Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:29, 30 September 2024

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Johnrpenner

As a result of this request:

Johnrpenner is topic banned indefinitely from Anthroposophy, broadly construed.

Tgeorgescu is warned for talk page participation which is at times both excessively voluminous and excessively frequent, resulting in bludgeoning. In addition to any standard CTOP remedies, restrictions upon the frequency and/or length of Tgeorgescu's posts within the Anthroposophy topic area or on any particular page within it may be imposed without further warning or AE discussion by any uninvolved administrator. Tgeorgescu is encouraged to engage community dispute resolution processes if a discussion reaches an impasse rather than continuing discussions which have become fruitless or intractable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Johnrpenner

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Johnrpenner (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:ARBPS

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

[1] 21 August 2024—violates WP:PSCI by immunizing Anthroposophy from falsification through performing WP:OR (seeks to reject the label of pseudoscience through attempting to make it look like a category mistake—but not according to any WP:RS)
a lot of previous edits at the same article, 21 August 2024, see e.g. [2], having the edit summary cutting like a knife between physics and metaphysics

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [3] 2 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wikipedia is a collaborative environment—up to a point. We don't seek to "collaborate" with those who breach our WP:RULES with impunity. More to the point: Johnrpenner is violating WP:RULES such as WP:PSCI and WP:OR. If he thinks I'm wrong, he should WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS to that extent. Merely giving us his own opinion won't do. Again: his assertion that the label of pseudoscience is a category mistake, is solely based upon his own opinion. He did not WP:CITE anything to that extent. Even if his POV were the unvarnished truth, he still does not have WP:RS to that extent.
@Theleekycauldron: Until May 2024, I had no idea that Penner is a Wikipedia editor. In respect to what you say: I would accept a restriction of 1RR and a limit of 500 words per topic. Also, you have to consider that these Anthroposophists overtly stated they want me banned from Anthroposophy, so, while they knew they stand no chance in respect to their own edits, they were merely flamebaiting. Anthroposophists are generally speaking highly educated people, so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials, it is a token they are merely acting a show. Playing dumb and employing vicious libel (flamebait) is justified, according to them, since they are defending the public image of Anthroposophy. I mean: for a university-educated Lead Technical Writer it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy. And if I lambasted them for failing to do so, my criticism was genuine and to the point. What do they stand to lose, here at Wikipedia? A bunch of disposable accounts. Since both Johnrpenner and the previous Anthroposophist at WP:AE are extremely fond of performing WP:OR—I don't think that's just a coincidence. When multiple accounts misunderstand Wikipedia in the same way, we may suspect they're WP:MEAT.
@Ealdgyth: It was not intended as mockery. I don't think he is unintelligent, and if he appears as unintelligent, that's for flamebaiting purposes (just to make me angry).
Full disclosure: there was an off-wiki hounding campaign against me, see [4], [5], and Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence—which I now came to see as flamebaiting. Its objectives are overtly stated: recruit other editors against me and get me banned from Wikipedia. So, I see my opponents at these articles as an organized campaign, starting with October 2023, or even earlier. The only damage I did to Wikipedia is extensively bickering about being hounded. It is rather unusual for Wikipedia that a cult organizes off-wiki to take action against a specific editor.
If I get banned from Anthroposophy, the "Fortress Steiner" (here) will regain its upper hand. Anti-fringe editors will be reluctant to intervene, since they lack a deep understanding of the topic. So I will have to get unbanned as the only person able to restore order. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6] 21 August 2024

Discussion concerning Johnrpenner

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 Johnrpenner

after making additions to the 'Anthroposophy' article — user tgeorgescu deleted / reverted my edits, and so i took it on to the talk page, asking him: instead of just deleting a whole bunch of stuff, why not engage in something more constructive? he did not engage in a friendly fashion, and quickly shut me down, and launched this Arbitration request against me.

if i were writing an article on the phenomenolgy of colour — i would expect to see criticism and debate — but i would also expect to see some effort in improving the article — doing what wikipedia does — helping provide some sense of the topic, which covers a neutral and informed point of view.

user tgeorgescu has expended considerable effort solely directed towards attacking and finding sources discrediting Anthroposophy (hundreds upon hundreds of edits.. almost as if it were some sort of personal vendetta). if one sees only efforts directed at this — then i might also question how neutral things are — when i dont see as much effort towards contributing anything that might help provide insight on the given topic.

tgeorgescu claims category error — and my claim is that anthroposophy is no more scientific than the subject of philosophy. in my edits — i did not dispute or remove his claims, and took care to preserve his references/links and to make it clear that anthroposophy is not scientific.

i believe i was following the wiki principle as stated in WP:RNPOV — as follows:

WP:RNPOV § Neutrality: In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

in short — this issue could have been more constructively solved with some friendly edits aimed at improving the article, and making a subject more understandable — for example:

i) what are the epistemogical differences which distinguish anthroposophy from critical idealism?

ii) from whom did steiner get the idea — the article mentioned 'German Idealism', but neglected to mention Goethe.

iii) the article talks about 'perception of the spiritual world' — but it fails to mention the key role Anthroposophists place on Intuition in this regard.

these would all be useful things to know if i was a reader and unfamiliar with the subject.

instead, tgeorgescu has undertaken to report me to arbitration — i find it disingenous to spend such an inordinate amount of time logging in such an amount of effort cataloguing all criticisms against Anthroposophy — without making any efforts towards providing the reader with a better comprehension of what is being criticized — the criticisms and critics tgeorgescu has referenced only makes a case for condemning Anthroposophists — and deleting or reverting edits which disagree with him — and ultimately weaponizing the wiki process — which i find is generally quite fair, and i expect someone might be able to follow up and arbitrate his disproportionate critical activity, and attacks against users like myself which are trying to make honest contributions (as i have helped improve numerous other wiki articles, and believe in the wiki process).

i have no complaint against a good critical review of contributions to wikipedia - good editors, good referencing, and the good will to work together instead of shutting people down is what makes wikipedia great and useful. please, lets work together, and find a way to make better articles. peace out. Johnrpenner (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

tgeorgescu could use some help at Talk:Anthroposophy in trying to nip problems in the bud before they escalate. See this this FTN thread from November of last year (maybe just read Hob Gadling's comment at the end of the collapsed "Extended content") All that effort expended when it turns out an editor was just using phony citations for content. When he raises issues at FTN i at least often feel behind the curve with an unfamiliar topic, and tgeorgescu usually seems to be going it alone on the talk page. I don't know if AE can do anything to help and maybe the answer here is just to remember to watchlist the articles and pay more attention. fiveby(zero) 06:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA

I want to echo's fiveby's sentiment above, and I would caution admins to be mindful to check out what they link at FTN. I’ve been noticing that problem at the noticeboards and tgeorgescu’s frustration too often handling a lot of fringe stuff and now apparently becoming a target off-wiki for it.

theleekycauldron, I am concerned about your comments here at this time in the AE and making them in the uninvolved admin section. I reviewed the talk page[7], and the only recent dispute was from this interaction at Talk:Anthroposophy#Violation_of_WP:PSCI. However, I couldn't verify any of your claims made without diffs there such as bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors, so that was a serious red flag when I instead saw tgeorgescu making very short replies and largely behaving properly at the time. The only little knock against them was that they should have stopped interacting before the I have already reported you at WP:AE. . . comment, but even those comments are relatively chill compared to your characterization. If there are recent diffs prior to when you commented, those are absolutely needed, because when I see a mismatch like that in depiction, that looks a lot more like battleground pursuit on your part that we'd typically see of involved editors behaving poorly. If anything, it looks like tgeorgescu's talk page use had actually vastly improved and it wasn't until you started needling tgeorgescu with your initial comment that they got off the rails here at AE. At least as I've tried to review this report with an even hand, you created more heat than light.

However tgeorgescu, I do have some advice after seeing your comments on talk pages over the years. Remember to center yourself on the ideas of WP:NOTFORUM/WP:FOC more often on article talk pages. I have seen you give in-depth answers at times when not needed or just posting on the talk page not clearly tied to any edit.[8] Sometimes I've seen you come back for an "and another thing" comment when the conversation was just likely to die. I saw that before your warning theleekycauldron mentions, and it looks like you've been vastly improving in what I've reviewed so far. That said, be careful about personalizing comments about editors or how comments might appear to be a battleground mentality. That too creates more heat than light like I just cautioned theleekycauldron. When I look at the AE after their comment, you brought up that you felt like you were being trolled by Johnrpenner at the article with comments like so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials. Even if you feel like that, don't take the WP:BAIT. You honestly were fine from what I can see initially until your interactions with theleekycauldron here. It wasn't until that moment I was seeing AE comments with a bit too much bite towards editors, so it didn't appear anything WP:PREVENTATIVE was needed on your part to that point. KoA (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm right at the word limit, so I'll leave it at this just to say the issue I saw was that when you look at recent edits before this AE (most stuff mentioned here is pretty stale or minor), it really did look like tgeorgescu was improving significantly in the last few months (especially the very last talk section at the page before AE) compared to the period of their warning or when I even told them to chill out on the treatises awhile back. Whatever threads the needle between "you've made some good improvements in mainspace/talk" and "you've still got scaling back to do" will be helpful here for a grounded approach. KoA (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Johnrpenner

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

Looks like tgeorgescu is exhibiting the exact same behavior that landed them a logged warning for battleground behavior and incivility nine months ago. that's a shame, because they seem to solidly be in the right that Johnrpenner is only here to push a pseudoscientific POV. If Tgeorgescu doesn't agree to stop bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors, and generally behaving as if yelling at people about how wrong and stupid they are is the best way to make them go away, the pseudoscience topic area will lose a valuable editor. perhaps a topic ban from Anthroposophy is in order, since the last row took place there as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic banning Johnrpenner from Anthroposophy, broadly construed. Also support restricting tgeorgescu within ARBPS, broadly construed, such that they may not write more than 500 words across discussions related to this topic area (not 500 words per thread) in a calendar month; and placing them under 1RR. They are reminded to seek out admins before engaging in disruptive behavior in their attempts to combat disruptive behavior. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA: I'm taking my cues from this thread. Some of it was from before Johnrpenner was a wikipedian (although this isn't), but I don't think it'd be ridiculous to say that it's relevant to the onwiki portion of this spat. I'm also considering the sum of other threads they've started since the SamwiseGSix AE thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu - first, "A more nuanced view of how I see Anthroposophy:" has no bearing on how you should be editing. Your personal views are no more useful than the personal views of Johnrpenner or any other editors. In fact, you state later in this very filing that "Merely giving us his own opinion won't do" so putting your views here isn't helpful to the admins looking into your filing. Further, with "Malcontents should not blame me for what full professors write" you are continuing to describe other editors (I think? It's hard to tell if you're referring to other editors or merely folks who subscribe to Anthroposophy, but either way it's a sign of battleground behavior) as "malcontents". You were warned for this last November. Here's another unhelpful comment "I mean: for a university-educated Lead Technical Writer it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy." ... you're clearly mocking the editor who you filed this against. Really, this battleground approach needs to stop.
Okay, so to the edit that is given as the basis for this filing: this edit, I see a description of the subject sourced to a pile of what appear to be independent reliable sources (at a quick glance) that is being replaced with stuff sourced to Steiner's own works. Also, I see that "Though proponents claim to present their ideas in a manner that is verifiable by rational discourse and say that they seek precision and clarity comparable to that obtained by scientists investigating the physical world, many of these ideas have been termed pseudoscientific by experts in epistemology and debunkers of pseudoscience." this sentence (which is sourced to the pile of independent sources) is replaced with "Anthroposophy does not belong to the study of the physical sciences, any more than Plato's Metaphysics should be considered Physics — doing so would be pseudoscientific" while still sourcing it to the same pile of reliable sources. This is source mis-representation unless each of those sources actually supports this new text (I'll go on a limb here and say it likely doesn't). On the griping hand, though, Johnrpenner isn't exactly a prolific editor - his edit count is around 1700, but they are widely spread out and mostly appear to relate to Goethe. While they are not editing well, I'm not sure they've had a chance to learn that wikipedia isn't a philosphical debating place. They need to learn to edit well with others, but either a topic ban from the narrow topic of Anthroposophy or a warning about their editing there would probably be fine. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Topic ban for Johnrpenner sounds good. I don't necessarily disagree about a word limit for Tgeorgescu, but I'm not sure it's going to work or be easy to enforce. Call me agnostic on it. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban for Johnrpenner from Anthroposophy is reasonable, and some sort of anti-bludgeon/anti-thousands of words restriction on Tgeorgescu wouldn't be amiss either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KoA, just as an example of a long-winded "own the crazies" rants see User:Tgeorgescu#My quarrel with anthroposophists, or Talk:Anthroposophy#Category. I'd be interested in scaling back that type of engagement with the topic. I don't know if a word limit per month or discussion would be helpful, but even some advice or a warning might help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the topic ban has consensus. How do we want to move forward with Tgeorgescu? Another warning, or something with a bit more oomph? I like the gist of Theleekycauldron's idea, but I don't know how we'd ever track it.

On a broader note, this issue comes up a lot where a milder sanction might be able to end disruptive behavior, but we end up warning a few times instead, and eventually we hit a tipping point and we end up with a more severe sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnrpenner has been an editor since 2005 but is not yet experienced, having under 1800 edits. Their first edits (example from April 2005) concerned Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy. The current edits are not appropriate and I support a topic ban from articles related to Rudolf Steiner, or just Anthroposophy if others support that. I have spent time advising tgeorgescu that they should cut back on excessive commentary but in checking a couple of recent discussions, I could not see a problem. We need editors like tgeorgescu who are able and willing to keep articles based on reliable sources so my only suggestion in that area is that I would be happy to investigate if anyone wants to draw my attention to a future discussion where a participant might be overdoing it. I agree that ScottishFinnishRadish's links just above ("own the crazies") show excessive enthusiasm: tgeorgescu should stick to verifiable facts related to current editing proposals. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems that some action is needed here, so I'll try to take a look. For the moment, just commenting to avoid the bot carting this prematurely to the archives. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the topic ban has pretty clear consensus, so as far as tgeorgescu goes out seems like we just need to decide on the level of reminder/warning, or discussion restriction we want to go with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather torn on that. I don't generally like to give more than one warning, or it turns into "Stop that, I really really really mean it this time", but I sure don't love the idea of rewarding a harassment campaign either, and it seems there's at least pretty credible evidence that something like that is going on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, as I see it, is that a single admin has much more blunt tools than AE as a whole. At AE we can tailor a word limit or other anti-bludgeoning measure, but a single admin can only block, topic ban, iban, or set a revert restriction. That seems overkill for this behavior. Perhaps we can form a consensus here that if the behavior continues after a warning any admin can institute an anti-bludgeoning sanction as an individual admin action? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not up to speed at all on this report. But is there a reason not to just institute it now? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban? I don't think there's a rush on that part, as they haven't edited in two weeks. No reason not to log it, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I thought you were proposing an anti-bludgeon sanction in lieu of the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an "anti-bludgeoning" sanction could be applied at page level, rather than to a specific editor? Having had a look at Talk:Anthroposophy, tgeorgescu is far from the only frequent poster there, so maybe some sort of "If after X amount of discussion, consensus has not been reached, engage further dispute resolution or drop it" sanction could be applied there in general? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone else has dropped 3000 words to themselves, like Talk:Anthroposophy#Category. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's...impressive, indeed. I think we could find a sanction that could curb that type of thing; there's really nothing added to the discussion by a huge wall of text like that (and if it's a "note to self" type thing, that can always be kept in one's userspace instead). But I still don't think Tgeorgescu is the only problem there, either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to their 3000 word "note to self" on their user page earlier in this discussion as well. I don't think they're really the core of the problem, but they need to moderate their response, and as they've already been warned we need either a warning with some teeth, or a tailored sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're largely in agreement at least in principle, and the devil's more in the details. How would you envision a "warning with teeth"? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think with a rough consensus here that an individual administrator can institute an anti-bludgeoning measure on them if they continue then that would add, in this particular case, that tool to an administrator's toolbox. Then, rather than having to come back here, whatever admin saw it could just say, "you're limited to 1000 words a month on the topic of Anthroposophy," or "you're limited to three replies per week on the topic of Anthrosophy." That way it's not a warning that requires another trip to AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless any uninvolved admin raises an objection in the next day or so, I will close this as proposed above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IntrepidContributor

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 IntrepidContributor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: IntrepidContributor (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:ARBPIA

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

Sep 7 16:55 - first revert
Sep 7 17:41 - second revert
User talk:IntrepidContributor#1RR - declined to self-rv

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: 24hr 3RR block on 10/15/22 [9]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): alerted Aug 18

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think this account is almost certainly a sock. Compare their timecard/edit history with Wierzba (Wierzba xtools) and IsraPara2 (IsraPara2 xtools) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wierzba). IntrepidContributor, AFAICT, had never edited in ARBPIA in its first round of activity (7/22 - 2/23). The account was mostly inactive between 2/23 until August 17, 2024, when they started getting involved in ARBPIA for the first time. Aug 16, 2024, is when the AE against O.maximov closed with a warning (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive338#O.maximov). IntrepidContributor has only made 30 edits since Aug 17, almost all focused on fighting the "Gaza genocide" move. O.maximov was later blocked as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#27 August 2024. I could go file at SPI, and this account was on my list of SPIs-to-file, but it would save a bunch of paperwork if reviewing admin could just {{Checkuser needed}} here to see if these accounts are a technical match, which I expect they will be. If you want more behavioral evidence before requesting a CU, or if you want me to file a separate SPI, let me know. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis... Special:CentralAuth/IntrepidContributor says 0 edits to ruwiki or ukwiki. Perhaps they edit there with another account? Levivich (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly, AE is not well-suited for multi-party disputes, but it looks at all parties? Levivich (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR: it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs Diffs/links for this incredible claim? Levivich (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, SFR. That first RM was just about the disambiguator. It said "It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording." That's why the second RM was OK in that instance. Not comparable to this case. Your analysis is very similar to BM's in that you're overlooking massive differences. Can't believe this. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, please re-ping those arbs and explain your earlier accusation was false in light of what I've written above. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, SFR, your second example doesn't support your statement in multiple ways: it wasn't multiple editors, and anyway, in your second example, the first RM ended in "not moved" and explicitly suggested further discussion: "This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion". You just made the same mistake twice, comparing RMs that explicitly said no prejudice to another RM. I went over this in detail on BM's talk page. You need to fix what you wrote, not double down on it. Levivich (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I'm 100% going to appeal this to AN, TBANs or not. Reopening the RM was massively disruptive. I don't believe the community will decide that it was OK to launch that RM or that the right thing to do was to let it run. AE got this one wrong. Levivich (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, separate from asking at AN whether shutting down the RM was the right thing to do, I'm also probably going to ask ARCA to take another look at the whole "1RR doesn't apply" thing again. If that's the scope of 1RR, it at least needs to be documented somewhere, because right now every 1RR talk page notice says 1RR applies to "this article" which everyone will understand means the talk page too, and WP:1RR says it's the same as 3RR, which explicitly applies on all pages. (Also it doesn't make much sense to exempt talk pages anyway.) Levivich (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BK: never closed, just deleted. I deleted it, then Self, then SN, then Self un-deleted it after this AE, and it's since run. Surely no one will touch it now (except an admin). I have no problem with "should have been been closed instead of just deleted," if that's the procedure I'll follow it, but I have a big problem with what happened here, that it's just been allows to run. We went from non-disruptive (me shutting it down) to disruptive (it running), IMO.

BTW could you please tell me: I suggested two masters above, and your answer about CU mentioned one of them. Is it also "unrelated" as to the other (o.max/"icewhiz")? Levivich (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Barkeep49, I will do so. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee @Starship.paint, idk if this is the one you're referring to, but the May 3 RM that ended up at "Gaza genocide" had a move review that ended Aug 22. The new RM (that brought us here) was opened Sep 7, 16 days later. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gee I don't know why more people don't bring AE cases. What could possibly be stopping them? 😂 Levivich (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR: Battleground for Levivich? What are you talking about? Levivich (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing uncivil in my message to BM; it was direct, but polite. What BM has been doing -- using my AE reports as an opportunity to complain about Selfstudier, which has now happened multiple times -- is the "battleground" behavior here. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BK: it's no more intimidating than "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.". Levivich (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a cultural thing but I really don't see anything uncivil or otherwise problematic about the phrase "we're going to have a problem if you don't cut the crap" (essentially what I said). I think that's substantially nicer than saying "you may be blocked" and especially saying it in bold, or leaving any template. Please keep in mind that I'm talking to someone who I've known and worked with for years. Frankly, I think I should be able to talk to my long time colleagues kind of however I want, kind of without being judged by "outsiders," meaning by people who I haven't worked with for years. If BM has a problem with me or something I said to him, he'll tell me, as I told him when I had a problem with him (this wasn't my first complaint on his talk page, hence why it's phrased as a final warning). I don't think it's an admin's place to quibble about the particular language used between long time collaborators. It's not like I dropped f-bombs or made threats of harm or something serious like that. Just because I didn't phrase something the way you would have, doesn't mean it deserves a warning. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim: this isn't about just commenting on my AE threads. You'll notice many people have commented on my AE threads, and many of those comments have raised issues with editors other than the editors I was reporting. I only left such a message for one editor, and there's a reason for that. It's because I don't have any problem with people commenting on my AE threads, of course I know that the entire community is welcome to comment on any noticeboard threads I start, and of course I know that other editors' conduct may be examined at any given noticeboard thread (including my own conduct). That message was about one person, doing one very particular thing, multiple times, over an extended period of time. This wasn't even my first message about it, but my previous messages went unheeded, so I told him we're going to have a problem -- meaning, I'm going to report your conduct and ask for sanctions -- if he doesn't stop. I think it's frankly a good thing to warn people like this, rather than just reporting him. When I have problems with users, I almost always go straight to their talk page and tell them directly, before I seek any admin involvement. That's a good thing to do, not a bad thing. Levivich (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1244541208

Discussion concerning IntrepidContributor

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 IntrepidContributor

As I mentioned to Levivich on my talk page, 1RR does not apply to talk pages and fixing TPO violations. The diffs provided show me reverting the improper removal of an editor's post on a talk page. Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account. I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis and I have never heard of those editors I am accused of being. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier, if you didn't like WikiFouf's RM, you could have voted against it instead of deleting it. Removing the proposal is a TPO violation and a third editor doing it doesn't make it right. There was an RfC and no moratorium was agreed on page name move requests [10], so you should not be obstructing an uninvolved editor from a good faith attempt. IntrepidContributor (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 there have been a number of editors who have objected to the page title since the last RM, and the MR that was closed a month after it. The RM discussion itself was very tight and should have been closed as no consensus, leaving the page name as Gaza genocide allegation or accusation. The MR brought up the fact that at 30 on 30, with three choices of names, the closer should have weighted it according to the similarity in two names Gaza genocide allegation or Gaza genocide accusation. But I don't think this is the right venue to arguing the case for the a new move request, and that should be left to the community. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Regardless of the 1R problem, this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior. There was a well attended recently concluded RM that in addition went through MR and nothing has changed since. Rather than specifying anything new, the presented nomination is chock full of personal opinions such as I wholeheartedly believe that "Gaza genocide" is a premature title and does more harm than good, risking the erosion of public confidence in Wikipedia for a wide swath of the population and regurgitates everything that was already discussed in the recent RM. Yes there are editors that actively dislike the current title, that is not a sufficient reason to go through all this again.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A third editor has now reverted the RM proposal Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ample opportunity to engage was given to reported editor here and here, instead they chose to edit war and only then the matter was raised here, all within a couple hours, no-one having responded to the RM in the interim. This seems to me, in all the circumstances, to be a proper approach, BM attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the revert by a third editor and the RM is now running. Selfstudier (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Not that it has anything to do with this case but seconding what Levivich says and that's not the first time you have taken out of context "otherstuff" to bolster your argument together with naming me in the process. Quite wrongly in my view. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

Given that there was an RM which was closed on 3 July 2024, endorsed at a move review 22 August 2024 and that there have been three RMs on the article this year, the filling of another RM so soon after the last one had been endorsed by a move review by WikiFouf was disruptive. IntrepidContributor restoring it not just once, but twice, is even more disruptive regardless of whether 1RR applies to talk pages or not. TarnishedPath^talk 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez per WP:TAGTEAM: Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus.
Where's your evidence for coordinated meatpupperty? If you don't have any you need to retract your personal attacks/aspersions. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's comment at Special:Diff/1244972583, in which they engage in personal attacks and aspersion casting against every editor who has voted for a procedural close in the RM at Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 by stating that they are all engaging in "POV pushing or stonewalling". TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd further like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's WP:CANVASSING of editors to Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 at Special:Diff/1244837374. When I drew their attention to the fact that they'd engaged in canvassing at Special:Diff/1244979886 and that they should ping all involved editors to remedy their breach of behaviour guidelines they responded at Special:Diff/1244988992 by stating that I should remedy their breach for them. TarnishedPath^talk 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors constantly making personal attacks and accusations of bad behaviour without providing the slightest bit of evidence is getting rather tiring. It needs to stop. SFR floated the idea of giving short term topic bans to any editor who had done so and at this point I say go for it. Scorch the earth. TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal if you're going to imply hypocrisy in voting in support of a RM which was opened not long after another was closed and then voting procedural close in another RM in similar circumstances you need to demonstrate that editors were aware of that. I certainly wasn't aware of the prior RM for the Israel-Hamas war article and can't be expected to have known given that my contributions to the PIA area is sporadic. What you present shows nothing unless there is something more. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal, I don't think it's an absolutely wild suggestion that a lot of editors wouldn't have read each and every comment in such a large discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal and why would they have been more likely to read the first comment than the comments further down near where they placed their !vote? TarnishedPath^talk 06:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal, what you state to be general isn't universal. It's being debated because you are implying the motives of other editors and I happen to be one of those editors. TarnishedPath^talk 06:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

First, there was a consensus against a moratorium on that page.

Second, it was recently established that involved editors shouldn't be shutting down/closing formal discussions that they disagreed with, and should instead go to an admin when the discussion is problematic. I note that one of the parties that shut down this discussion, Selfstudier, participated in that discussion, and so should have been aware of that.

Third, Selfstudier previously objected to involved closes in relation to RM's on that page. As part of that, they were warned against reverting closures, and told to go to an admin in the future.

In general, I think the editors closing this discussion, but especially Selfstudier who has been involved in these issues before and appears to be espousing a double standard, have behaved far below what we expect of editors in a contentious topic. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent comment by David A, particularly their second sentence, I want to call out the obvious POV pushing that is occurring here.

In this AE, we have a number of editors objecting to opening an RM proposing moving the article to a less definitive title just two months after the previous was closed in favour of the title they supported.

However, that RM was opened just a month after a previous RM was closed against moving the article to a more definitive title.

These same editors had no objection to that RM, and some such as David A were instrumental in opening it.

Effectively, these editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not - and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this.

Such behaviour is a violation of half a dozen policies and I believe AE needs to act against it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: Off topic, but I don’t have a position on the reliability of +972, and I don’t express one in the discussion you linked. I also don’t seek to remove all references to Al Jazeera, although I do question its reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the editors asking for an example of editors who objected to this move request, but had no objection to others opened within a similar period:

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 34#Requested move 23 December 2023 was closed on January 4, and the close was finalized on January 10, with a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war".

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 40#Requested move 23 January 2024, which proposed moving the article to "Israel-Gaza war" was opened 19 or 13 days later, depending on where you are counting from. Of the editors objecting to the move request under discussion here:

Selfstudier (talk · contribs) supported a move on 23 January 2024
David A (talk · contribs) supported a move on 31 January 2024
Levivich (talk · contribs) supported a move on 6 February 2024, with their first comment on 24 January 2024
TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) supported a move on 16 February 2024

Other editors in this discussion participated in that RM, but as I haven't interpreted their comments as objecting to this move request I haven't included them in this list. There are also a large number of editors who objected to this RM on procedural grounds within the RM, but supported that RM without any objection; I also haven't considered them for this list. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: The first line of the first !vote in the 23 January 2024 RM (mine, for the record) said there was a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war" less than two weeks ago.

Unless these editors aren't reading any of the discussion before !voting, they would have been aware.

In addition, Selfstudier was indisputably aware of the prior discussion - they participated in an objection to the close of the 23 December 2023 RM. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: They wouldn't have needed to read each and every comment; only the first line of the first comment. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: I'm surprised this is even being debated. In a general context, it is well established that for various reasons comments at the top of a discussion are far more likely to be read than comments at the bottom - and in a Wikipedia context editors need to go to the top of a discussion to click "edit source", not the bottom. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, while I felt it was inappropriate, it also didn't bother me, being very minor compared to much of what we see in this topic area.

If it had come from someone with a history of incivility I might have taken an issue with it, but up until recently I have never seen any problems with Levivich's behavior and so am happy to dismiss this as a one off. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WikiFouf

@Selfstudier That's really a bad-faith interpretation. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but don't pretend like I didn't detail why I think that A) the title is premature and, B) it can erode confidence in WP's neutrality. I don't cite new sources, yes, but that's the whole point : I reviewed all of the sources we do have right now and I disagree with the verdict that 'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources. Hence why I launched the RM, and encouraged people go through the sources table. I'm not trying to be "disruptive". WikiFouf (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

It seems likely that ongoing efforts to change the title of the Gaza Genocide (which includes less polite efforts like this) are explained in part by the attention/canvassing occurring off-wiki on social media sites etc. I don't know (or care) whether the concerns are legitimate policy-based concerns, but what also seems likely is that this attention is not dependent on the number or details of the RMs, it is dependent on the result of the RM not being the current title. Unless an RM is guaranteed to result in a change to the title that supporters of Israel find satisfactory, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, out in the real world, interest in this Gaza Genocide article formed about 1000th of a percent of what people looked at last month in English Wikipedia (amounting to over 10 billion views), so the article title issue does not appear to be an urgent or significant issue from a global statistical perspective. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like targeting the title of the Gaza Genocide article is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, the targeting of Selfstudier is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, in my view. I find this concerning, not because of anyone's opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but because by my estimation, since the start of 2022, around 1800 of Selfstudier's edits (and probably more) are directly related to implementing/enforcing ArbCom remedies including ARBECR, notifying new users, handling edit requests and creating edit notices. So, this particular user, the topic area's top (non-sock) contributor by edit count (normally a positive thing, but apparently a negative thing in PIA), spent over 12% of their revisions on essentially policing the largely unprotected topic area. For me, it's to be expected that editors will ignore this aspect of an editor they perceive as an obstacle or opponent of some kind, but if admins ignore it the AE process starts to resemble an autoimmune disorder. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom."

I don't think this idea has any utility.
Like it or not, Levivich is one of the topic area's countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity. They are part of PIA's immune system.
The statement can therefore be re-expressed as "There is a strong case to disable one of the countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity in the topic area."

If an editor sees what they regard as disruptive behavior or policy non-compliance in the topic area they should be able to report it here at AE. ArbCom is not going to be able to solve many of the systemic problems in the topic area because the on-site effects are produced by external factors, off-site things they have little to no control over, like whether a person decides to evade a ban, or engage in/respond to canvassing efforts, or allow their personal views to take priority over policy compliance etc. And there is no obvious misalignment between Levivich's stated objectives in their reports and the objectives described by policy and existing ArbCom remedies. They have a much higher resolution view of the state of the topic area than ArbCom is likely to ever have. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanhimez

"immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere)" - this is not what I see. I see an editor documenting what they regard as inconsistencies between actions and rules.
"It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so." - This is easily explained by friction and a number of other factors. I could bring numerous editors to AE and SPI, and yet I don't, because, for me, the cost/benefit ratio makes it too expensive. There aren't many editors willing to put in the work required to gather evidence and present a case.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by xDanielx

A new RM might arguably be appropriate now that the closely related RM for the parent, Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocide, was unsuccessful. In any case, if editors feel it's too hasty, they should request a speedy closure by an uninvolved party, or possibly snowball close it if there's a clear consensus that it's too hasty (which seems unlikely given the consensus against a moratorium). It's really inappropriate for two highly involved editors to simply delete a good-faith RM they don't agree with. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David A

I do not think that Levivich or Selfstudier should receive any punishment. People who disapprove of the current page title keep forcing us to vote over and over and over regarding the same topic, with very brief breaks in-between, until they get their desired result.

It is to demand too much from Levivich and Selfstudier to expect them to know exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or is not allowed in every possible development in this regard.

Also, they are knowledgeable, constructive, and well-behaved editors. Putting them on restraining order for such a limited reason would cause longterm damage to the overall wellbeing of the pages concerning this topic. David A (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to accusations by BilledMammal, there does not exist any coordination between myself and other Wikipedia members. We are merely people from different parts of this world who seem to share a humanitarian concern for the unnecessary loss of innocent lives, particularly children, and going by the United Nations recent voting records regarding the currently ongoing military actions by the government of Israel, the vast majority of the population of humanity strongly disapprove of them, so statistically speaking there should logically be a much greater shortage of people in Wikipedia who agree than those who disagree.

Also, I was referring to that this was not the first time that there have been attempts to overturn the recent page title move within a brief timespan, although going by my, possibly flawed, memory, most of them were by new editors to Wikipedia who did not have extended edit-confirmed rights to respond to the Gaza genocide talk page.

In addition, even from my, likely very limited, observations of BilledMammal's own activities here in Wikipedia, he has very actively participated in several attempts to remove all references by both Al Jazeera and +972 Magazine, which are the two main news organisations that report war crimes by the Israeli government. [11] [12] [13] [14]

Also, for the record, I have been subjected to death threats and multiple serious personal attacks from people who support the current military actions of the Israeli government. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] David A (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Okay. My apologies for making a mistake regarding +972 Magazine, but as far as I am aware, disqualifying sources from being considered reliable by Wikipedia allows editors to systematically remove all of them from Wikipedia pages, which in the case of Al Jazeera would severely cripple the reporting from the Gaza war. David A (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: For the record, all that I recall of the renaming procedure is that the ongoing move discussion was extremely disorganised, lengthy, tiresome, and all over the place, so I assembled the three main titles suggested by other members that were not too long and awkward, and seemed to have good arguments and Wikipedia page title precedents backing them, and then put them to a vote by pinging all of the previous participants in the discussion, in order to help bring some order and structure to the chaos.

There was no deliberation involved beyond that I thought that all of the three alternatives were shorter and less awkward that the then current title for the page, nor did I expect the current title to get the most votes at the time. I do not recall voting in a preceding survey before the very lengthy sprawling discussion that eventually resulted in the current title, but if I did, I probably just voted for what I thought was the least bad available option at the time. David A (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Never mind. It seems like you are talking about a renaming discussion for another page. My adhd unfortunately strikes again. Anyway, I do not recall reading your own quoted comment there. I likely just voted for what seemed to be a less inappropriate title. David A (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Sean.hoyland: about that Levivich is a highly knowledgeable member who helps to bring order, structure, and fact-based resolutions to discussions, so getting rid of him would cause active harm to the parts of Wikipedia where he is active, and contrary to @Berchanhimez:'s claims, I think that the attempts to shut up editors who are highly concerned about human rights violations via this arbitration discussion seem considerably more prevalent and concerning. David A (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: As far as I am aware, I have only made fact-based additions to Wikipedia, especially lots of reliable statistics, and do not think that I have made any disruptive behaviour via insults or bad editing. I used my wording as one that seemed neutral, given that there are some editors who are concerned about human rights violations in general, regardless of who is doing them, and others who seem to act in a more partisan manner regarding this topic.

Absolute objectivity is not an inherent part of human nature. Some people just attempt to systematically hide their subjective traits whereas other are compulsively honest about them, the latter of which is a part of my type of autistic mental condition. However, that does not mean that I have ever made dishonest edits that I know of. I think that I have gone to extremes to attempt to word all my information article page Wikipedia edits in a matter-of-fact neutral manner, make certain that they use reliable sources, and to evaluate all of the available facts regarding this situation before reaching a conclusion. Just because I do have a moral system that says "Over 18,000 dead children and around 1 million starving people = not good", this does not remotely make me a disruptive editor, and I think that people without any such ethical concerns would be considerably more concerning, as a lack of conscience is also a form of bias, and of a far more socially destructive variety. Any viewpoint whatsoever is a bias. It is inherently unavoidable. David A (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: That is correct, yes. There have apparently been recurring cases of public agitation against the work in this page, such as this Reddit thread and multiple negatively worded news articles that are listed at the top of the talk section of this page, with resulting cases of new and completely inexperienced editors causing considerable hostile disturbances. David A (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it may be worth, just a note that I also do not think that Levivich did anything remotely deserving of a warning due to his comment. It seemed like an attempt for honest but polite communication, not actual hostility. David A (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

Will point out the obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process. Won’t argue against the fact that violating WP:TPO by deleting a discussion isn’t POV-pushing itself by the pro-Pal folks either… I saw the admins saying that ARBPIA states all rules are more especially enforced in this area, but maybe the request for ARBPIA5 could resolve such matters by putting in place much more explicit rules within ARBPIA instead of relying on the entire corpus of wikipedia policy? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish - I'm fine with receiving a warning for battleground, apologies for targeting BM in an underhanded phrase, but looking at the list Ealdgyth has, if I have a warning for a single phrase in a paragraph, I would also like a warning for everyone else in that list Ealdgyth also quoted. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

I'd like to say I'm surprised to see this. But I'm not. Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV. While the last move review was closed as "endorse", the closer was quite clear that that was mostly a "no consensus to overturn (but not necessarily meaning there is a consensus that it was correct and proper)". The closure of the last RM "overturned" what was about a 3-to-2 majority (if not more) for a title other than the now-current one, but because of the actions of some editors (not necessarily here), the closer found a "majority" for the current title. Then editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed. And now they're mad that the community is being asked to opine again given the woefully improper close of the last move review that amounts to a supervote.

That all said, since AE has already been unable to take action on a recent report in the area because of the number of users involved and the cross-user issues (tag-teaming, POV pushing, potential off wiki coordination, etc), this report should simply be punted to ARCA as evidence in the already ongoing request for a new arbitration case. Specifically, this case should be used as evidence that Levivich (and others) are attempting to weaponize AE to remove people they disagree with from the topic area so their POV pushing cannot be questioned. Beyond that, the only short term action that should be taken is a prohibition on the most flagrantly abusive users (Levivich coming to mind as making multiple threads here recently) from making AE reports until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. If a user is truly problematic, Levivich should be able to trust that someone else can make a report. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be extremely clear, I disagree completely with Barkeep's message below that he does not consider threatening another user (BilledMammal) on their talk page to be evidence that should be considered here. Levivich is weaponizing AE, and is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at, because they made the report. Should not be allowed whatsoever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not retract anything, but I will clarify that "their" here was not solely intended as a third-person singular pronoun, but also to cover other editors with whom Levivich frequently tag-teams (whether intentional or not) on reporting editors. As SFR replied on BilledMammal's talk page, it's more than ripe to have the behavior of others involved brought up when evaluating a AE request, because the actions of others influence and inform the evaluation of the reported user. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich has now taken to claiming that AE shouldn't review the whole circumstances of the situation when a report is made (in other words, that they want a first mover advantage), and claimed that they intend to "appeal" this even further because they think they should be able to own the topic area and have their views on a discussion taken as fact before adequate discussion, making involved closures/removals without repercussions. If this isn't more than enough evidence that Levivich is one of the biggest problems in this topic area on either side of the debate I'm not sure what would be. Textbook disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'll say again - if there are disruptive editors there are more than enough other people who can bring those editors to AE. But Levivich's participation in this topic area at this point and especially in AE regarding this topic area is no longer beneficial or constructive - and it's been that way for quite some time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be extremely clear: I am fine if AE admins choose to punt this to arbcom in conjunction with the recent ARCA request for a new case in the Israel-Palestine conflict area. But do it already - stop giving the guise that anything can (or should) be done here if that's going to be the end result. I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom. They are wasting administrator and other user time at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Sean, I say that the mere fact he is reporting potentially valid disruption does not justify his immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere). There are plenty of other editors who can continue to bring editors to this noticeboard and discuss them without Levivich's participation/reporting of them. It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so. The mere fact his complaints seem "facially valid" does not justify the disruption they cause, nor the dogpiling they bring. I haven't seen a single case they've brought recently that has been so urgent as to not be able to wait for the ARCA request to start a case. But what it does do is create a chilling effect for editors wishing to participate in this area. If you don't agree with Levivich (et al - those who agree with him and show up quickly to comment on these requests and discussions they start/opine in on talk pages) you risk being taken to AE in an attempt to silence you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: Wikipedia isn't the place to "be concerned about human rights violations". We report facts, not what we want people to hear. Attempting to pass off disruption as okay because you think they're trying to be "right" is the exact sort of disruption that makes us violate our core content policies in this topic area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint (2)

berchanhimez has utterly misunderstood the situation in their claim that Levivich … is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at, because they made the report. Levivich’s position has been consistent. Less than a month ago, Levivich said: Don't use my [AE] report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people. Please respect the time I put into this. Unless it's about me, or HaOfa, it doesn't really belong in this thread, it belongs in a new one. Levivich did not mind his own conduct being examined in the same AE thread, he just wanted other editors to be examined in new AE threads. I look forward for berchanhimez's false claim to be retracted. starship .paint (RUN) 04:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: - the context was that the 12 January move, [21] [22] explicitly said: This RM is intended specifically to fix the incorrect year disambiguation as soon as possible: a clearly incorrect title shouldn't be left in effect long-term on a heavily viewed page. It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording. This move was closed 20 January 2024. starship .paint (RUN) 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: - you are correct. There is a May RM that ended in June and which move review ended in ~~July.~~ starship .paint (RUN) 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- move review ended in August. My bad, thanks Levivich. starship .paint (RUN) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhotogenicScientist

Apologies for the tangent, but I think this is worth clarifying while we're here: The applicability of 1RR to talk pages is not clear from current policy/Arbcom pages.

Per policy (WP:EW), the three revert rule (and WP:1RR by extension) applies to all "pages", including those in talk and project spaces.
Per ArbCom ([23]), 1RR is meant broadly to address article content, and specific talk page 1RR "violations" were deemed to not be violations.

So, 2 questions:

If ArbCom's standard applies to WP:ARBPIA, would that standard apply to all CTOP talk pages? And to all talk pages generally?
If the above are true, should WP:3RR be amended to remove the explicit mention of Talk pages?

Thanks. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 if that decision is binding, then can WP:3RR be summarily updated, on that basis? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 that separation I (vaguely) understand. Though, the ArbCom 1RR sanction appears to be documented here, where "revert restrictions" links directly to the section with WP:1RR. And in that section, 1RR is explicitly defined as being analogous to 3RR with a few specific changes (none of which mention excepting Talk pages).

So, can the WP:EW#Other revert rules section be modified to reflect the ArbCom decision? It's on a policy page, but that section starts off saying its material is from ArbCom. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regarding the suggestions for mass topic bans - I do want to point out that the disruption in this topic area is ultimately coming from external sources and is the result of a broader conflicts outside of Wikipedia. While many editors are behaving in a subpar manner, that's not the root issue here; and despite their sniping, most of these editors are experienced enough to know and follow at least the basic outline of how we do things. I'm concerned that broad topic-bans could remove those experienced editors while leaving a bunch of new / inexperienced ones who would continue the same conflicts without the same knowledge of our policies and procedures. Obviously warnings and such are needed and people who don't improve or who are obviously part of the problem need to be removed, but topic-banning basically all the highly-active experienced users in a topic area that is seeing substantial external disruption is probably something to be avoided if possible. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning IntrepidContributor

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

I'll probably circle back to the substance of this report but from a CU perspective IntrepitContributor is technically Unrelated to Wierzba. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I circled back faster than I had anticipated. IntrepidContributor can you please address the substance of why you are restoring the RM, not just why it is/isn't 1RR, and why it is not disruptive. Namely, why a new move discussion is appropriate now given that the previous move review closed 17 days ago. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unimpressed with Intrepid's response, which has large elements of "I don't agree with the consensus so I'm going to try again and see if I can get my consensus." While I am sympathetic to the idea that the MR closed a month after the move discussion itself and that this is a developing situation, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus[24]. I also continue to have concerns, as I expressed in May with editors reverting formal discussions - such as moves or RfCs - in order to shut them down. Now that May discussion also clarifies that 1RR does not apply here but that doesn't mean that I don't find some behavior here troubling. I'll wait to see if any other admins post thoughts before stating what specific outcome I favor. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich has the RM been closed? Or was the RM simply reverted so no one knew it was attempted? I was in favor of closing the RM which I note in the comment above. When Selfstudier decided to revert SN, I nearly procedurally closed it myself. If another uninvolved administrator is thinking about closing it, I would support them doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich I did not check the account against Icewhiz. You're welcome to ask for that to be done at SPI. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotogenicScientist I think this answers your questions (decided by ArbCom itself rather than AE so it is more binding). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PhotogenicScientist, 1rr is an arbitration sanction, 3rr is a community policy. Two different things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: ArbCom can't make policy. It can only make decisions within its remit. Which includes this conflict and 1RR. So the decision to update the policy page is up to the community to include (or not). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up to the community about updating that or not. So if you're interested I'd read WP:PGCHANGE about what that looks like. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm in agreement with Barkeep that the 1RR question is adequately addressed by Arbcom, and there is no violation here. This is very similar to a repeat of the May report specifically dealing with involved editors vetoing consensus establishing processes. In that report we issued a final warning for exactly what Levivich and Selfstudier did here, and it was clear that such involved closures were inappropriate. Although the RM didn't bring anything new to the table, this is not an uncommon situation in the topic area. Selfstudier supported a RM three days after the closure of a prior RM, and even if they disagreed with the RM procedurally, they should understand that editors often disagree about when another RM is appropriate. Gaza genocide has been through several recent RMs in close proximity so another, though not great, isn't so flagrantly out of process, e.g. started by a non-EC editor, that heavily involved editors should have stepped in. This should have been brought to AN or an uninvolved administrator, or at the absolute least brought up at the editor's talk page.
With the unrelated result of CU we're looking at an extended-confirmed editor in good standing who opened a RM two months after the prior request that, while as Barkeep pointed out doesn't really bring anything new, isn't wildly malformed or procedurally flawed beyond repeating a two-month old discussion. Involved editors do not have veto power on discussions that they believe are occurring too close to another recent discussion, or any other formal process. This was already widely agreed upon at AE. That two editors who are taking part in a discussion about involvement and involved actions in this specific topic area would think that this reversion was acceptable is surprising to say the least. Additionally, simply believing that someone is a sockpuppet doesn't free us of WP:AGF, and contributions can not be reverted simply on suspicion of sockpuppetry.
In my view the shutting down of a discussion started by an extended confirmed editor in good standing by two involved editors is more of an issue than starting an RM too soon after the last one. WP:SNOW or WP:AN exist for this situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR: I'm not being glib here: are you saying that the "trout" noted in the closing summary was in actuality a final warning? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss received a final warning for closing the rfc. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand now. I suggest a warning for IC and Selfstudier, and maybe even a narrow topic ban on closing/reverting formal discussions for Selfstudier. I don't see the same history for Levivich and I see attempts to use our processes so I don't see a need for a warning about the conduct in this complaint (which I do not consider this message a part of). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a functional difference between a warning not to close discussions you're involved in and a topic ban. The result of doing it again is likely to be the same. so I think a warning is fine in that instance. A more sternly worded reminder that editors should not be closing or removing consensus establishing discussions when they are heavily involved might be in order, as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That all makes sense to me. I do want to note the general warning will only carry so far - for instance I would not expect everyone in the topic area (even "regulars" at this forum) to see the message. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think we should even have to give such a general warning/reminder, because that is covered in WP:CTOP and the alert pretty much every editor in ARBPIA has received or given. Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice. This type of behavior shouldn't need a warning, because WP:INVOLVED and WP:TPG already cover it in detail, and editors must comply with all applicable policies and guidelines and follow best practices. Why are we making sure everyone gets a notification that they must do this if we're just going to warn for violating PAGs? So, I guess what I mean about a more sternly worded reminder is saying that this already prohibited behavior will be sanctioned if it occurs in the future. We don't need to hand out any more individual warnings for this, because everyone with a CTOP alert has already been put on notice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh, Cabayi, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Moneytrees, Primefac, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, and Z1720: here we have another case where at first blush there is one issue to address that AE could probably handle, but it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs. Editors from across the spectrum can't help but to show up and accuse each other of bad faith editing, to make bad faith accusations that everyone supporting an option in an RM are People who apparently support Israel's current military actions, to demand other editors not take part in AE proceedings, or claim that editor misbehavior in the RM and MR led to a POV issue with an article title. No one seems to think their aspersions or personal attacks are the same as the aspersions and personal attacks other people cast, and this shitshow happens pretty much every time we end up here for any but the most obvious behavioral issues with new or inexperienced editors. There aren't enough AE admins to be expected to take the brunt of the fallout from any significant action, if there is even consensus for anything. Can we maybe put the scoot on getting a case started? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, I've pinged the few others from those discussions and given an only warning for canvassing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, Closed 19 January, New RM opened on the 24th, Selfstudier, David A Levivich. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there's also Closed 13 February, new RM 29 February, David A, BilledMammal.

Both of those RMs had no prejudice towards another RM, as did the RM at the center of this report, which had a consensus against a moratorium. We're, again, looking at standard behavior in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we're looking at the reasoning behind the move, that RM on 29 February was spurred by this, which is about as "there was no consensus for the name I wanted, but I disagree with the previous close" as it gets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I'd need to see the context for multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing. Valereee (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through this filing and the comments from other editors ... and I have to agree with SFR - the accusations are certainly piling up here. From a quick read ... the following statements stood out to me as being less than optimal (in fact, often completely useless) in helping to resolve issues:
- "Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account"
- "attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation"
- "People who apparently support Israel's current military actions"
- "and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this"
- "That's really a bad-faith interpretation"
- "this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior"
- "obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process"
- "Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV"
- "editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed"
Note I didn't link these to specific editors because they are examples of the continual low-level sniping, accusations, and off-topic digressions that continually interfere with non-involved admins ability to get to the bottom of issues. I get it that the real world war is inflaming passions all around. But it doesn't help the issue here on wiki if we tolerate this sort of sniping/off-topic digressions/etc. Ideally, all editors would agree to dial things back, and at least try to pretend to pay lip-service to the ideals of editing here. Unfortunately, I think its gone on too long and I certainly can't say that I have any intention of opening myself up to actually taking action in this CT - because why should I expose myself as a target of this level of constant sniping? Why do folks think this is what editors should be acting like? I don't like the idea of treating everyone in this CT like a toddler who needs to be sent to time-out, but honestly - what other choices do non-involved admins have? The best way to discuss things is to not discuss what you think the motivations of other editors are, but rather to engage with sources and facts. None of the above examples do that - and frankly, until that type of editing goes away .. nothing will improve in the CT.
As to the actual original complaint about breaking 1RR, Barkeep and SFR discussed this above. All the other stuff about possible sockpuppetry in the original complaint - that should have gone to SPI, which is the correct venue for handling possible sockpuppetry. (I note that Barkeep ruled it as the two accounts being unrelated on technical reasons) All the extraneous commentary from many other editors above ... is pretty much useless. So, we're left with - nothing. We can close this without addressing the other issues, as the one complaint that was suitable for this venue appears to have been decided as not a problem - if I'm reading the statements by Barkeep and SFR correct? While I might like to see something done about the digressions by everyone and the kitchen sink, I don't have the bandwith right now to topic ban everyone on my own admin authority nor do I care to deal with the nasty fallout I can see as likely in my future if I did such a thing. Close this and wait for the inevitable next time when we go through this same cycle again. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were some warnings above that Barkeep and I were roughly in consensus about, although as I asked above, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. We can do that with a rough consensus here without having a lone admin eat the inevitable dozen hours of shit at all the appeals. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could get behind topic bans imposed by a consensus of admins here, although I really wish that we didn't have to treat other editors like toddlers. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom has a procedure for temporary injunctions to handle the kind of situation described above. I am opposed to AE usurping that authority for itself. I remain open to the warning expressed above. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have the appetite for tbans all around. That feels punitive. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, Scorch the earth usually causes a lot of collateral damage. For instance, battleground language could get caught up in it as well. Valereee (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether this is the wrong venue for 1RR in this case, but starting a new RM that quickly simply because you disagree with the previous one is clearly disruptive, and I do think 1RR should apply here. Valereee (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could choose as AE to impose 1RR on that talk page going forward, but I don't think we can decide the previous reverts were a 1RR violation. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get it. I missed the discussion, but I'd have said reverts on talk pages at CTs are disruptive enough, too. Not going to reopen that recent discussion. :D Valereee (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship, there was an RM that ended in June here that was endorsed in a move review at the end of July -- am I reading incorrectly? Valereee (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NM, I realize you were responding to a post above, sorry! The context there was the closure itself, which actually invited another RM. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez, re: It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so. There's a work factor, a knowledge factor, and a risk factor that might prevent others from wanting to mess with AE. The fact someone is more willing to do it is not necessarily evidence of disruption by them. It may simply be they're the only one with both the capacity and the will. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself unimpressed with the behavior of several participants here. As Ealdgyth notes, the ad homimen snipes serve only to raise the temperature. Socking has been ruled out and 1RR appears to be a non-issue, which doesn't leave much that is actionable. I am opposed to TBANs at this time; it feels disproportionate to the conduct here. I would support logged warnings. The CTOP restrictions do lay out behavioral expectations, but only in the most general terms. I would make a warning explicit as to the behavior that we find to be a problem. For me, in this case, it is the venue-inappropriate sniping, but particularly the bludgeoning of a process in violation of procedural convention when the outcome is not to your liking, or alternatively the use of procedural fine points to shut down a discussion when a previous outcome was to your liking. As far as I can tell many users have engaged in this behavior, on both "sides", and it isn't acceptable in any case.
That said, I want to flag a concern with my colleagues' comments above. Sometimes there isn't anything differentiating parties in a dispute, and the appropriate response is either mass sanctions or an ARBCOM referral: but sometimes a single user's behavior is very clearly actionable, because they are pushing the envelope further than any others. I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other - we are in no way obligated to deal with all the disruption at once. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with the approach Vanamonde suggests in the second paragraph. Though admittedly I'm not sure who all that means would get a warning (where the 1st paragraph seems to be going). Per the I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other note I'd still favor logged warnings for Selfstudier and IC as an appropriate close out of this. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I have closed the RM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93, Valereee, and Ealdgyth: is there any appetite for any sanction out of this report? The most concrete proposal - topic bans all around - has no support. But I do so see some consesnus that there were conduct violations here so just closing it as no action doesn't seem to reflect the consensus any better. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warning for starting another RM without any new reasoning shortly after the last closed. Warnings for removing the RM as an involved party, and for not discussing with the editor that stated the RM first. Warning for edit warring over the removal of the new RM. Warnings all around for battleground behavior. Lastly, a raise for us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am supportive of each of those warnings. I have not made an exhaustive list of which editors raised the temperature via ad hominem commentary, but that seems to me to be deserving of a warning. I'm honestly inclined to word that last as a reminder - not logged- and apply it to all parties to this report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, how many times have folks here been warned for some of this? But, if that's the best we can agree on, I can support that. I really wish that warnings didn't feel totally toothless and ineffectual. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My quick check of the log earlier this week said there hasn't been warnings about this for the people involved her I found troubling. As such I support SFR's path as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to warnings others think are appropriate. Valereee (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll double your current salary, ScottishFinnishRadish. Other than that, I think that's a reasonable solution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting what David A and Aquillion are referring to above is happening currently at Talk:Zionism where multiple experienced editors, cooperating pretty well with one another, are dealing with multiple EC editors who appear to have been recruited into the article from outrage in social media and Israeli press. The article had to be full-protected for a day, and even with the talk page semi'd the disruption is ongoing from editors with thousands to tens of thousands of edits who have never edited the page before and aren't familiar with sourcing in a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So a warning for opening without any change to the status quo for WikiFouf, removing an RM when involved for Levivich and Selfstudier, edit warring for IntrepidContributor, and battleground for Berchanhimez, Bluethricecreamman, and Levivich? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. We're going to have a problem If you don't stop using my AE reports to try and get other editors in trouble., followed by a demand that someone with whom you have a disagreement stay away from a community process falls well short of expectations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR, I don't see a tersely-worded complaint on an editor's talk page as battleground. Valereee (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I would call it battleground either but I would call it an inappropriate comment as I do think it reads as intimidation. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went with battleground as that specifically calls out intimidation. We could just go with the ol behavior that falls below what is expected in a contentious topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lev I don't know. I do read them as different. "You may be blocked" leaves some wiggle room about whether or not it happens, where as "We are going to have a problem" does not (both of course are conditional on a behavior continuing). I have a notion that this difference has mattered in some previous cases at ArbCom when an admin was in conflict with another editor. I will ponder more and (time permitting) look to see if I can find if I have recall that correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd just go with "inappropriate". It's been longstanding custom that an editor may ask someone not to comment on their user talk page (though even that has exceptions), but I know of no precedent for expecting someone not to comment on your public noticeboard postings, outside of a formal interaction ban or something like that. If you make a thread on a public noticeboard, you should expect others to make comments, and that may include people who disagree with you and people who you don't like very much. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ecpiandy

There is no consensus for repealing the topic ban at this time, but some administrators expressed an openness to doing so in the future after there was more time editing without problems. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Ecpiandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ecpiandy (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Arab–Israeli related article topic ban

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

Notification of that administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&direction=next&oldid=1245054504

Statement by Ecpiandy

I was unaware of recent Wiki rules in relation to 1RR on Palestine articles and was not actively checking my talk page; I am a long-standing good faith Wikipedia editor of more than 10 years now there won't be any more issues on articles related to this (or any) topic going forward, you can see through my historic time here I attempt to contribute to articles in a positive way. If it is possible to get a second opportunity to participate in articles relating to this topic I would be grateful; lots of the time it just for simple things like updating statistics rather than attempting to be involved in any debate.

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (Ecpiandy appeal)

I warned them for edit warring here and two days later they continued to edit war and then canvassed another editor to help them continue the edit war. Then in early August they violated their topic ban several times, which I blocked them for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ecpiandy

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Ecpiandy

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

Longtime editor runs afoul of expectations in a contentious topic is something I have a lot of time for. I cannot, however, justify overturning this topic ban at this time. Per the criteria, the action followed the criteria (standard 1) and was reasonably necessary to prevent damage (standard 2) given the extensive set of warnings, the number of issues, and the subsequent topic ban violation. For me standard 3, no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption is the most favorable one to Ecpiandy and for that I would want to see 3-6 months of problem free editing elsewhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree with Barkeep49. "Not actively checking my talk page" is really not a great idea; if you're in the middle of making a series of edits and a talk page message notification pops up, it is probably unwise to carry on with the rest of your planned edits before you go see why someone is leaving you a message. And if you don't, well, everyone would just say "I didn't see it", so we have to presume that if a talk page message gets left, it will get read. So, I would decline the appeal, with the same note that if good quality editing is done over the next several months in other areas, I would very much consider lifting the sanction at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to see a firm commitment to checking your talk page and really any pings, too. Just get into the habit of checking to see if there are notifications at the top of the page. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin

A consensus of administrators warns Colin against further uses of inflammatory language in this topic area. There was also a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised during this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Editors in this area are reminded to assume good faith in other contributors. Amending per discussion with other involved admins. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Colin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Colin (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

[Contentious topics - GENSEX]

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

Colin has severe issues regarding GENSEX topics in a UK context.

Oftentimes when a source written by the British government regarding transgender topics is added, some editors will - while agreeing that the source merits inclusion in the article - nonetheless discuss its due weight and neutrality, often citing the UK govt’s record of targeted human rights abuses against trans people (as documented by the UN and the Council of Europe), as well as citing criticisms by reliable orgs against the particular source in question (the widespread MEDORG criticism of the Cass Review for instance).

Colin’s response on this topic is often to come in and deliberately misrepresent anything less than total deference as a personal xenophobic attack on anyone of British nationality, and assert that editors or reliable sources from outside the UK have less right to doubt the British government than British ones do, accusing those who do of being political activists.

March 20 2024 July 2 2024 ‘You, personally, are American, so you don’t get to criticize British government sources’ along with aspersions.

March 19 2024 June 4 2024 Absolute tirades against YFNS, containing pretty much everything but the kitchen sink.

March 19 2024 Telling other editors to save their editorial opinions for a blog, aspersions of bigotry against the British, accusations of bad faith, accusations of editing in service of trans politics.

September 11 2024 Calling the use of the term “trans kids” fringe activist-language and attributing its use to American trans activism.

June 22 2024 Calling everyone who shares YFNS' points amateurs who are so filled with activist rage that they don't even read the documents carefully.

April 9 2024 July 18 2024 July 4 2024 July 20 2024 Aspersions of bigotry against the British + accusations of bad faith against Hist and myself (I was saying that if someone wikilinks “Gender exploratory therapy” and it redirects to the GET section of the conversion therapy page, that’s not a bigoted edit. He considered that me making it personal for some reason? I've never been through conversion therapy)

March 20 2024 Mass accusations of bad faith and bigotry against the British, aspersions of being from (some little twitter bubble):

March 20 2024 April 9 2024 April 25 2024 April 21 2024 Accusations of bad faith.

April 13 2024 July 23, 2024 Miscellaneous aspersions. Please base your arguments on what actually appears in the report and not what twitter feeds, This is political game playing.

March 20 2024 July 10 2024 Personal attacks. a matter for clever people, not wikipedians or twitterati, embarrassing themselves on the internet

I don't know what the best solution is. But I do know that this behavior makes it exponentially more difficult to collaborate constructively. I tried saying as much on his page on May 9th, but he quickly turned it into a discussion on our personally held views regarding transphobia in the UK which I abandoned once it was clear this wouldn't change anything.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

NA

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[Participated in this case]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Requesting word + diff extension

Edit @User:Colin YFNS uses she/they pronouns, not he/him

Edit 2 For whatever it’s worth, I would like to acknowledge that my own behavior does need improvement, and it’s something that I intend to work towards.

Edit 3 User:Barkeep49 User:Vanamonde93 since this is proving a matter of some discussion, I’d like to note that I intended the use of single apostrophes without tq as a means of paraphrasing, not as a direct quote. Do with that info as you will.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

Discussion concerning Colin

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 Colin

There's text in quotes and green attributed to me but that I didn't write. And it seems most times Snokalok has confused me attacking the authors of weak sources and claimed those words were directed at editors, which would be clear with careful reading in context. -- Colin°^Talk 08:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review was commissioned and published by NHS England. It in turn commissioned two systematic reviews by NICE and published here. Subsequently seven systematic reviews were commissioned from the York University Centre for Reviews and Disemination. Those were published here in the Archives of Disease in Childhood.

These systematic reviews, which form the evidence-base for the Cass Review, have been repeatedly attacked on the basis that they are from the UK, and thus prejudged transphobic, and should be no more considered reliable than if they were published by the government of Putin's Russia: here, here and here. I have not accused any editor of xenophobia but have repeatedly complained that xenophobic comments have been made to dismiss these top tier sources. As others have noted, this happens elsewhere on Gensex topics. It seems unlikely, does it not, that this British transphobia has infected not just Dr Cass, chosen to chair an independent review as "a senior clinician with no prior involvement or fixed views in this area", but the NICE team, the eight world-class researchers at York and the editor and peer reviewers of the Archives of Disease in Childhood.

This comment repeats internet disinformation that the Cass Review excluded transgender health experts.

This post on YFNS talk page is in response to this post which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it.

It seems, given some of the comments posted, I haven't been clear enough that I'm enthusiastically attacking the authors of an awful source, rather than editors. I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that. YFNS claims I am here to provide a "knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review", and WAID notes that there's a US-politics battle to discredit the Cass Review. I'm not concerned with that battle. I'm concerned that medical matters on Wikipedia stick to the highest MEDRS sources, and don't repeat disinformation and conspiracy theories, from whatever side makes them. -- Colin°^Talk 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt Loki's "ridiculous and inflammatory accusation", I didn't make any of that up. It is all there in the sources YFNS cites above and in in their talk page response. The "ghostwritten" part comes from this post on my talk page by Snokalok where they describe their "side" as "This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence" and later refer to it as "a theoretically top MEDRS source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org". But they are referring to the same conspiracy theory as YFNS. There is no reliable evidence that "SEGM and Genspect were[] involved at almost every step of the process". Every step?

Wrt YFNS accusation of misogynistic language, I recall YFNS told me they didn't do twitter, so may be unaware that Horton's twitter handle is "@FierceMum". Their language. I joined Wikipedia 19 years ago to edit medical articles as "someone's dad". I'm frequently reminded of the limitations of "parent" as a medical qualification. Horton is an activist, with no medical or clinical research background, whose body of research consists of interviewing their social media circle. And yet editors cite their opinion as though stronger than our systematic reviews and all the learned bodies in the UK, as though, at the very top of the MEDRS source quality pyramid, above the nine systematic reviews Cass commissioned, lies "Activist Opinion". -- Colin°^Talk 09:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 I have the greatest respect for you three admins so please take what I say in that light. Have a look at the state of the AE request when I commented more fully. I have 500 words to respond to 20 diffs from Snokalok which, as Barkeep acknowledges, are full of misquotes and characterising my words in the worst possible light. And at the bottom of the page, I have three admins making comments like "some of the diffs I've looked at concern me" and "there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions" and "language raises the temperature" and "need to take a look at their own behavior" and "treating it as a battleground is a problem, and us-vs-them language". Every one of these comments are undiffed, and if made by any other editor at this venue, would be met with stern warning, as Barkeep did to Licks-rocks, of "behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs..". Do I argue with these opinions? No, they are fair. I respond that I would be "more than keen" to have a discussion with any one of you about my tone and language, but at another venue.

I was unaware that it was expected that I explicitly acknowledge my sins vs respectfully listen to what you guys have to say when you examine the diffs, which I certainly have. Of course my post to YFNS about her conspiracy theories was inappropriate in tone and language. You guys have already said as much, in a handwavy way, and I have not disputed that one bit. But Vanamonde93, I had at this point, no intention of seeking administrative action against this user, nor do I think ANI is the first step in dispute resolution or the place to resolve content disputes. If you may allow me to poke you a bit in return: I'm surprised an editor with a decade of experience thinks it is. If by "administrator attention" you believe admins are wiser than other editors, what can I say. Void is testament to the fact that a stern warning can rescue an editor from a topic ban, but there is light and day between the post I made to void and the one I made to YFNS. Did you think I can't see that and need to say it out loud like a child? If you did, I feel insulted and wonder why you think the criticisms you three have made aren't acknowledged and accepted. That simply isn't my character, which I think Barkeep, WAID and Sandy can attest to. -- Colin°^Talk 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I can only repeat what I said earlier "I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that." Wrt my first post, you should consider I woke up to this and posted a brief comment, addressing some of my concerns about the opening post, before I could start my day job. When I could return properly to this in the evening, you had added your concerns and advice. My feeling really at that point is that I had three good admins who would review my edits, weren't fooled by the misrepresentation by Snokalok, and could decide fairly whether this was an editor they want editing in this area, and make a reasoned decision as a result. I was seriously tempted not to write anything more and just let what will be will be.

I am concerned that you think an editor of 20 years should be made to perform a little dance of contrition for everyone's amusement, in order to get a more lenient sentence. Or think this weird forum with our own little boxes to write in, and word counts that seem to have gone out the window, is a sensible place for an editor to engage meaningfully with their peers/superiors about good editing practice and improvement. If you guys think I'm a valuable editor who they'd like to work in this area, if you agree with me there are issues with quality MEDRS sources being dismissed on prejudicial grounds, that disinformation is being pushed and outrageous conspiracy theories credulously promoted, and would like an editor of my calibre to deal with that, then I already made an offer to any of you to join me somewhere else for a bit of learning and improvement. That would be a respectful response I could work with. You have other options too. If you feel this area is not a good one for my mix of strengths and weaknesses, say so as one might to a friend or colleague, and I'll heed that advice. While this particular rabbit hole has rather distracted my contributions, as a fascinating area of medical controversy, I'd be off editing elsewhere. If instead you think a logged warning is called for, and I'm not arguing it isn't a fair, if rather algorithmic, response to a review of my conduct, it will certainly be enthusiastically preventative. -- Colin°^Talk 15:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Aquillion~~what a bizarre post.~~ WP:BATTLEGROUND: "Wikipedia is not ... the place to carry on ideological battles" and yet you accuse me of it ("an approach some some of the comments by others above also reflect") by taking at face value the attacks on me by single purpose activist accounts, who are finding WP:MEDRS inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause. Those editors may view Wikipedia as a BATTLEGROUND, and that surfaces in the way they view and describe me as an editor, and the fact I'm the third editor in this area to be taken to AE in last the couple months, the previous one still on this page. And WP:ASPERSIONS: "a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". This is most ironic as you (and several of the admins below) accuse me of this and other things, without any diffs or quotes, which would be helpful. Your entire post is absent any diffs or quotes of me. And then thirdly, not only am I to be sentenced by credulously accepting complaints of editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy, that sentence is to be made all the more harsh because I have colleagues who can see some merit in my contributions. Both editors you quote praise me as a defender of our core policies, and WP:MEDRS in particular. Neither of them have said anyone should aspire to my writing approach, and Sandy is harshly critical of that. As for whether this or that admin action encourages others towards continuing or worsening behaviour, have you not considered the the admins could close this with very much such a warning to other editors in prose. Why on earth does everything need to be done with the tools? I am an adult human being, Aquillion, not a child to be made an example of in front of the class. -- Colin°^Talk 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat Sandy's request that I be given quotes and diffs to respond to by admins minded to give or log a warning. Barkeep, the "baseless accusations of bad faith" you mention is hard for me to deal with without specifics. I suspect there is a misunderstanding about who I'm accusing of bad faith (e.g. sources that promote disinformation and conspiracy theories). Similarly with the aspersions that SFN mentions without specific quotes. That would help me a lot. I completely get it about the tone and the temperature raising and the saying things that shouldn't have been said. Sandy's comments have been the most helpful so far and I'm committed to fixing this writing approach/style, no matter where I end up editing from now on. Finding oneself here is not easy, folks, particularly when the opening request contains claims I said things I didn't say (which remains unstruck), describes all the diffs in "the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light" and which generally "misrepresent" what occurred... and today I find an editor saying that because I have friends, who admire at least some aspect of my contributions, my head should be stuck on a spike as a warning to everyone else. Sigh. -- Colin°^Talk 16:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, as with so much of this AE, people are putting words into my mouth. "but he still said that calling children who were seeking puberty blockers for gender dysphoria ..." is not what I said. I clearly literally said "the treatment of children referred to CAMHS or GIDS-equivalent centres" and the complaint by Cass referred to "all the young people on the waiting list for services". And "referred", at the time, included self-referral, whereas now it is restricted to a referral by a clinician. Understanding this patient cohort is an significant aspect of the Cass Review, something they commissioned a systematic review to investigate. It is vital that editors on that page, and similar ones, restrain themselves to the careful terminology used in our MEDRS sources (WPATH, Cass, BMJ). -- Colin°^Talk 07:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 I'm concerned that Loki's post, which conveniently misquotes my words in the worst possible light, was made after you guys had discussed the issue of people misquoting and mischaracterising my words in the worst possible light. You can't just write this off as Colin's writing style because it extends to people treating MEDRS sources in the worst possible light, based on prejudice, disinformation and conspiracy theories they have read about in the lowest quality sources. I don't think we can say that the writing style in the Cass Review or the BMJ is to blame for editors making outrageous claims about them. At some point this is going to need examined and dealt with. -- Colin°^Talk 07:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

This isn't the first AE request that's been made against editors trying to follow MEDRS, and it's unlikely to be the last. There is a campaign by users for whom the ideas in the Cass Review don't support their political views, and so they are trying to get it removed from other articles (even though it's the strongest type of MEDRS - an independent systematic review) and to disparage it in its own article. Has Colin been less than ideal in his demeanor? Yes, but this is yet another example of users trying to get "first mover advantage" and remove him from this topic area so they can continue their "civil" POV pushing. The points Colin make about other editors ignoring the actual words of the document and cherrypicking sources/words to support their view are completely accurate, even if not worded ideally. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think the evidence provided by starship.paint and others has come to the point that this should be punted to ArbCom as well. It's obvious that the primary problem here isn't Colin's speech, but those he is speaking to, who are trying to push a POV on Wikipedia. I'd point out the behavior of those Colin was "rude" to here in the Telegraph RfC and the following discussions.. but I'm sure any admin curious can go review those if they aren't already up to speed on that situation. This is a clear situation (just like Israel-Palestine) where the topic area as a whole has editors trying to push POVs civilly, and AE is not equipped to handle cases like this where someone was, admittedly, a little rude, but the behavior they were responding to is extremely damaging to Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, as to There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this. - why would this be a logged warning? If you believe that there's [so] much misrepresentation in this report that [a] good faith [editor] could not produce this, why should a warning suffice? Warnings are for good faith editors that may stray from the desired path (like Colin), not for editors that are acting in bad faith. Someone acting in bad faith should be removed from the topic area, as they've shown they cannot act in good faith in the topic area (or beyond the topic area, but this is AE, not a place that can issue site bans). To be clear, I am very happy that at least Vanamonde is seeing that the root problem is other bad faith editors, not Colin. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Vanamonde backing away from their (correct) claim that there's [so] much misrepresentation in this report that [a] good faith [editor] could not produce this, and we have a valid claim by Colin that another editor in the topic area (Loki) is acting in bad faith also. To close this with the only actual "sanction" (being used liberally to refer to any action taken against an editor) being against Colin would be carte blanche for editors to continue making bad faith reports and literally lie about others in an attempt to get them sanctioned before their own POV can be called out. To Colin, if this report closes with no action against either Snokalok or Loki I think you've been the target of more than enough blatant lies/misrepresentations in this case alone (not to mention their conduct in other discussions) to justify you opening targeted AE cases against them and I encourage you to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind reviewing administrators that misrepresentation (including by the filer of this complaint and others who have commented here) extends beyond just this complaint in the topic area. The RfC on the reliability of the Telegraph was plagued by misrepresentation of that source, in some cases extending to blatantly taking things out of context. That RfC can be found here for any administrator who is not up to date on it, and the close review here. While it may be tempting to review this filing on its own, I think it would be a grave error to ignore the misrepresentation in the topic area just because it isn't "bad enough" here. I'm not saying that Colin doesn't need a warning or similar - but to issue that warning off this request without considering the bigger picture would be rewarding bad faith editors just because they filed a report first.

In other words, if there isn't enough evidence of bad faith/misrepresentation by editors in this topic area now to refer this whole thing to ArbCom, why not? The recent referral of the Israel-Palestine AE cases to ArbCom was quite "easy" for administrators to come to a consensus on... but now rather than looking at the whole picture and deciding to do that, it seems that because a warning against the editor this filing was about may be warranted, everyone's keen to just ignore the rest of the issues and put the burden on Colin to defend himself by either filing AEs against those who are engaging with him in bad faith, or even more difficult, someone to file an Arb request for the topic area.

Barkeep has also stated that all that is needed is just regular attention from AE for a while until (hopefully) things calm back down - they aren't going to calm back down because blatant misrepresentation in bad faith is being allowed to go unchecked and even be rewarded. To put it bluntly, actioning only against Colin here will not do anything useful for the topic area, and I'm pessimistic that even warnings or topic bans for the worst offenders at bad faith/misrepresenting others will do enough here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

I consider myself a friend of Colin, and consider him our finest medical editor; I saw the AE notice on his talk page.

Considering Barkeep49's comment about the length of the original post, I looked only at the most recent diff (this one, from 11 September 2024, today, noting the others are many months old), and find nothing amiss. It takes a lot of time and effort to type up something that comprehensive to explain the confusion that results in the misuse of language used to describe the cohort, and that misuse appears to have substantial consequences. Some editors have a hard time with Colin's typical command of the facts and the literature, and that diff seems to indicate that and is mischaracterized. The problem with referring to the entire cohort as 'trans kids' is well explained by Colin. Perhaps I should look further, but I agree with Barkeep49 that the original poster should narrow their list down to the more meaningful (assuming there are others that are problematic). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a plane all day; request at BK49 talk for OP to better refine post using non-mobile diffs.

@Barkeep49 and ScottishFinnishRadish:, I also request that admins on this page strictly enforce the need for diffs; the post by Licks-rocks is replete with undiffed assertions amounting to a diffless personal attack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing Barkeep49's desire for the target not to sprawl, I want to at least say before I head for the airport that #Statement by starship.paint (3) regarding the denigration of highly reliable British sources (and I don't mean The Telegraph) throughout trans-related discussions in favor of less reliably sourced content is also something I have seen at other articles than those raised here; if admins decide they want to explore that aspect further here, then I'll provide diffs, but if this poor sourcing continues to disrupt talk discussions, it would likely be the subject of a separate AE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have caught up on the diffs only somewhat; the amount of misrepresentation and misquoting of Colin is concerning and even more concerning is that there are still undiffed personal attacks on the page (editors seem to think that because someone said Colin said X, or they think Colin said X, or they took Colin to task for allegedly saying X, that is the same as a diff to Colin said X), but what is troubling me more at this point is the realization that behaviors I have seen on other articles are so prevalent throughout the articles mentioned in this AE, which I don't edit-- and that underlying problem is fueling these recent bouts. There seems to be quite an unaddressed problem still in the GENSEX area, and the amount of effort that editors who understand good sourcing are having to expend on basics may be leading to some exhaustion and frustration. I'm concerned that we could end up with no qualified editors to take on the amount of POV pushing that is occurring, as I'm aware we are already missing since July one very good editor in this content area; something broader may be needed to address an underlying sourcing problem, and on that topic, Colin is one of the best, and his absence from any content area would not be a good thing. WAID may be on to something in saying that some RFCs might be in order, and the editors who are disrupting talk pages and frustrating sound editing practices need to be called out to take some pressure off of those editors who understand the literature and good sourcing. It may be easier for the community or admins to sanction those who adhere to good sourcing but lose patience, but avoid taking on civil POV pushing by those who advocate for poor sourcing that supports a POV, but something must be done to address the underlying problem so we don't exhaust our best editors.

It also strikes me that if the "trans kids" misrepresentation or misunderstanding from 11 September is what re-ignited all of this (most other diffs are months old), that suggests this AE wasn't exactly helpful, as WAID says. The April-published Cass Review led to some heated discussions, concerns, and hyperbole which have hopefully subsided somewhat; the 11 September "trans kids" situation was not a valid example to kick that back up.

After striking out when trying to glean anything of substance by reading the diffs in the order presented, I instead reverted again to examining the next more recent diff from the OP—this one from 23 July. I know Colin well enough to know that he can probably see that the point he made in the 20:32 23 July post could have been equally well made without two sentences: "This is political game playing" and "This is some new invented nonsense by activists who can't accept a middle ground as that is giving an inch to US politicians." Having seen some of the POV pushing via poor sourcing, I can understand how frustrating it must be to try to edit in that area (I don't even try), but my advice for Colin going forward is: Colin, you are rarely wrong in your analysis on Wikipedia, but in real life and on Wikipedia, one isn't always applauded for being right—even less so when you have the intellect, knowledge, and writing ability to show incisively how often and sometimes how badly others are wrong. To make progress in this area, it may be helpful to review your posts to be sure you leave some face-saving room for other editors. That may be the faster route for moving this fraught content area to where it needs to go; saying less is more, particularly when some of the bad sourcing speaks for itself and doesn't require your incisive illumination. That is, I might sum up the commentary by the three admins below (BK, SFR and VM93) as "even when you are taxed by explaining things over and over, try to tame your cleverness, rub it in less, and edit the frustration about having to repetitively address poor sourcing out of your comments before you hit send ... just the facts will get the job done".

BK49, I know you are aware of this, but others may not be: at WP:ARBMED, the statement you referenced about Colin "degrading discussion" barely passed. Compared to other findings of fact in that case passing at 8 to 0, or 6 to 0, that statement about Colin passed at 4 to 1, so there wasn't a very strong consensus among the arbs about that statement. I hope you will all factor that as to whether a logged warning for Colin would be helpful here; my view is that more concrete and valid examples of what Colin might do differently would be more useful at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion:, I acknowledge not having gotten through all of the diffs, but I have yet to see an example of an aspersion, much less an extended history of one. I have pointed out above one example of two unhelpful sentences describing poor sources-- that are nothing like some of the aspersions cast at Colin on this very page with diffs that don't support them. It would be helpful if anyone participating in this thread could give a concrete example of Colin casting an aspersion on any editor so that could be addressed and responded directly to, if there is one. It would at least benefit to understand the standard that Colin is being held to, so that the same standard can be upheld at other articles in the GENSEX realm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I think you could strike "what a bizarre post"; viewed logically, you make valid points explaining why you see the post as bizarre, but the statement only adds heat, and your points are understood without it.

Having looked at the alleged "aspersion" diff, now working back by date, to the next example listed in the original complaint as a "personal attack", I'm not seeing that either. Since this is what I find on every diff I view, I would appreciate someone/anyone claiming a personal attack or aspersion posting a diff that actually shows one of those. We already have Colin acknowledging on this page a post to another editor's talk that was "inappropriate in tone and language"; the continued allegations of personal attacks and aspersions, sans diffs, are aspersions. Aquillion, I'm not defending aspersions; I haven't seen a diff where they have actually occurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I share the concerns raised today by Void and Berchan, but do not recommend the course of action advocated by Berchan's last post.

There is something amiss with how these processes function on Wikipedia; I have now seen this first-mover advantage used effectively in three arb or enforcement cases with an initial complaint that is so wrong or so toxic or that misses the broader issues, such that defense becomes difficult and those lodging the misrepresentation evade appropriate sanction, resulting in content areas stripped of good editors who become afraid to weigh in, concerned that best practices don't prevail, even when editors find their livelihood or lives threatened. That problem leads to a lack of faith in dispute resolution and good editors giving up.

It has been clear for years that arb enforcement is not curtailing the issues dominating the GENSEX area, but I'm not sure that immediately bringing forward all of those behaviors and editors at this venue is the right way to address the recurring problem. It may be back to ANI for broader community input, or a new arbcase, where WAID's idea of prescribed RFCs may prevail; something must be done about editors who use poor sources to push a POV, and launch toxic dispute resolution posts that poison the well so badly that defense is overshadowed by word count problems.

Perhaps more eyes are helpful when problems like accurately describing a patient cohort are complex. Or perhaps finding a medical editor to serve on ArbCom will be a way forward. But this AE started with a series of blatant misrepresentations, and it never got past that false start, which concerns me having seen same on other cases. Colin, please take on board that some misread your tone and intent, so you can adjust going forward. And please stay with us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 and Vanamonde93 I fully get your latest posts (15:08 and 16:41) in theory, but could we examine the reality in practical terms?

As I read it, you (and Berchan) are encouraging others to bring forward other instances affecting GENSEX content on this page. How will that not be viewed as pointy or retaliatory and how will those result in clean discussions, starting off messy as likely being viewed as pointy or retaliatory, with admins having already taken a position with bearing on only one editor? How will you all avoid those editors not having a first-mover advantage? The main reason I ask is because ...
As some may recall from the Venezuelan arbcase, even with livelihoods threatened, the initial toxic positioning against one editor at ANI was never dealt with. First-mover advantage stands today, and the content area was gutted, as other editors were left reluctant to participate.
And for the third example, consider WP:ARBMED where even though the majority of arbs did not feel Colin warranted a warning, we find on this page that four-year-old history thrown back at him (never mind that I was most certainly left feeling like I had to deal with men peering up my skirt, and that I have since collaborated with the editor who is re-visiting this). Once admins or arbs issue a one-sided finding, that editor is left permanently facing things being thrown back at them. How is that not going to be the case here if any one of us brings forward now the recurring issues in GENSEX?

All I see happening if this closes as it stands now is the same as in three cases: GENSEX continues as contentious as it has always been, Venezuelan editors left en masse, and with the exception of Ajpolino, who hangs in there, FA content production in the medical realm ended because the real issues went unaddressed, while the whole case was framed as related to drug prices, which were never the problem. And then there's the similarity in ARBMED vs GENSEX: at ARBMED, Colin's indignation over edit-warring shone through in his tone, and yet the other party's edit warring was ignored. Here, it's Colin's indignation over really poor sourcing that has led to tone concerns. Colin doesn't edit war and Colin doesn't push a POV, and yet he is to be warned while others get first-mover advantage. I don't see how this can end well. Please reassure me you've considered these factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add ... is it within the remit of AE, as WAID suggested, to remind editors advocating the use of certain sources that they should be approaching WP:RSN? Is there a reason not to enact that suggestion from WAID, so that here and at other articles, we can avoid protracted discussions about dubious sourcing, and solve those issues more globally? Again, because I've seen the same issues on other articles besides those raised in this AE. Or must we go to ANI or elsewhere for that? Sorry for any typos, etc, I am off to the airport again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

I don't think that this is helpful. The subject is difficult. There is the expected amount of POV pushing. This AE report feels to me like an effort to "win" a content dispute by banning people who disagree with you.

Consider the complaint described as "Calling the use of the term “trans kids” fringe activist-language and attributing its use to American trans activism."

"Trans kids" was a term I used a current discussion about whether we need WP:INTEXT attribution for a statement that "children with comorbidities did not receive adequate psychological support". "Children with comorbidities" means kids on NHS England who have been referred for gender services and who also have autism, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and other complex needs that are not about being trans. Some editors want this statement to be labeled as merely something "The report claimed". (I disagree; I consider it a violation of MOS:CLAIM and WP:INTEXT.)

This content background is necessary to understand why Colin objected to me using "trans kids" to describe these kids: "getting a referral" isn't the same as "being trans", just like "not getting a referral" isn't the same as "not being trans". I conflated the comorbid population with the trans population. We have sources saying that at the start of the multi-year Cass Review, trans advocates agreed that not every kid who was referred was actually trans, and that this shifted during the last months so that a small portion (that'd be "Fringe", right?) of the trans advocates (otherwise known as "activists", right?) started saying that every single kid who got a referral needed medical transition (e.g., puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) and should be expected to have a lifelong trans identity.[26] Colin asked all of us to be careful and precise, which IMO is fair. However, when you pull Colin's comment out of context, or just glance over the discussion, it can be unfairly twisted to sound transphobic.

Snokalok's contribution to this discussion is to say that the Cass Review is so controversial that INTEXT attribution is appropriate even when it's saying something undisputed,[27] and to say that psychological support may be a code word for conversion therapy.[28]

Overall, I do feel like there are a lot of Americans (including me) involved in an article about NHS England, and I do occasionally feel like one "side" sees it in terms of American politics. There seems to be a fear that if this report isn't criticized as heavily as possible on as many grounds as possible – we even talked about whether to mention a typo in a source that was cited in the final report[29] – then bad things will happen outside of England. This is IMO just to be expected. I believe this article will be a lot easier to write in five years. In the meantime, we have to muddle through as best we can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta comment: Given the propensity to re-litigate content disputes (e.g., is a given person properly described as "an expert on transgender healthcare"? Is this or that source actually suitable for claiming that a different source is wrong or transphobic?), I wonder whether AE has ever inflicted a series of specified RFCs as a sanction.

In the meantime, perhaps you all would try to confine your comments to the I-message format: "I felt ____ when he ____. Instead, I think he should _____" – and if the words you want to put in the second blank sounds anything remotely close to "disagreed with my POV/a source that supports my POV", then don't post it here, because that's not actually what AE is for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @SandyGeorgia, it has indeed been difficult to get editors who are familiar with MEDRS to work on these pages for any length of time. I think this will get better over time, when we will have a greater number, and hopefully better quality, of academic sources to work with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

As a participant in many of these discussions, and as someone who otherwise greatly respects Colin, I'm posting here mainly to say that I agree with Snokalok's complaint. Colin especially has a bad habit of casting weird nationalistic aspersions when anyone argues that the British government or media may not be a reliable source, regardless of their evidence for this. I should also point out he does this on non-MEDRS pages as well (those diffs are both from a dispute on LGB Alliance, and they're not the only two diffs like it from that discussion), so it's definitely not just "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS". Loki (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that to say this repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis is pretty obviously the sort of ridiculous and inflammatory accusation that we're here about. What YFNS actually said is that SEGM and Genspect, two anti-trans hate groups (very well sourced on their pages), consulted on the Cass Review (and that therefore the Cass Review's conclusions are suspect for bias). And they did, YFNS gives a source for that too. The Los Angeles Blade is a subsidiary of the Washington Blade, who our article describes as often referred to as America's gay newspaper of record, and so there's every reason to think they're reliable for this information. Loki (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint I stand by my characterization of that source, and in fact knew that from the beginning. We don't usually question our source's sources here. If a newspaper is willing to republish a blog post, it's endorsing the factual content of the post. Loki (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I would like to politely suggest that you're going a little beyond assuming good faith there for Colin and consequently a little below assuming good faith for everyone he's arguing with. So for instance, I'm very aware that Colin's criticism here is technically speaking making a pretty technical argument... but he still said that calling children who were seeking puberty blockers for gender dysphoria "trans kids" is recent and fringe activist-language, not something accepted by reliable sources. Because of the reference to recency (which wouldn't make any sense if this was really about the Cass Review since the whole dispute is recent) and the fact the population YFNS was referring to was just children seeking puberty blockers for gender dysphoria anywhere in the UK, not some restricted local population, he's pretty clearly referring to the use of the language in general, or at minimum for every trans kid in the UK. His technical justification doesn't make the argument he's making narrower.

I could make similar arguments for the other things you've argued are misrepresentations, but I'd go way over the word limit and frankly I think you already get my gist. Loki (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint (3)

I just read the diffs above by Loki on supposed weird nationalistic aspersions by Colin, as well as some of the context. It seems that there was a discussion where five British sources were brought in to back up a certain point. The British sources, BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, cover a substantial spectrum of British views, and are quite well-rated on WP:RSP (though the Telegraph was temporarily downgraded to marginally on trans issues at the time of the discussion, the rest are generally reliable). Some editors responded by seemingly rejecting British sources altogether and directly comparing them to other countries such as Russia and Hungary, and that pretty much explains Colin's responses for Loki's diffs. starship .paint (RUN) 08:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes of rejection of British sources and comparison to other countries. Bolding by me. starship .paint (RUN)

Amanda A. Brant, July 2024: We are not going by how pretty much the entire press in "the country in question" treats various Russia-related topics. That the sources are British is not an argument in their favor. The UK in general[30] and the UK media have an abysmal reputation regarding LBGT+ issues, commented on by many observers and experts, so their media should be treated with the same caution we treat Russian newspapers as sources for the LGBT+ rights situation in Russia … The radicalization and virulent transphobia of British media doesn't change that. The only thing it changes is the reliability of British media, especially regarding LGBT+ issues, in the same way that we treat Russian media with a fair degree of skepticism, especially regarding contentious topics.

Snokalok, July 2024: The Council of Europe has long held the UK’s institutional transphobia as being on par with that of Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. We would not uncritically trust Hungarian news sources to determine our description of gensex topics, we shouldn’t be doing so here either.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - it seems that your good example of the unnecessarily inflammatory interactions I am concerned about (and some others of Colin's comments) was prompted by assertions made by other editors in the topic area who are involved in this complaint. starship .paint (RUN) 13:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes of characterization of the Cass Review and the UK

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, June 2024: a lot easier to take the Cass Review seriously if SEGM and Genspect weren't involved at almost every step of the process

Snokalok, May 2024: This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence, then an analogy: source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org

Same link as above, Snokalok then discusses the UK: which country is more transphobic … In media it's also the BBC, the Guardian, the New Statesman, every outlet big or small across the entire political spectrum regularly runs pieces on how "trans women are here to replace biological women" or "should seeing a trans person in the bathroom be considered rape" or something like that, in government it's also Keir Starmer, it's also Wes Streeting, it's both major political parties, like half the SNP, half the Green party … not just the elected politicians either, it's the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it's the courts … it's the Queen of England … Why would we give page-reshaping weight to something the National Health Service put out on the matter as though any semblance of objectivity or epistemic good faith can reasonably be expected? That’s not to say to exclude the NHS, just don’t treat its word as the gospel … an organization’s track record and position on a topic should inform how exactly we deploy the source … how much weight would we give that? It just happens that the UK government and most of its subsections, have a terrible record on the topic.

@LokiTheLiar: - you highlighted YNFS' source and stated that there's every reason to think they're reliable for this information, but this source literally republished a Substack blog as a news article on Religious Extremism/Anti-LGBTQ+ Activism. The Substack author is a self-described activist whose tagline is Advocacy For LGBTQ+ Justice. starship .paint (RUN) 13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so no need to question the Los Angeles Blade in this case, with its relation to the generally reliable Washington Blade. Never mind that editors have questioned the Cass Review, questioned British sources (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Times, New Statesman)… starship .paint (RUN) 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: - I am quite surprised that you consider Void if removed as hounding you when they looked at your contributions to an WP:AE complaint you literally started against them. I would expect every ‘defendant’ at AE to meticulously scrutinise the AE complaint against them, this is not cause for sanctions at all. starship .paint (RUN) 01:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Licks-rocks

I don't much like AE discussions, and I don't tune in to the discussion at issue much anymore either, but I will say that I've grown quite annoyed at Colin's attitude towards the topic. Whenever I get involved with him in a discussion, the first thing I have to do is wade through a veritable river of small and larger misrepresentations about both what his conversational partners have said, and what the sources say. He has a bad habit of assuming the worst in other editors, and thus attacking the worst possible interpretation of their position, rather than the position those editors actually hold. I and others have called him out on this several times already [31] [32]. In addition, as visible in the diffs snokalok already provided, he is consistently extremely dismissive of anything that writes negatively about the cass review, whether that be statements from WPATH, peer reviewed papers of any kind, or anything else, and will accuse other editors of bias when they argue back. Just in this last discussion he dismissively referred to a peer reviewed analysis of language used in the cass revieuw as an "activist's opinion piece" [33][34][35] and berated me for referring to it as anything else, in doing so again repeatedly insinuating that I and YFNS don't understand how peer review works. The paper in question is peer reviewed, not in the opinion section, and consists of a literature analysis. That's just not conductive to productive discussion! And yes, he did indeed berate YFNS for colloquially using the words "trans kids" in a discussion, calling it "fringe activist language", though he later walked it back a bit. This agressive, uncompromising, and accusatory attitude is extremely tiring and grinds discussions to a complete halt.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Void if removed

Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be. Methodical, precise and absolutely focused on the best possible sources - and we disagree hugely on much of GENSEX, having butted heads many, many times, but always scrupulously fairly. Cass review needs more editors like this, not fewer. After being subjected to AE myself just days ago, I find it very hard to WP:AGF at this attempt to remove an editor of Colin’s calibre. This looks like an attempt to bully and "win" content disputes.

I agree completely with whatamidoing’s assessment of "trans kids" - in this specific context, it is unhelpful language, and its better to stick to the Cass Review's phrasing. There is a dispute in healthcare in this area and sticking precisely to what sources say and how they say it helps navigate, even if editors don’t personally like it.

The descriptions of the other diffs are disingenuous and misrepresented, eg. the "activist rage" comment is directed not at editors, but the authors of terrible sources.

The "Council of Europe" responses also I think need to be seen in the context of protracted cases of WP:IDHT, with several editors on GENSEX UK topics repeatedly attempting to use a partisan political statement from a subcommittee of the Council of Europe as a trump card against UK WP:RS, even MEDRS. See this from Snokalok as part of the chain on July 20th. In the AE request against me, Raladic used it to attack another editor, and disparage the UK legal system. It comes up time and again, in all sorts of contexts, from the same handful of editors trying to use it to exclude or question WP:RS from the UK. Bringing it up again in this AE report is somewhere between WP:IDHT and WP:RGW, and if Colin is fed up with it, he isn’t alone. I'd be glad to see a page ban for any editor repeatedly flogging this dead horse.Void if removed (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the LA Blade article Colin described as an internet conspiracy theory is the same reposted substack article that came up in my AE last week.

This is not a quality source. Both the author and this outlet consistently publish misinformation about the Cass Review.

the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality, applying standards that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric medicine

This claim is completely false, and MP Dawn Butler had to apologise for repeating this myth in Parliament. Void if removed (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've now had two back-to-back reports involving the same editors, in the same articles, with much the same arguments and diffs that are presented with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light. After taking mine on board I was hoping things would settle, but clearly not. Nobody wants another of these, so I would please ask that any decision consider seriously whether it will cool down or further inflame this contentious topic. Void if removed (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Colin that At some point this is going to need examined and dealt with. A result here that does not acknowledge the behaviour Colin was responding to - which has continued unabated in this report - will likely result in further escalation and disruption. Void if removed (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

I'll preface this with I don't believe Colin should be banned from GENSEX, and I find it funny that multiple editors have called it a POV-pushing attempt to TBAN someone when nobody has said they should be TBANNED...

That being said, I think a logged civility warning and/or bludgeoning restriction are probably for the best. Perhaps also a cool off block from the topic of the Cass Review, but I'd hope that can be avoided.

The tirades on my talk page were particularly tiring -

Colin came in to argue I'm heading for a TBAN because I noted a WP:RS reported that the Cass Review denied a FOI about the authors and arguing "if I see the Council of Europe mentioned one more time in a talk page discussion trying to dismiss a source from the UK, and a top-tier source like this, I will take whoever said it to the relevant forum for a topic ban" and accusing me of xenophobia against the British (funny considering I'm half British...). He accused me of trying to put it in a Criticism section (which I never did) and trying to defend PB's bc of my opinion (funny considering I think PB's are a regressive treatment and youth should be offered hormones instead in nearly every case) [36]
Colin came in to say I'll be TBANNED and was pushing "conspiracy theory bullshit". When I back the claim I made with multiple RS (saying that Genspect/SEGM were involved), he argues my statement is somehow "typical of the misogynistic nonsense" towards Cass...[37]

Colin also threatened Snokalok with a TBAN for noting the Cass Review's FAQ on their website is hardly WP:INDEPENDENT [38] He has then accused Loki of being in "moon landing conspiracy territory" and threatened them with a TBAN for saying the Cass review is fallible.[39]

Colin has been responding to any and all criticism of the Cass review by handwaving them away as "activists" and etc, repeatedly argued to exclude criticisms of the Cass Review from its article, and generally seems to be treating it like holy writ which cannot be criticized on any basis. The Cass Review is not universally well accepted by the medical community, and in fact has been quite criticized on multiple fronts (by human rights orgs and medical orgs and LGBT RS and etc). I'd like to see a warning to treat other editors civilly and not continue insisting everywhere that the Cass Review is somehow infallible.

I hope this is a wake-up call for Colin, because I think he's overall a valuable contributor to GENSEX, but am frankly sick and tired of his knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review from any and all criticism and his incivility doing so. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note 3 things from Colin's reply:

he says I repeat internet misinformation by saying the Cass Review explicitly excluded trans people from the Assurance Group, linking to himself[40]. In that comment, he repeatedly mocks and denigrates Cal Horton, handwaving their peer reviewed criticism as "opinions someone's mum" for the record Colin, that bordered on misogynistic. His comment is 2 paragraphs of insults in response to a quote saying The original published Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Cass Review’s assurance group explicitly excluded trans expertise, stating that it “deliberately does not contain subject matter experts or people with lived experience of gender services”
He links to me noting the Cass Review denied a FOI (a very uncommon practice) as evidence of supposed xenophobia, and he continues insisting "they denied a FOI" requires WP:MEDRS (obviously not per WP:MEDPOP) [41]
The note on my talk page speaks for itself. Multiple RS say these organizations had some levels of involvement. Colin apparently considers that "misinformation".

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin you keep using "disinformation" and "conspiracy theory". The Cass Review was criticized by WPATH and all of their regional organizations and the British Medical Association. The American Medical Association and Endocrine Society stood by their policies when Cass criticized them. Amnesty International has said the report's been weaponized. More criticisms are in Cass Review. Is there a single criticism from any org or scholar you'd not describe as "disinformation"? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin, you can't accuse everybody who disagrees with you of being single purpose activist accounts, who are finding WP:MEDRS inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause (btw, what exactly is the "ideological cause"?) and editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy. Nobody has called for your ban because even those who disagree with you find you a generally valuable editor, but are sick of being accused of stuff like this by you if we consider the Cass Review anything short of infallible. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raladic

I wasn't going to comment on this, but incidentally, Colin's own latest statement in the AE report here now forced me to. This repeated attacks on Dr. Horton are reaching WP:DEFAMATION levels and may actually require WP:OVERSIGHT. Dr. Horton has several years of research experience and is an expert on transgender healthcare. You're welcome to read the draft User:Raladic/Cal Horton of their experienced and published research on the topic. It also seriously puts into question if Colin is acting in good faith on following MEDRS if he himself isn't actually able to leave his emotions in check and realize that this isn't just a random "activist" as he puts it, but an expert on transgender care who has dedicated several years of their career to it. To show how systemic this repeated denigration from Colin on this has been, admins can refer to [42] and [43] where another user (who appeared to have been an SPA to advance anti-trans points and was recently TBANNED from GENSEX) tried to repeat Colins earlier defamatory comments about Dr. Horton and those were revdeleted due to the defamatory nature by another admin.

One a separate note as it appears Void if removed is still hounding my edits as they are posting a diff to a comment that is not actually in the live comment that I made to another user as I reworded it a few minutes after the diff they linked, as you can see in the archived section, so the only reason they would have this diff is if they are somehow hounding my edits. I request they remove/strike their baseless accusation of me "attacking another editor" (with a diff that's not even live as I pointed out) as I simply linked to an article on Wikipedia, which summarizes the RS view, so calling what reliable sources report an attack is baseless. Since I did point out VIR may be hounding me in the original AE report and this appears to be another case to support this, may an admin advise on this? Raladic (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 - are your or another admin going to address the report I made above in my statement to tell Colin to stop his continued BLP violations/defamation of his misrepresentations of Dr Horton? Raladic (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

While I know that a single AE case cannot solve the problems of an entire topic area, one thing I would like administrators to keep in mind is the number of responses, above, that describe Colin's behavior as something to be emulated. This report is imperfect but the diffs above still document an extented history of WP:ASPERSIONs and a willingness to approach the topic area as a WP:BATTLEGROUND - an approach some some of the comments by others above also reflect, in a way that shows how that sort of incivility metastasizes and spreads. Colin is experienced enough to know that that isn't how editors are supposed to interact with each other. When that sort of thing isn't met with some form of formal sanction, especially when coupled with a lack of contrition or any recognition that they've done something wrong, it is taken by everyone involved as permission to raise the temperature further, which is part of how the topic area has reached its current unpleasant state. If it's necessary to create reports for other people in the topic area then do it, but in terms of purely preventative measures that might help the topic area become more bearable, statements like Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be and describing him as our finest medical editor are arguments for being more strict with him, not less. Experienced editors whom others emulate should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I've been quietly watching this AE thread, and did not particularly want to involve myself. I want to say right off that I have long disagreed with Colin, and I'm sure that he and his friends would regard me as someone biased against him.

That said, I want to strongly endorse what Aquillion has said in his statement just above. Whatever else may or may not be going on here, and whether or not anyone else has unclean hands in making accusations against Colin, those comments are important for AE admins to consider seriously.

As some have already noted, in the Medicine case, ArbCom made a finding of fact about Colin: [44]. Ultimately, it doesn't mean any less because of how the Arbs voted, because it is still part of the final decision, and Colin should know about it. And look at the first diff of the three diffs listed there by the Arbs, and what he said about me, and most importantly, the way he said it. Based on that experience, here is what I said then on the case request page: [45]. I was near to quitting Wikipedia over how it made me feel (so my reluctance to comment now isn't new). And here is the evidence I provided in that case: [46]. If you go to the second heading of March 30, and the paragraph starting "But Colin then entered the discussion, saying... ", and follow the diffs there, you'll see that the issues raised in the current AE thread have been going on a long time, with Colin issued an FoF back then, and a similar attitude continuing here, with little sign of repentance. Even if he is right on the content issues, ArbCom has correctly determined that being right isn't enough, and that principle should guide AE admins now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Graham Beards

Does anyone know on which side Colin stands with regard to the trans debate? No. This is the mark of a neutral editor. All I see is a respected editor upholding our values such as writing from a neutral point of view and being true to reliable sources against a barrage of biased edits. To say that Colin should be held to a higher standard because of his solid reputation as a valued editor, is ridiculous beyond words. Colin's debating style can come across as blunt, particularly if he disagrees with you, but he never acts in bad faith and never has. Given the false accusations posted at the top of this discussion, the OP should be given a good telling off and this report closed. Contentious topics are "contentious" and we should welcome a lively debate. I don't see anything disruptive in Collin's posts; just a well-argued case for sticking to and respecting reliable sources and not cherry-picking them to push a personal agenda. Graham Beards (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Colin

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

Snokalok this is already a very comprehensive report. I'd ask you to consider what you feel the biggest issues are and the strongest diffs are and use that rather than going much longer. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely uninterested in letting this report sprawl. If people have concerns about anyone other than Colin (and for me this includes Snokalok given that the diffs here are not about a 2-party dispute but if another admin feels that's too far, fair enough), they should file their own AE report. @SandyGeorgia the original report was with-in word and diff parameters (technically I count 22 diffs but the extension is granted retroactively) and so I will not be asking them to limit it further. But to your point the exception I'd be willing to make about sprawl are people who don't follow behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs - Lim-rocks your statement could have waited until you had time to support it with diffs) during this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear from Colin (and am prepared to grant a word extension if necessary because successful defense takes many more words than successful accusation) but I will note that some of the diffs I've looked at concern me as I think parts go beyond "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS" (though I definitely did see some examples of editors failing to understand MEDRS as well). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we're seeing, in miniature, the disputes I've now read about in this report and Void's, play out in in this AE report. It starts with a quote (You, personally, are American, so you don’t get to criticize British government sources that isn't actually a quote of Colin's. This absolutely sets the wrong tone for a discussion. Of course supporting that quote that isn't words Colin ever wrote are diffs which show that Colin does indeed have concerns about Americans criticizing British government sources. Why put words in Colin's mouth then? It then continues with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light, to characterize 20 more diffs of Colin's. In the full context of the quotes it becomes clear that Colin is responding to perceived shortfalls of others when it comes to using WP:MEDRS; I won't claim Colin's perception is always right but I would suggest on the totality of diffs at play here that those he's replying to should really think on the fact that many editors who've worked with Colin on medical articles outside this topic speak so highly of his understanding of that guideline.
But none of that changes that Colin's over the top language - with one example in evidence by SFR below - creates conditions that perpetuate a battleground rather than collaborative atmosphere. The 2020 ArbCom's description of Colin as someone who has degraded discussions by baseless accusations of bad faith and needless antagonism seems to be true here as well. While I'm not necessarily opposed to Vanamonde's suggestion that no formal sanction is needed, my first choice at this time is a logged warning. Admittedly part of my reason for this conclusion is that the most recent GENSEX AE (Void's) closed with an informal warning and so passing equivalent sanctions would understate, for me, the severity of harm to the editing atmosphere in evidence with Colin. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While some of what I see in the diffs looks to have been misinterpreted, there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions that don't technically refer to other editors need to stop, as does policing the use of terms like "trans kids"on the talk page. I, too, would like to see Colin's response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it is a good example of the unnecessarily inflammatory interactions I am concerned about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a more substantive response from Colin. What I am seeing so far is a mixed bag. I am seeing many instances of nuanced explanation by Colin that is being misrepresented. There is some strong language, but not generally beyond the bounds of what I would consider acceptable. I am also seeing allegations of xenophobia from Colin, and conversely some negative references to national character from those he is arguing with. Such language raises the temperature to no purpose. I'm not sure if sanctions are justified, but multiple participants here, including Colin, need to take a look at their own behavior. Editing a contentious topic requires patience and a willingness to examine nuance - treating it as a battleground is a problem, and us-vs-them language is a good reason to remove someone from a topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It bothers me that Colin's reply does not in any way acknowledge that his language was inappropriate, and as such I would support a logged warning, per Barkeep49 (FTR, I use "sanctions" as shorthand for things that materially restrict an editor, rather than a rap on the knuckles). I don't know why a Wikipedian of two decades tenure needs to be told this, but if an editor is bringing sub-par conspiracist sources to a contentious topic, the appropriate response is to bring them to administrator attention, not to post lengthy screeds on their talk page. I'm also seeing that sort of inflammatory language from other editors though. Making over-the-top analogies to other countries isn't appropriate: this is inflammatory. If editors cannot conceive of a position between "X is transphobic" and "X is the gold standard of medical knowledge", this topic is going to remain a disaster and the editors in it are likely to find themselves unable to edit it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I'm much less likely to support sanctions against editors who recognize that they lost their cool and commit to being patient, than ones who insist they did no wrong; and your first post, Colin, contained much deflection and little reflection. I ask you in the future to bring problematic editors to admin attention not because we are wiser - I certainly wouldn't claim to be - but because the community has empowered us to remove disruptive editors from contentious topics. If you believe admin intervention isn't necessary and that you can persuade an editor to see the error of their ways re: sourcing, then you need to do so with temperate language or step away. And like it or not, we're here because someone brought your conduct to admin attention: if you aren't going to discuss your conduct here, where do you intend to discuss it? And as to diffs; we aren't providing evidence, we're assessing evidence other people provided, and by your own admission those assessments are fair. If you disagree, you are free to try to persuade us, or appeal any outcome of this discussion to ARBCOM.
Having thought on this further, I'm inclined to additionally support a logged warning for Snokalok. There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this. There's other editors whose language I'm not happy with, but many of the diffs I'm looking at are a little old to action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raladic, if you're talking about this diff, I don't see how it is defamatory, and I don't believe it rises to the level of revision deletion either; questioning the credentials of a source is a necessary part of content discussion. Colin's language is too harsh, but that is something I've already alluded to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that I did look at this claim of possible OS when it was first made and found it lacking. I can find no evidence (including on the draft bio page) that what Colin wrote is wrong: Horton appears to have done no clinical or medical research (emphasis added). They have done other kinds of research and have academic credentials in the topic that are pertinent. Dismissing them out of hand as someone who only has the perspective as a parent isn't helpful (which Colin did) but neither is pretending what Colin wrote is defamation requiring Oversight. One disconnect that this does raise is just how much of the Cass Report is biomedical information requiring MEDRS sources and how much are other kinds of science/research. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Trans kids", I feel like conflict is again being created because of an (understandable) lack of perspective of intent (and failure to AGF). The plain reading of the statement is alarming - I know I was shocked when I first read it. When reading what Colin actually wrote it is 100% about technical definitions from a research paper. I don't think either thing is really sanctionable, that is Colin could have been more tactful and other editors should be attempting to understand technical points but the failure to do so on either end doesn't turn this into a "must act" from AE admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 and ScottishFinnishRadish: It's been a few days since an admin commented, and in my view the additional discussion here is not helping resolve anything. I still believe a logged warning is in order for Colin (for inflammatory language) and for Snokalok (for misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith). How do you feel? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more of a misrepresentation than just the quote? If not I'm not in favor of warning Snokalok. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other diffs I would characterize as misrepresentation, yes. this, for instance, is very clearly in reference to the patient cohort examined by the Cass review: the report presents the diff as though Colin is dismissing the use of "trans kids" to refer to trans kids in general, which he is not doing, at least not there. This edit is characterized in the report as referring to editors agreeing with YNFS, whereas - to me - it is clearly referring to the twitterati. It isn't a helpful comment, to be sure, and is part of the pattern of inflammatory language - but Colin isn't name-calling other editors in that instance. I'm left with the impression that Colin's contributions are also being read in the worst possible light by the OP, and that's not a helpful approach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a more general reminder to AGF because I don't think reading Colin's comments in the worst possible light is limited to Snokalok. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree others are also reading them in the worst possible light, but Snokalok filed the report. I think filers in particular should be extremely careful not to misrepresent, because those who come along after may take their word for it when responding. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Colin's communication style makes it easier to assume their snark is targeting editors, and as it contributes to a battleground it makes it less likely that editors will assume good faith. I'm willing to assume good faith that there were some misreadings, rather than misrepresentations here. I don't think general reminders are terribly effective, but I guess that's what comes between nothing and a warning, so I wouldn't object to that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this also. I just am not sold on warning Snokalok. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with a general reminder to AGF, and a logged warning for Colin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I want to say I agree with those editors saying we'll be returning to this topic area soon. There is a lot of built up bad will in the area and so it makes sense that we will see more reports. I don't think we need to solve everything here (as appealing as that might be). The closest place that does that is ArbCom and I don't think the misconduct in this area is such that it needs ArbCom intervention at this point, as compared to just regular attention from AE for a while until (hopefully) things calm back down. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the various posts since my last comment, and none of them changes my assessment of what needs to be done. Many editors have failed to assume good faith, and many editors have approached this topic with a battleground mindset. Colin's language has been inflammatory, and he has failed to treat other editors in good faith several times: that those other editors have also done so, does not excuse anything. I don't believe this needs ARBCOM attention at this time. If the editors involved were able to focus strictly on the content, many of the problems would melt away; but I'm not holding my breath. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to close this in a moment. @Valereee if you feel that further discussion about warning Snokalok is needed you can feel free to revert me. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to keep this brief, as this report has sprawled already. Sandy, I cannot speak to what happened at ARBMED, and that history did not remotely factor into my assessment here. I also do not see a first-mover advantage: I will scrutinize any diffs I see, and have frequently declined to take action or supported sanctions on the OP. AE does not make a practice of dismissing reports simply on the grounds that they are retaliatory. I also take source mis-use very seriously, but to do something about it as an admin I need to be given evidence of it. That said, any editor acting within the bounds of policy needs to be treated in good faith: that is the very foundation of Wikipedia, and if an editor is unable to consistently do so they need to be removed from the locus of dispute. Every editor has the responsibility of being collegial. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BumbleBeeBelle

ECR clarified with BumbleBeeBelle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning BumbleBeeBelle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This user does not have 500 edits, therefore can not edit any topic in the Arab-Israeli conflict area. Not only have they violated that, they have done so in a POV way.

15:53, September 17, 2024: Removes the death of a child from 2024 Lebanon pager explosions
16:32, September 17, 2024 Removes the death of a child from 2024 Lebanon pager explosions
16:49, September 17, 2024 Removes the death of a child from 2024 Lebanon pager explosions

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15:49 and 16:36, 17 September 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user should not be editing this space.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[47]

Discussion concerning BumbleBeeBelle

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 BumbleBeeBelle

Statement by Vice_regent

Alright thanks, I've started using that template.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BumbleBeeBelle

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

It looks like they are communicating about the restriction now, so if that goes smoothly I think that a commitment to follow ECR should be all that is needed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, I also created a welcome template, {{welcome-arbpia}} that explains ECR in plain language and bold text. It may be more likely to explain ECR to a new editor than the CTOP alert template, which I also use when leaving that welcome template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, keep in mind that they need alert/first to be technically aware. I normally go with
{{subst:welcome-arbpia}} ~~~~ {{subst:alert/first|a-i}} ~~~~

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. They're only half way to WP:XC's 500 edits, though I did just WP:ECP that page (as WP:PIA WP:ECR) independently of this (diff), thereby rendering their issue, at least with this article, technically moot for the immediate moment. El_C 18:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain of Eden

The Mountain of Eden is partially blocked for 2 weeks from Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions as a normal administrator action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning The Mountain of Eden

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

2024-09-24 05:23 UTC
2024-09-24 22:15 UTC
2024-09-24 23:54 UTC
2024-09-25 01:30 UTC General bludgeoning, off-topic comments, etc.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2024-08-30 14:54 UTC Partial block from Mohammad Deif ([48])

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2024-07-21 06:11 UTC (see the system log linked to above). Because the template was not placed correctly the first time, when the template was substituted by the bot, it did not generate an abuse log entry.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I feel there is bludgeoning among a couple of editors going on as well as WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC in general. May be useful to take a closer look at the entire RM discussion and issue sanctions as needed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[49]

Discussion concerning The Mountain of Eden

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 The Mountain of Eden

This is a head scratcher. I'm not sure what I have done wrong. If I did anything wrong, I apologize. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried on multiple occassions to refocus the conversation back to the topic at hand. [50] [51] The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I did not realize that posting on the talk page required the same rigorous citing that is required in the article. The article has the needed references: Reuters says: "Hundreds of walkie-talkies used by the group exploded on Wednesday, a day after thousands of Hezbollah's pagers detonated across the group's strongholds in Lebanon. (emphasis added).
If you think it'll help, I can add the reference to the talk page. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

Reading the entire discussion, I am seeing several unhelpful, possibly WP:BLP / WP:BDP / WP:NOTAFORUM posts by the Mountain of Eden without citing reliable sources. Insisting with no source that a nurse who was killed was affiliated with Hezbollah and that's why she had a Hezbollah-issued pager on her. Again insisting with no source that operatives of this paramilitary organization moonlight as nurses. Broadly asserting with no source that Only people with affiliations to Hezbollah would have had access to the Hezbollah issued pagers. starship .paint (RUN) 05:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, The Mountain of Eden, editors don’t post a source every time they post on a talk page. Nevertheless, editors are expected to argue based on sources. When you post controversial content and are called out on it, you should start bringing your sources. If your reliable source said the nurse was a Hezbollah member, fine. But no, it just said that the pager was (at one time) Hezbollah’s. Perhaps the pager was stolen, perhaps dropped, left at a hospital, passed from a friend, from a relative, or perhaps the nurse was just a bystander. Is it possible the nurse was part of Hezbollah? Possibly yes, possibly no, but you didn’t present a source. starship .paint (RUN) 10:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Mountain of Eden

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

The Mountain of Eden, not even the source you have provided and quoted here is sufficient to verify the claims you have made, just as "all cats are grey" doesn't verify "this animal is gray, so it must be a cat". I have blocked you from the talk page for two weeks as a normal admin action. As you have been blocked for disruption in this area before (1RR violation at Mohammad Deif), it becomes increasingly unlikely that future reports will lead to anything else than a topic ban or a site-wide block/ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree is there a reason you've left this open? Barkeep49 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I didn't take any (formal) AE action, so I was unsure if doing so unilaterally without action would be appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd say an arbitrator showing up to announce a block and a warning is an action one way or another and nothing requires a consensus on orders to close a report. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnfantDeLaVille

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 EnfantDeLaVille

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

10:36, April 2, 2024. Their 8th edit on wikipedia. It appears to misrepresent a source. I tried to discuss with them, but they didn't respond.
07:40, September 19, 2024. Removed material that had an entire section in the body under a misleading edit summary. I tried to discuss but they didn't respond.
14:07, September 20, 2024. Added material in wikivoice with two sources: one reliable but misleading quoted, the other apparently written by former IDF member. I tried to discuss with them on talk, and once again they didn't respond.
10:45, September 25, 2024. Restored material that gives Netanyahu's statements undue weight in the lead in an edit with a summary that misleadingly claims consensus. No consensus on talk page[52] for this.
16:05, September 27, 2024. Added "A day after Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel, Even though it was unprovoked Hezbollah[3] joined the conflict in support of Hamas[4] by firing on northern Israeli towns and other Israeli positions." Two problems:

- "unprovoked" is quite POV (see discussion here).
- "A day after October 7" (i.e. October 8) Hezbollah didn't attack northern Israeli towns, nor do the sources say that it did. See explanation on this WP:V violation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:05, September 24, 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Repeatedly misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing. The April 2 edit was made before sanctions alert, yes, but no one should be misrepresenting sources like that.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [53]

Discussion concerning EnfantDeLaVille

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 EnfantDeLaVille

Hi, sorry for the late reply. There are several users and bots who left me messages on the talk page. VR left me 5 messages on my talk page in 3 days. From the moment I started writing things related to Hezbollah, he started writing to me. It took me some time to build a picture of where he notifies me and answer them all. This whole thing felt a bit strange and even bothersome.

The events in Lebanon in recent months catch me at a sensitive time, and the suffering of my people from the situation in my homeland is unbearable. I apologize if I didn't reply in time. I tried to respond to everyone who wrote to me on talk pages. I'll try to look at my talk page more.EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

In all honesty, I don't see the issue here. Vice Regent is certainly one of our most serious regulars on the topic, but this is the second time this week they've rushed to AE about a new editor without a solid case, in what seems to be based mostly on different opinion. EnfantDeLaVille seems quite communicative on talk pages (I saw them participating in three discussions [54], [55], [56]). Maybe VR's taggings all around could be sometimes hard to follow? (this link VR shared doesn't seem to be a genuine attempt for discussion anyway [57]). I think Vice Regent should be reminded not to bite the newcomers and to take content disputes, what this complaint is really on about, on talk pages instead of AE. ABHammad (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that I find it extremely odd to see VR here speaking on POV-pushing while also changing Hezbollah's description from "paramilitary group" to "resistance group" in Wiki voice [58]. ABHammad (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice_regent, experienced editors, especially ARBPIA regulars like you, should know that conduct issues and content disputes are different and have their own places, and if you have disagreements with someone, you should take it to articles' talk pages. This is true especially when it comes to new editors, since this is not the first time you have bitten the newcomers recently, making others have to apologize on your behalf [59]. But now it seems even more troubling that you don't see how applying the term 'military-resistance organization' for Hezbollah, in wiki voice, in the article's first sentence is a blatant violation of NPOV, even if you found one source that uses this description (we actually have a name for this, its called Cherrypicking). ABHammad (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent

Note: I have slightly modified my report by pointing out that the first edit in my report is there because I believe it misrepresents a source, which I believe is a serious issue. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the pattern of reverting without discussions continues. Makeandtoss removed Hezbollah's terrorist designation from lead[60] and then started a discussion on the talk page[61]. I also moved it down. EnfantDeLaVille moved it back without any explanation (no edit summary) and without engaging on the talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABHammad, "military-resistance organization" is verbatim from a scholarly source written by Dr Farida and that is published by Routledge. Additionally, I've made efforts to discuss on the talk page[62], have you? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning EnfantDeLaVille

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

It looks like only two of these edits are after they were made aware of the CTOP designation. At first blush my largest concern is the lack of communication, which is absolutely necessary on Wikipedia, and even moreso in contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Despite EnfantDeLaVille's promise two days ago to engage constructively, today they've dismissively deleted a good-faith message about an edit of theirs. I'd recommend a logged warning for failing to communicate. @Vice regent: your initial filing implies that Hezbollah didn't attack Israel on October 8th, and while that's technically true in the sense that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, it is still true that Hezbollah attacked a territory Israelis live in, so it's not like EnfantDeLaVille made that up out of whole cloth. I think an assumption of good faith would put that squarely at the level of a content dispute (along with most of the other diffs you've mentioned), not worth mentioning in an AE filing. It's the continued failure to communicate I'm more concerned about. Perhaps EnfantDeLaVille should scale back their editing if they feel that they have time to edit, but not time to respond to concerns about said editing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Gonzafer001

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

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

Appealing user: Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 36-hour block, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2024#User_sanctions_(CT/A-I)

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

Notification of that administrator: Aware :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gonzafer001

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I was reverting constant vandalism on the Hasan Nassarala page

Statement by Theleekycauldron

Gonzafer001 made four reverts at Hassan Nasrallah in the span of less than 20 minutes, none of which were vandalism reverts (see 1 2 3 4), in violation of WP:1RR. I figured a 36-hour block would be pretty standard, but if there are other ideas, I'm all ears :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Gonzafer001

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 GrabUp

They should have followed the WP:1RR rule instead of engaging in edit warring. They can also continue the discussion. Additionally, while it is true that Israel has alleged the death, it has not been confirmed by any neutral or reliable source; every reliable source is simply quoting the Israeli claim. I believe the temporary block is justified. GrabUp - Talk 10:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Gonzafer001

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 921: / Line 921: @@
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
 *It looks like only two of these edits are after they were made aware of the CTOP designation. At first blush my largest concern is the lack of communication, which is absolutely necessary on Wikipedia, and even moreso in contentious topics. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
+* {{yo|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Despite EnfantDeLaVille's promise two days ago to engage constructively, today they've [[Special:Diff/1248404577|dismissively deleted a good-faith message]] about an edit of theirs. I'd recommend a '''logged warning''' for [[Wikipedia:Communication is required|failing to communicate]]. {{yo|Vice regent}} your initial filing implies that Hezbollah didn't attack Israel on October 8th, and while that's technically true in the sense that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, it is still true that Hezbollah attacked a territory Israelis live in, so it's not like EnfantDeLaVille made that up out of whole cloth. I think an [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assumption of good faith]] would put that squarely at the level of a content dispute (along with most of the other diffs you've mentioned), not worth mentioning in an AE filing. It's the continued failure to communicate I'm more concerned about. Perhaps EnfantDeLaVille should scale back their editing if they feel that they have time to edit, but not time to respond to concerns about said editing. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 05:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
 ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Gonzafer001==

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