Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive299
Maneesh
edit| Maneesh is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people --Guerillero Parlez Moi 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. Request concerning Maneeshedit
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 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 Wikipedia norms. The point of the source I offered was not, "this is the way WP articles should be written" but rather "these sources exist" - something you (grudgingly) accept and Maneesh seemingly does not. As far as the extent to which Sex differences in medicine needs to reflect the emerging scholarship in transgender health, that is a question for another day, but all I was doing in the linked discussions was pushing back at Maneesh's POV crusade to expurgate that material from the stable versions. And I don't really see how you can invoke WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS in service of Maneesh's BOLD changes to those articles...that seems to me to be an "original" interpretation of that policy. Motivated, even. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Finally, @Crossroads, you are right: the IP falsified my quote by removing @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, " And Springee, I don't think it is reasonable for you to state that I am Also, I have since specified that Maneesh was reverting to remove or alter stable content against IMPLICITCONSENSUS, which is what 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 @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 [14] [15]. This IP was subsequently taken to ANI by Bodney.[16] 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 @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: @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 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 To return to @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 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)
Discussion concerning ManeesheditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ManeesheditCrossroads 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. [19] Removal of sourced article content to comply with the POV noted above. [20] 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. [21] 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. [22] 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. [23] 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. [24] 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. [25] 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. [26] proposed article text for Man that would replace references to trans men and trans women with 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:
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)
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)
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)
And now NewImpartial has posted a this childish attempt at coercion on my talk page. If I just "accept" NewImpartial's words and parrot what is "appropriate" in "social situations" it just "might help resolve the AE discussion in [my] favor". What I accept or deem appropriate has nothing to do with this AE request where the primary matters at hand are the encyclopedic nature of my edits (verifiability, scholarly consensus , due weight etc.) and my general civil conduct on this website, both of which I have full confidence in. NewImpartial's brazen attempt to use the AE process to compel testimony from a user about aspects of their life that have nothing to do with wp is obscene yet in the spirit of this entire stunt. Just imagine if a user A opened an AE request on a user B whose edits focused on what scholars said about the historicity of Zorp but then, in the middle of the AE process, A offered B a favorable resolution but only if the B had accepted Zorp as their lord and savior? How does this type of abuse apparently sit ok with admins? Maneesh (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I've been advised by well-meaning editors to not bother explaining to the mob-like mentality here saying things like
I just can't keep up with all the blatantly false assertions coming from admins, of all people. From Joe: [I]
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 (
How long will this go on? Now Sideswipe9th's complaint that I assessed his interpretation skills in an offensive manner with:
NewImpartial's also complains (and reverted) the addition of the elementary fact of MEDRS that Statement by CrossroadseditDisagreeing with Newimpartial is not an offense, which is what most of these diffs consist of. Newimpartial actually was one against many regarding many of them and engaged in their own poor behavior. And a case of injudicious wording or frustration is not sanction worthy. Diff by diff: 1. I wouldn't word it so directly myself, but the sex and gender distinction is real and important, and the topic of sex differences in medicine cannot be edited or even understood without clear thinking on what the biological trait of sex is. And while in most contexts only the social gender is relevant, medically, the biological sex of a trans woman is... well, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Some may be uncomfortable filling in that answer, but medicine is not for the fainthearted. 2. This removal is absolutely correct and removed WP:UNDUE weight. We don't interrupt every sentence about sex differences on Wikipedia to give a shout-out to transgender and non-binary identities. Even after removal, it said these sex-specific conditions were "mostly" in women even though most medical sources would say "only" in women. Yes, contrary to what Newimpartial claimed on that talk page, it is still the norm in WP:MEDRS to use "women" to refer to adult humans of the female sex. This can be seen by searching Google Scholar for "only in women" or "pregnant women", in quotes, and selecting "since 2021": [28][29] 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, 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 ([30][31][32]), 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 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. This seems to be an attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area. Newimpartial's tendentiousness, edit warring, and creating a chilling effect on discussion of biological sex is what is disruptive. Crossroads -talk- 07:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC) 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. [33][34] Newimpartial's "MEDRS" is a cherry-picked article in an open access journal making an explictly "right great wrongs" argument for language reform, among other things. Frankly, the position that in ordinary medical articles we can't simply say "men" and "women" to refer to sex, as the vast majority of people do, without getting caught up in exceptions, is held by very, very few of the authors of MEDRS as shown by how they write, and is therefore WP:FRINGE. And this has been the norm on Wikipedia since the beginning as well, including at sex differences in medicine, as documented at WP:GNL. It is Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th who are being disruptive at Talk:Sex differences in medicine by ignoring that prior consensus and making a huge deal out of a routine additional use of wording that is already on the page (!) and WP:FILIBUSTERing removal of a random shout-out to transgender identity. Literally disrupting good editing. And this sort of obstructionism in transgender articles is rampant. It is very unfortunate to see it spread into medical articles that have nothing to do with gender dysphoria. It is no wonder that an editor would get frustrated when faced with this behavior. Crossroads -talk- 03:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC) 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, Regarding Newimpartial's response to the IP, the diff where they made the statement is here. Newimpartial there stated, Maneesh has been an editor in this area for a long time, for at least as long as me, so at least 2.5 years. And he's done much good work in that time. Maneesh's few instances of poorer choices of wording here are an outlier from all that time; this is not typical. Crossroads -talk- 07:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC) 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 -talk- 22:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlisheditI have to concur with Crossroads's detailed analysis [+ follow-on commentary], which was much more in-depth than I would have mustered. Newimpartial treats "transphobic" and "disagreeing with Newimpartial" as synonymous categories, and that is not okay. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 16:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC) 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 GoodDayeditWhy 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 Sideswipe9theditSeraphimblade Maneesh was originally made aware of the sanctions in January 2020 [35]. 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 [36], [37] which changed the context of that section as I stated in the talk page [38]. Maneesh's reply to this on the talk page was deeply offensive [39] by stating that
As part of this exchange, Maneesh invited me to I'd also like to point out that I am also not the only editor Maneesh has accused of religious thinking or editing [51] 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)
@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 @Admins, based on these diffs [53], [54] 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.
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)
Statement by SpringeeeditThis is a subject area I'm not overly involved with so I can't say I understand all the history. I do think that NewImpartial is too quick to assign -phobia type motives to other editors and too quick to assume their POV is the sky is blue correct one. For example in the [Man] article there was a section outside of the lead that was addressing trans- cases. The material had no citations. NewImpartial felt that was fine and actively removed CN tags. If one looks at the Talk:J._K._Rowling#Bludgeoning_of_D-preference_editors discussion where NewImpartial has been far and away the most active participant. I believe several editors complained of -phobic accusations again. A big issue with many of these topics is they are often very expansive so PROPORTION is critical. I suspect NewImpartial's understandable, good faith interest in trans topics results in a feeling that it's often one of the most critical aspects of any particular topic vs one of many and one that many readers wouldn't find significant. That is fine but they need to understand that others might not agree yet that doesn't mean they are "denying trans people" [60]. 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)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishedit
Statement by AircorneditThis is the worst topic area in Wikipedia to edit in. Never have I seen so much passionate arguments based on so few policies or sources. A large part of that reason is the inability of editors to remain impartial about it. That includes some key admins (see Black Kites statement below and compare it to their one for Newimpartial here). If discretionary sanctions serve any purpose to help the encyclopaedia it is to trim the fat so that the editors in the middle can actually improve articles. But at least try and trim it from both sides. Take a look at Talk:J. K. Rowling#Response count for classic bludgeoning by the "other side". It should all really be so simple. Aircorn (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite. You are consistent I will give you that. Disagree with some of your other comments. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia first and it is simply not true that we are inclusive. We are inclusive to certain groups and not others. Most of the time this is fine as we generally base this around reliable sources, but when it comes to politics and culture this often falls down. There are hard questions to discuss in this topic area and it is not as black and white as some editors make out. I am not arguing against a topic ban. We have discretionary sanctions for a reason and that means that editors have to be on their best behaviour. I am simply asking that we apply them evenly across all editors and look at the disruption from all directions. Aircorn (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by IP editoreditI 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 DtobiaseditI 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 Wikipedia needs to do about "transphobia"; do you mean for this site to drop its ideological neutrality and demand editors accept the catechism of gender ideology ("Trans women are women, Trans men are men, Nonbinary idenitities are valid") or face banning? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. [62] [63] *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)
Statement by Pyxis SolitaryeditMy 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)
Statement by Sweet6970editManeesh 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. [64] I am proposing a new section Wikipedia is not the Thought Police. I believe that the wording I am proposing expresses what is already Wikipedia policy. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: I wonder why you have referred to the expression ‘ Statement by TewdareditApparently, 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 ErnieeditAE 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 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 - Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:Maneesh)editStatement by AquillioneditI 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 ProcrastinatingReadereditBlack Kite says below that I haven't reviewed the evidence against Maneesh or Newimpartial in depth, and I'm not claiming misconduct on eithers' part. I don't really have interest in this topic area, or substantial interactions with either participant. My only concern is with fairness, more specifically the appearance of fairness, at this venue. Too many recent cases have shown inconsistent standards applied to similar conduct. More specifically to gender, judging by Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead (among other recent discussions) I think this should probably be kicked over to the Arbitration Committee. It's better to do a holistic review of the conduct of various participants, and not just in the GamerGate context (2014 – Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate – which was the last time ArbCom reviewed this topic area). If AE is unwilling to do that, then ArbCom should. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by OIDeditGoing 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 EvergreenFireditI'm INVOLVED so I will just comment here. The question that needs to be asked is:
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia should work to uphold standard. Last, when most people learn they've inadvertently violated some norm and caused offense will response with something like " Statement by NableezyeditRP, 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)
Statement by BilorveditThis discussion is astonishing. We have here an editor who repeatedly says 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 Black Kite is concerned by this encyclopedia becoming hostile to Aircorn says Dennis Brown says 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)
Statement by ShibbolethinkeditHi, 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:
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)
Statement by ShooterwalkereditThis 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 Wikipedia 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:
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 Wikipedia 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)
Statement by SesquivalenteditGender 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)
Statement by lmhardingeditWhile 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[1]. 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.[2] 19:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC) References Statement by CutepeacheditThis 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)editResult concerning Maneeshedit
|
Kendalandrew
edit| Indefed by Cullen328 for Disruptive Editing as a standard admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 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. Request concerning Kendalandrewedit
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)
Discussion concerning KendalandreweditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KendalandreweditStatement by (username)editResult concerning Kendalandrewedit
|
RafaelJC12
edit| 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. Request concerning RafaelJC12edit
N/A
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.
Discussion concerning RafaelJC12editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by RafaelJC12editWhen 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)
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 "Wikipedia 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 Cullen328editThere 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 ShrikeeditThe 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)
Statement by SelfstudiereditA rather unprepossessing start, perhaps leave the IP area alone entirely, talk pages included, until 500
Result concerning RafaelJC12edit
|