexuality or racial equality, I am all for equality and justice, I have a problem when it is used in an extreme, unpleasant way to push an agenda and it creates divisions with people and problems. I don't edit articles in this field but to dismiss me based on half a comment seems outrageous. On my political test I was slightly on the left and am very tolerant of race and sexuality when there is genuine injustice. Such comments are extremely rare from me and were more about feeling that the Salvos were singling out white people as all racist.₪ Encyclopædius 16:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Slatersteven That's been there a while, but do you see me frantically going through articles neutralizing them? Nope. I'm British and centrist in outlook, I see issues with both sides in US politics. Both should read neutrally, but it's a fact that articles were trashed on anybody claiming fraud or has an issue with the vaccines. Maybe they are indeed bogus claims, but we should still strive to write neutral articles. My stance remains but that doesn't mean I don't have the self discipline to avoid the articles or rant about them. I have no problem agreeing to avoid articles and will do if respected without being so heavy-handed, I just wish editors like Alex would respect our neutrality guidelines more and act like somebody editing in good faith who is open to suggestions. ₪ Encyclopædius 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to valereee Spot on, and thank you, I agree to a self-imposed avoidance of editing and commenting on COVID-related articles, it's a non-issue as I largely avoid the articles anyway. If my promise isn't kept then this would be appropriate. All I ask is for the regular editors to be a bit more respectful towards the article subjects even if they personally disagree, and not display so much ownership of them. Alex does not own our articles on COVID and related topics. ₪ Encyclopædius 21:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to Shibbolethink How do you define "disrupt". Two sources were mainstream newspapers in India and the Philippines. I did not intentionally want to "disrupt" anything, merely question the claim and why the horse and tweet was used. I acknowledge that Alex, Slater and a few others have put in a lot of work on this subject and there's other content I've seen that I don't have an issue with. I concede that it wasn't in good faith to accuse them of propaganda, but the horse pic and tweet didn't seem right to me. I don't have a history of editing Covid treatments, and I certainly have no intention of doing so again, I think I've only questioned the Ivermectin situation, given that I've seen two sets of completely different claims, but I don't want to pursue it further. There's been a mixed bag of information from the media in all fairness, contradictory a lot of the time, and difficult to know what is the truth or reality at times. Even the health officials have said various different things. I certainly don't fully trust certain sources as I did anyway. Y₪ Encyclopædius 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to Vanamonde Where is the evidence that I've pushed conspiracy theories in the mainspace or have a history of this anywhere? Given that I rarely even look at COVID articles, why wold you not take my word for it to avoid this subject again? ₪ Encyclopædius 20:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

As I have said Vanamonde93 I have already agreed to stay well clear of COVID-related topics and discussing it on here again, which I have pretty much done every day for two years. In a normal wiki environment it would be fair game to ask why a horse would be used to illustrate an article on a drug administered to humans for 6 years and question how accurate one of the statements was. If there is large-scale medical census in journals and big organizations globally that Ivermectin isn't backed to treat COVID then by those guidelines we have to follow that, but one would presume that if the drug has been formally approved for domestic use in the countries the article identifies then in those countries you'd think there would be some kind of central medical consensus that considers it an effective treatment.₪ Encyclopædius 10:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say Slater.. Have a good day/night everybody, see you next year... ₪ Encyclopædius 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Generalrelative

Picking up on what Black Kite noted about the dog-whistle for "Jewish", I will point out –– without assuming bad faith, since this could just be a coincidence –– that the meander symbol which Encyclopædius has chosen to incorporate into their signature bears a striking resemblance to the logo of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn. If this is not an intentional connotation, Encyclopædius, perhaps you could explain what it does mean? Generalrelative (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the context, MrOllie, though it still begs the question of why they would choose to use that symbol in this way. And of course it is possible for the symbol to be typeable because it represents the new shekel and at the same time work as a dog-whistle because it resembles the Golden Dawn logo. Again, I don't intend to assume bad faith here, but I'd suggest that it might be informative to hear Encyclopædius comment on this. I see that until recently they used the Christian cross in the same position, e.g. in the diff Black Kite provided below: . What prompted the switch? Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Striking my previous comments since there seems to be a consensus that Encyclopædius probably doesn't intend for this symbol to convey the meaning I suspected it might. Perhaps I'm just a bit scarred from seeing it plastered all over Europe during the years when Golden Dawn was at its height. In any case, happy to drop this line of inquiry in the interest of a more focused discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

How on earth does such an experienced editor justify heavily redacting their previous comment –– without striking or leaving any other visual indication of what has taken place –– after it has already been responded to? For anyone not following the history of this conversation, some of the more conspiratorial stuff referred to below was removed by Encyclopædius here: Generalrelative (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MrOllie

@Generalrelative: That's the symbol for the Israeli new shekel. - MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by XOR'easter

To the examples listed above, I'd add We also seem to be censoring when it comes to COVID, most of the people who've spoken out against the vaccines have had their biographies somewhat unfairly trashed and editors seem to be protecting them in that state . Perhaps also relevant is the claim that CNN and MSNBC and numerous mainstream media sources controlled by the left are as unreliable as Newsmax and OAN for American politics, just in the opposite direction . It is hard not to see this as a conspiratorial mindset. XOR'easter (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn

How does a user with 600,000 edits not use WP:INDENT? How does an editor who used to indent now not? I appreciate this account has been CU'd and is apparently technically secure, but my mind is boggling. Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

From this it is sadly apparent that for whatever reason, ‎Encyclopædius is completely in thrall to conspiracism. They're correct that this "has no place on Misplaced Pages", but their editing has put it here. Medical misinformation, such as they are promulgating, also has no place on Misplaced Pages. Given the vaccine comments, I think a TBAN from all biomedical topics is a minimum, but predict if they start on about the Archbishop of Canterbury is in the pay of Big Pharma (etc.) then their editing onward career in wider topics is likely to be a short one. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
From the alt accounts which were temporarily (?) revealed, it appears there are ground for suspecting WP:UPE from this person. Is this something that's going to get considered here, as it seems significant? If indeed UPE did occur, I would support a site ban. 19:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

I agree that Encyclopædius edits more constructively in other areas. I doubt that the account is compromised, some previous talk page posts also lacked proper indentation. As for the COVID topic, I wonder if it's also an AP one. Those conspiracy theories are unfortunately typical. Instead of being a great effort and a step forward to mitigate the pandemic, vaccines must only be some Big Pharma money hoax, ineffective COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin must be competing establishment-suppressed magical solutions, major reputable medical bodies must be corrupt disinformation outlets (and their public health education campaigns be commercial-driven propaganda)... And for whatever strange reason "woke" is thrown in. I initially thought that an AE report was a bit early, but from some presented diffs I understand. —Paleo Neonate – 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The last comment contains more of the same. "Articles should be neutral" WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV, part of the WP:NPOV policy, specify that a false balance should not be promoted between mainstream consensus views and fringe theories or primary research. The only part that I recognize as having merit is that some organizations have warned about the potential for some authoritarian regimes to take advantage of the situation for human right abuses. You'll find no reputable source claiming that the pandemic was manufactured and no MEDRS that claim that ivermectin is effective against SARS-CoV-2 (if there were, WP should reflect that). Non-effect or low toxicity at low doses also doesn't mean anything: most people recover without treatment, the problem is that they also transmit it and that a high enough percentage is vulnerable to severe disease, to be overwhelming. Cherry picked statistical glitches and primary research like individual trials are also very prone to error and that's also why MEDRS matters: we can only really know from a higher level when enough data is available from properly run trials. Not being a journal, WP is not to do the science, but to report about its results... If we worked with primary sources, all editors would also need to be experts in review, how to evaluate in-silico, in-vivo, in-vitro, animal studies, human trials... —Paleo Neonate – 09:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

a threat to your operations. or simply to the accuracy of the encyclopedia (and spent community time for otherwise trivial matters)... —Paleo Neonate – 16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia: But only the CSM, —Paleo Neonate – 04:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TheresNoTime

As noted above, I checked Encyclopædius as a potential compromise - maintaining the security of accounts with template editor permissions is fairly important as they are able to do quite a bit of damage. In the course of the check, I noted a number of accounts which were Confirmed to Encyclopædius:

I must however stress that TBAN notwithstanding, they have been used in a matter consistent with policy. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No. I said "I will out of politeness not block them as long as you either cease to edit from them or disclose your connections to them, and stick to one account (or disclosed alts) in the future." - seeing as my request was ignored, and this AE opened, it seemed pertinent to any result to mention them directly. Where do you believe I said that I wasn't going to "reveal the identity"? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC) (

Clerk note: was a reply to ProcrastinatingReader)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I was hoping for an affirmative to "not edit further" - perhaps I should have been clearer on that expectation. I will address your other comments on your talk page if that's okay with you? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't want to drive away Encyclopædius, which it seems I may have done - I've removed my listing of their accounts and revision deleted those revisions. That revdel is quite out of policy so I will undo it if anyone complains -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

( Clerk note: the below were split from a threaded discussion in TheresNoTime's section)

@TheresNoTime: didn’t you say you weren’t going to reveal the identity of the other accounts as long as they didn’t edit further from them? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It seemed implied, since you didn’t mention the names of the account in the original message, and then gave the editor a choice to either disclose them OR stop operating them. If you’re going to disclose them anyway, it doesn’t make sense to give the choice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I’d add by saying it's not clear he ignored your offer, since there are no edits on any three of the accounts recently, and since none edit in any relevant area it's not relevant to this AE. Plus you disclosed content in emails onwiki. Perhaps none of this violates policy but it all seems like bad practice to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free, although don't feel like you have to spend more time on this matter; you've more than rectified the situation since my last comment and I don't have outstanding concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Slatersteven

The fact they have announced they are retiring due to being topic-banned from COVID is not a good sign. I have no idea about what they were in the past, but that is a pretty good sign they are not wp:nothere now, whatever their past was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they have not said "due to a TBAN" but comments like this "Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 and the 2020 US election I've strongly disapproved of the way Misplaced Pages echoes the endless lies put out by the media and the way we've become censored. I'm particularly appalled at the trashing of articles and completely disregard for neutrality on anybody who has spoken out about election fraud or against the vaccines, in areas which should be as neutral as the rest of the encyclopedia." are in fact declarations of wp:rightgreatwrongs, hence why I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It maybe stale but it seems they did make a stand on election fraud claims ] ]. But OK, lets give them a chance. No TBAN but an explicit warning that if they breach their agreement there will be a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

In order to demonstrate you will abide by a gentleman's agreement, it might be a good idea to stop arguing about the stuff you are being reported for. It is very hard to take seriously your offer to walk away when you are so determined to argue your case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Serial

Re. to Slatersteven, and answering the query what they were in the past: they were User:Dr Blofeld. ——Serial 18:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink (Re: Encyclopaedius)

I don't know much about this user, other than that they have dipped their hand into COVID matters from this perspective before (especially with regards to Ivermectin) .

At the same time, I would say it's clear they have no interest in editing around these controversial COVID spaces on Wiki, because they know the ire it draws. I think the project would be safe, and disruption satisfactorily minimized, if Encyclopaedius were just TBAN'd from COVID-19 treatments.

This is the controversial area of this topic that the user actually disrupted. And I would actually disagree with any ban from politics or gender/sex topics. I think it's extremely important that we restrict TBANs and sanctions to actions which actually interfere with consensus building and/or involve article-space editing. The diffs presented as evidence for these other TBANs appear to be limited to user talk space, where I think it is entirely okay to have and share these opinions, as long as it is not done in a harassing manner. I think it's important for the health of the project that we do not set a precedent of TBANing based on opinions shared, but instead on actions done.

Likewise, the core of WP:NOTHERE is counterproductive (or a lack of productive) editing. That is clearly not the case for this user. Sharing controversial opinions in user talk space, but not letting those edits show through in your article space contributions, I think should absolutely be permitted. We treat user talk space more liberally for a reason. I am rarely, if ever on the side of "CENSORSHIP! THOUGHT POLICE!" people, but i think this is the very rare situations in which that fear is justified. Don't restrict people for opinions they hold, restrict them for actions they do. We have no reason based on the conduct presented so far, to believe that Encyclopaedius has any intention to disrupt these other areas.

Encyclopaedius should be TBAN'd only from the things they actually did disrupt, namely COVID-19 treatments.— Shibbolethink 19:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I have very little sympathy for the "You're going to TBAN me?!? Not if I retire first!" response of this user. I do not think admin sanctions should at all be influenced by that response. It's all about precedents set and standards upheld, in my opinion. Let the restriction fit the offense. And ignore any grandstanding or soapboxing that occurs in the lead up to any sanctions. If anything, it gives me less sympathy for the actions of this user. — Shibbolethink 19:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Apaugasma

Shibbolethink's statement is spot on. I've read the recent Talk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic#Pure propaganda discussion, as well as the user talk page discussions from which several concerning diffs were given above, and from this it is absolutely clear to me that this user should not be editing anywhere close to COVID-related issues. I also have a broader concern that the conspirational thinking in evidence is inextricably tied with a failure to identify and defer to expert opinion, both of which lie at the heart of any kind of Misplaced Pages-editing. If the user continues on this path of questioning mainstream expertise (or perhaps rather, the fact that WP should follow –and even emphasize– mainstream expertise), problems are likely to surface in other topic areas as well.

However, I agree that we should not deal out TBANs preemptively, but only there where articles or their talk pages are affected. I think that with regard to Ivermectin (cf. already "the media is lying" in early September), that line has been crossed. If as a response to the criticism they agree not to edit in the topic area, so much the better: isn't this what a TBAN is, an agreement not to edit in a certain area for a while because other editors have raised concerns? It's meant to restore trust, and I think that could work out well if the user is able to place the concerns raised here in the right framework. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

A TBAN from Covid topics seems reasonable. MEDRS exists for a very good reason, and someone who has issues understanding that should not edit medicine-related topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TrangaBellam

I do not edit in these areas but I had found his commentary on Ivermectin to be disruptive - a TBan will put an end to that. I agree that the comments on CRT etc. are concerning. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Encyclopædius

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

Yeah, I did actually wonder if the account had been compromised, but I see that User:TheresNoTime had already checked for that (User_talk:Encyclopædius#Account_checked). Regardless of the conspiracy theory issues, a refusal to follow MEDRS is immediately a red flag for editing COVID articles, and I agree we probably need a topic ban. As a complete aside, claiming that the Church of England has been infiltrated by "globalists" shows that Encyclopædius doesn't even really understand the conspiracy theories themselves, given that "globalist" is a dog-whistle for "Jewish". Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Is a topic ban enough? Someone who is practically scuba diving in the kool aid probably needs wider sanctions. At some point, everything becomes a conspiracy. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that a TBan would stop the immediate problems. I don't currently see any evidence that articles in other areas are being affected (though I'm not a fan of stuff like this). A lot of Encyclopædius's (good) editing is in areas like music, which are probably immune from such bizarre theories. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

My bad. I missed the Dr Blofeld part. Yes, a tban is probably more than enough. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

As above, Encyclopaedius has done positive work in other areas less prone to conspiracy-type thinking. Hopefully a topic ban will curb the disruption while allowing that to continue. However, I will strongly caution Encyclopaedius that articles should reflect the consensus of the best available reliable sources, even if you personally disagree with it, and you will be required to hold to that standard while editing in any area. Seraphimblade 00:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
A Tban is definitely required given the evidence above, made worse as they reverted the notice, with the reply "Utter nonsense. What's the matter, the truth is a threat eh?." I also am not convinced it's enough. I see that they state that they have retired, but that shouldn't allow them to avoid the Tban. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Also Support Tban from AP and gender/sexuality per the diffs below. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
A COVID t-ban at a minimum, but I would include modern American Politics and Gender/Sexuality due to these comments --Guerillero 13:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The closer should probably remind Encyclopædius that WP:CLEANSTARTs are not allowed for accounts under active sanctions iff this discussion is closed with a topic ban, as it currently looks -- Guerillero 13:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I've split the threaded discussion between TheresNoTime and ProcrastinatingReader into their own sections. I think the clerknotes should make it clear how the discussion originally went, but please feel free to refactor as necessary to clarify. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the retirement statement as "due to being tbanned from COVID". I read it as "due to being Tbanned from an area I've agreed not to edit in, which seems heavy-handed." I feel like he's got a point. Can't we just accept his promise that he'll avoid topics that are clearly COVID? Realize that a Tban from COVID is practically a Tban from 2020-202?. I'm certainly not comfortable with 'COVID, broadly construed'. —valereee (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
These diffs are very concerning. A TBAN from COVID-19 is definitely needed. If the problematic comments had been restricted to talk pages, a voluntary commitment may have been sufficient, but if they're pushing conspiracy nonsense in mainspace, a sanction is inevitable. The diffs about AP2 are also concerning, but I'm not certain about a sanction there given that we have no mainspace diffs. I would support a warning about the need to follow WP:RS. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I replied to this on my talk page, Encyclopaedius, but the diff removing the FDA tweet and characterizing it as propaganda is quite problematic. To not support a topic ban, I need a commitment about the behavior, not the topic; Covid is relevant to too many things, and the same issues are relevant to too many other topics. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Kendalandrew

Indefed by Cullen328 for Disruptive Editing as a standard admin action --Guerillero 10:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Kendalandrew User who is submitting this request for enforcement ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Kendalandrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 24 December 2021 Abuse of primary sources and WP:OR to add negative material to a BLP 14 November 2021 Ditto 19 December 2021 IP socking to edit war and evade scrutiny Permalink of recent article history Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Editor was previously reported at ANI and BLPN. Additional problematic diffs there: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Persistent_original_research_and_BLP_violations_on_MP_articles,_unresponsive_editor Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive329#Viktor_Fedotov_et_al Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#'Investigative_journalism' Those helped get more eyes on the editor, but it was archived without admin action. If the fear is wading into 'content disputes', I'm hoping the additional power of DS will help here. I'd further note that, having been appraised their editing is widely disputed, they've disappeared a few times and then returned some weeks later and engaged in more-or-less the same editing. Zero substantive participation in WP:dispute resolution -- they have zero edits in the Talk namespace, despite attempts to engage with them. The editor's single purpose is adding negative content to certain BLPs (Robert Courts, Lubov Chernukhin, Brandon Lewis, and some other now-deleted bios), which seems a lot like a grudge at this point. The thousands of characters added are pure OR, UNDUE, and much doesn't even appear in the source at all. PerpetuityGrat has broken down the issues by violated policy in separate diffs in article history (permalink) so I won't repeat those. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Given the edit warring rather than responding here, does someone mind making a preventative block to stop the ongoing disruption? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning Kendalandrew Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Kendalandrew Statement by (username) Result concerning Kendalandrew This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. We aren't here to decide on content, but I can't help but notice a lot of UNDUE content. Reading his own words on his talk page make me think he has great difficulty understanding what is and isn't appropriate, so I'm torn between a competency concern or more malevolently, a NOTEHERE concern. Neither requires Arb sanctions to deal with. Regardless, I do see a lot of negative BLP entries, a singular focus in fact, and ample previous warnings. I think something radical and permanent is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Rather than come explain here, the one edit he has made since this report was filed , which was SYNTH at best (and earned him a short block for a long string of edit warring), reconfirms my previous statement. I would prefer more eyes, but I'm for an indef NOTHERE block, which is possible without AE authorization. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Kendalandrew has been around longer than NOTHERE is normally used for. But, DE would do the same amount of lifting -- Guerillero 13:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Fair enough, and a valid point, however, people's motivations can change. People change. His focus does appear to (no longer?) be on improving the encyclopedia but instead to wedge in negative information on the thinnest or most tangential of evidence and without any consideration for neutrality. DE certainly applies here, particularly since we are talking about BLPs where there are real world consequences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Kendalandrew will not be able to respond here for the following 31 hours, which, however, does not prevent us from continuing the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Given the editor's lack of communication in general, I see little reason to believe that they would respect a topic ban. That being the case, I think an indefinite block for disruptive editing would be in order. As always, "indefinite" need not mean "permanent", but the editor would have to indicate a clear willingness to improve their communication, listen and respond to feedback, and change their approach going forward. Disruptive behavior in BLPs cannot be overlooked or taken lightly. Seraphimblade 19:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC) @Kendalandrew: seeing as your block has now expired, do you have any comments to add? Strongly suggest you reply here before resuming editing any other pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC) I expected to do something definitive this evening since it's been a couple of days since the block expired but I'm stuck only with the phone which I don't like to use for administrative purposes. I don't think that running out the clock until we forget about it is going to be a solution that works. I think the solution is pretty obvious actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I find Dennis Brown's analysis persuasive, and I have no problem carrying out administrative actions with my phone. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Kendalandrew for disruptive editing. This is a standard block by me as a normal administrative action, not a formal AE action. Any unblock should be along the lines described by Seraphimblade. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Indefed by Cullen328 for Disruptive Editing as a standard admin action --Guerillero 10:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Kendalandrew

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014

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

24 December 2021 Abuse of primary sources and WP:OR to add negative material to a BLP
14 November 2021 Ditto
19 December 2021 IP socking to edit war and evade scrutiny
Permalink of recent article history

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was previously reported at ANI and BLPN. Additional problematic diffs there:

Those helped get more eyes on the editor, but it was archived without admin action. If the fear is wading into 'content disputes', I'm hoping the additional power of DS will help here.

I'd further note that, having been appraised their editing is widely disputed, they've disappeared a few times and then returned some weeks later and engaged in more-or-less the same editing. Zero substantive participation in WP:dispute resolution -- they have zero edits in the Talk namespace, despite attempts to engage with them. The editor's single purpose is adding negative content to certain BLPs (Robert Courts, Lubov Chernukhin, Brandon Lewis, and some other now-deleted bios), which seems a lot like a grudge at this point. The thousands of characters added are pure OR, UNDUE, and much doesn't even appear in the source at all. PerpetuityGrat has broken down the issues by violated policy in separate diffs in article history (permalink) so I won't repeat those. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the edit warring rather than responding here, does someone mind making a preventative block to stop the ongoing disruption? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Kendalandrew

Statement by Kendalandrew

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kendalandrew

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

We aren't here to decide on content, but I can't help but notice a lot of UNDUE content. Reading his own words on his talk page make me think he has great difficulty understanding what is and isn't appropriate, so I'm torn between a competency concern or more malevolently, a NOTEHERE concern. Neither requires Arb sanctions to deal with. Regardless, I do see a lot of negative BLP entries, a singular focus in fact, and ample previous warnings. I think something radical and permanent is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Rather than come explain here, the one edit he has made since this report was filed , which was SYNTH at best (and earned him a short block for a long string of edit warring), reconfirms my previous statement. I would prefer more eyes, but I'm for an indef NOTHERE block, which is possible without AE authorization. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Kendalandrew has been around longer than NOTHERE is normally used for. But, DE would do the same amount of lifting -- Guerillero 13:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, and a valid point, however, people's motivations can change. People change. His focus does appear to (no longer?) be on improving the encyclopedia but instead to wedge in negative information on the thinnest or most tangential of evidence and without any consideration for neutrality. DE certainly applies here, particularly since we are talking about BLPs where there are real world consequences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Kendalandrew will not be able to respond here for the following 31 hours, which, however, does not prevent us from continuing the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Given the editor's lack of communication in general, I see little reason to believe that they would respect a topic ban. That being the case, I think an indefinite block for disruptive editing would be in order. As always, "indefinite" need not mean "permanent", but the editor would have to indicate a clear willingness to improve their communication, listen and respond to feedback, and change their approach going forward. Disruptive behavior in BLPs cannot be overlooked or taken lightly. Seraphimblade 19:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kendalandrew: seeing as your block has now expired, do you have any comments to add? Strongly suggest you reply here before resuming editing any other pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I expected to do something definitive this evening since it's been a couple of days since the block expired but I'm stuck only with the phone which I don't like to use for administrative purposes. I don't think that running out the clock until we forget about it is going to be a solution that works. I think the solution is pretty obvious actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I find Dennis Brown's analysis persuasive, and I have no problem carrying out administrative actions with my phone. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Kendalandrew for disruptive editing. This is a standard block by me as a normal administrative action, not a formal AE action. Any unblock should be along the lines described by Seraphimblade. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

RafaelJC12

RafaelJC12 is blocked from editing Human shield for 61 days. This is the least amount of sanction I could think of that would prevent disruption at that article, and allow him time to get up to speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning RafaelJC12 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested RafaelJC12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 20:37, 30 December 2021 violation of the extended confirmed restriction 20:28, 30 December 2021 same 18:30, 30 December 2021 same 05:06, 30 December 2021 same Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above (here) Was warned repeatedly on user talk to take his concerns to the talk page and not edit the article, continues to edit-war and violate the restriction. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Pretty much every edit the user has made has been a. after being informed they may not do so. b. is edit-warring. The source distortion is also pretty severe, using Amnesty International reports to claim that they accused Hamas of using human shields when they very explicitly say "this stuff is illegal but it is not human shielding" is somewhere between POV-pushing and outright source falsification. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning RafaelJC12 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by RafaelJC12 When I first saw the warning in my page, I had never seen a warning like that before. The warning didn't state (or at least that's how I understood it) that I could not make edits. The first person that explicitly stated that I wasn't suppose to do that was nableezy, but after I saw this edit made by an IP address, I just assumed it was fine for me to edit too. I also received a "thanks" notification from another mod in that page, so that reinforced my perception (why would a mod "thank" me for something I wasn't supposed to do?). Anyway, I guess I'm just going to stay on the talk page until I get 500 edits so I can join the cool kids of this platform. RafaelJC12 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Saying that I "don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook" because of that edit is extremely unfair. I was using her own social media as primary source, which is something that the article was already doing before I got there (so I could only conclude that I could do the same). If you check this version of the article, her personal Facebook was the first reference. By the way, the current article is still using her personal Twitter as a primary source. I also had a secondary source to write that text. Any honest person can see that the mods of that article were doing everything they could not to protect the rules, but to hide any mention of an event that was very important (unless you think it's absolutely fine that someone that writes comics for kids is a p3d0phile, and you think any mention of the p3d0philic NSFW art they drew should be destroyed). I think my frustration in their talk page was pretty reasonable, since the arguments they provided ware just as bad as yours. RafaelJC12 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: The are very well-written biographies that, seemingly, "don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook", the article about Elon Musk, for example, uses his personal Twitter account as a primary source three times. RafaelJC12 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Hey @Dennis Brown:, if you disagree with anything I wrote, you could provide an argument. RafaelJC12 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC) @Valereee: You said "This is not a platform", but this article states "Misplaced Pages is the world's only practical platform for facilitating collaboration among people who have highly specialized interests and a strong desire to share the encyclopedic information which promotes those interests with the world." (I'm not sure why you would say this is not a platform, seems like a bad way of making your point. The word "platform" doesn't imply informality, as you seem to suggest). Also, "When an editor who is more experienced than" me gave me a "thanks" after breaking the rule, I think it was reasonable for me, as someone inexperienced with this platform, to be confused as to what exactly the rule entailed to. That was the point I was trying to make. RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Cullen328 There is no need to delve too deeply into the content of the edits (which are problematic). The fact of the matter is that this person should not be editing in the Israel/Palestine conflict topic area until they have made at least 500 edits, even if their edits were golden. Their current count is 88 edits, and so the math is obvious. I am unsure at this point what sort of sanction is needed, but it seems sure to me that this defiance of the extended confirmed restrictions cannot be allowed to continue. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shrike The user should understand that he must abide and follow the rules I think a stern warning from admin will do the trick as the previous warnings came from the users that he is currently in dispute if he will continue probably blocks should follow also it seems that user has stopped to edit the topic. --Shrike (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC) It seem right now that user participate in talk page and stopped editing of the article space. Shrike (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Selfstudier A rather unprepossessing start, perhaps leave the IP area alone entirely, talk pages included, until 500 ~~useful~~ worthwhile edits have been amassed and then try again? Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC) @RafaelJC12: I think you meant to ping valereee not DB.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Result concerning RafaelJC12 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I believe at this point an appropriate response would be a long-term, possibly indefinite block from Human shield.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC) The forth diff isn't as big an issue because they weren't notified of the issue until after that, but that still leaves us with 3 edits after it was abundantly clear they couldn't edit that area, and they have ample opportunity to just read the page notice. Unrelated, but this diff at BLPN demonstrates they don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook. Their overall demeaner on their talk page demonstrates they don't really care what the "rules" are, that they are somehow special. The more I look, the more I find someone who wants to add material to article, but isn't going to listen to anyone about how to do it within policy. ie: here to add salacious, poorly sourced and/or undue content, but not here to actually build an encyclopedia. I'm ok with a disrespect for authority, but they have a disrespect for everyone, actual distain that is bleeding into everything they do. A "everyone is stupid except me" attitude. We noticed it only because it landed at AE, but there are larger issues. I'm at a loss as to a solution at the moment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC) RafaelJC12, your responses, which focus on how everyone is wrong except you, speak for themselves. You aren't the first new editor who thinks they understand better than all the experienced editors. I'm not impressed and a bit worried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC) I'm recommending a tban of any duration, to at least prevent further disruption in a few hundred edits. Can't really justify more, although I can feel it coming. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC) RafaelJC12, you may not realize yet that WP works very differently from social media, gaming, and forum sites. As someone who is not very experienced, your best bet is to stay far away from any controversial subjects until you understand better how we work. That's one of the reasons fo 500/30 bans, which are indeed real. When an editor who is more experienced than you tells you there's a rule, don't just look around and see if you can find someone else who isn't following that rule and decide that means you don't have to either. You said Anyway, I guess I'm just going to stay on the talk page until I get 500 edits so I can join the cool kids of this platform. That seems to be indicating you 1. think you can game the system and 2. think there's a "cool kids of this platform". This is not a platform. It isn't a game. It's an encyclopedia. There are tens of thousands of adults here trying to create a useful reference guide, not a MMRPG. Again the reason we have the 500/30 rule for some subject areas is to give you a chance to see that Here Be Dragons and you need to tread carefully. —valereee (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC) I removed that dob source as not good enough for full dob, which is a BLP privacy issue and requires either wide publication in RS or very clear self-source statements like "Today is my 32nd birthday" or some such. —valereee (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

RafaelJC12 is blocked from editing Human shield for 61 days. This is the least amount of sanction I could think of that would prevent disruption at that article, and allow him time to get up to speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Request concerning RafaelJC12

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: RafaelJC12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

20:37, 30 December 2021 violation of the extended confirmed restriction
20:28, 30 December 2021 same
18:30, 30 December 2021 same
05:06, 30 December 2021 same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above (here)
Was warned repeatedly on user talk to take his concerns to the talk page and not edit the article, continues to edit-war and violate the restriction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pretty much every edit the user has made has been a. after being informed they may not do so. b. is edit-warring. The source distortion is also pretty severe, using Amnesty International reports to claim that they accused Hamas of using human shields when they very explicitly say "this stuff is illegal but it is not human shielding" is somewhere between POV-pushing and outright source falsification.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning RafaelJC12

Statement by RafaelJC12

When I first saw the warning in my page, I had never seen a warning like that before. The warning didn't state (or at least that's how I understood it) that I could not make edits. The first person that explicitly stated that I wasn't suppose to do that was nableezy, but after I saw this edit made by an IP address, I just assumed it was fine for me to edit too. I also received a "thanks" notification from another mod in that page, so that reinforced my perception (why would a mod "thank" me for something I wasn't supposed to do?). Anyway, I guess I'm just going to stay on the talk page until I get 500 edits so I can join the cool kids of this platform. RafaelJC12 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Saying that I "don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook" because of that edit is extremely unfair. I was using her own social media as primary source, which is something that the article was already doing before I got there (so I could only conclude that I could do the same). If you check this version of the article, her personal Facebook was the first reference. By the way, the current article is still using her personal Twitter as a primary source. I also had a secondary source to write that text. Any honest person can see that the mods of that article were doing everything they could not to protect the rules, but to hide any mention of an event that was very important (unless you think it's absolutely fine that someone that writes comics for kids is a p3d0phile, and you think any mention of the p3d0philic NSFW art they drew should be destroyed). I think my frustration in their talk page was pretty reasonable, since the arguments they provided ware just as bad as yours. RafaelJC12 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: The are very well-written biographies that, seemingly, "don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook", the article about Elon Musk, for example, uses his personal Twitter account as a primary source three times. RafaelJC12 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Dennis Brown:, if you disagree with anything I wrote, you could provide an argument. RafaelJC12 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: You said "This is not a platform", but this article states "Misplaced Pages is the world's only practical platform for facilitating collaboration among people who have highly specialized interests and a strong desire to share the encyclopedic information which promotes those interests with the world." (I'm not sure why you would say this is not a platform, seems like a bad way of making your point. The word "platform" doesn't imply informality, as you seem to suggest). Also, "When an editor who is more experienced than" me gave me a "thanks" after breaking the rule, I think it was reasonable for me, as someone inexperienced with this platform, to be confused as to what exactly the rule entailed to. That was the point I was trying to make. RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328

There is no need to delve too deeply into the content of the edits (which are problematic). The fact of the matter is that this person should not be editing in the Israel/Palestine conflict topic area until they have made at least 500 edits, even if their edits were golden. Their current count is 88 edits, and so the math is obvious. I am unsure at this point what sort of sanction is needed, but it seems sure to me that this defiance of the extended confirmed restrictions cannot be allowed to continue. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

The user should understand that he must abide and follow the rules I think a stern warning from admin will do the trick as the previous warnings came from the users that he is currently in dispute if he will continue probably blocks should follow also it seems that user has stopped to edit the topic. --Shrike (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It seem right now that user participate in talk page and stopped editing of the article space. Shrike (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

A rather unprepossessing start, perhaps leave the IP area alone entirely, talk pages included, until 500 ~~useful~~ worthwhile edits have been amassed and then try again? Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@RafaelJC12: I think you meant to ping valereee not DB.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning RafaelJC12

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

I believe at this point an appropriate response would be a long-term, possibly indefinite block from Human shield.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The forth diff isn't as big an issue because they weren't notified of the issue until after that, but that still leaves us with 3 edits after it was abundantly clear they couldn't edit that area, and they have ample opportunity to just read the page notice. Unrelated, but this diff at BLPN demonstrates they don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook. Their overall demeaner on their talk page demonstrates they don't really care what the "rules" are, that they are somehow special. The more I look, the more I find someone who wants to add material to article, but isn't going to listen to anyone about how to do it within policy. ie: here to add salacious, poorly sourced and/or undue content, but not here to actually build an encyclopedia. I'm ok with a disrespect for authority, but they have a disrespect for everyone, actual distain that is bleeding into everything they do. A "everyone is stupid except me" attitude. We noticed it only because it landed at AE, but there are larger issues. I'm at a loss as to a solution at the moment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

RafaelJC12, your responses, which focus on how everyone is wrong except you, speak for themselves. You aren't the first new editor who thinks they understand better than all the experienced editors. I'm not impressed and a bit worried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm recommending a tban of any duration, to at least prevent further disruption in a few hundred edits. Can't really justify more, although I can feel it coming. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

RafaelJC12, you may not realize yet that WP works very differently from social media, gaming, and forum sites. As someone who is not very experienced, your best bet is to stay far away from any controversial subjects until you understand better how we work. That's one of the reasons fo 500/30 bans, which are indeed real. When an editor who is more experienced than you tells you there's a rule, don't just look around and see if you can find someone else who isn't following that rule and decide that means you don't have to either.

You said Anyway, I guess I'm just going to stay on the talk page until I get 500 edits so I can join the cool kids of this platform. That seems to be indicating you 1. think you can game the system and 2. think there's a "cool kids of this platform". This is not a platform. It isn't a game. It's an encyclopedia. There are tens of thousands of adults here trying to create a useful reference guide, not a MMRPG. Again the reason we have the 500/30 rule for some subject areas is to give you a chance to see that Here Be Dragons and you need to tread carefully. —valereee (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed that dob source as not good enough for full dob, which is a BLP privacy issue and requires either wide publication in RS or very clear self-source statements like "Today is my 32nd birthday" or some such. —valereee (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)