Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive345

Southasianhistorian8

Rough consensus for a topic ban for Southasianhistorian8 from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. This explicitly covers India's foreign relations and Sikhism. This topic ban will expire when six months from today have passed and the editor has made 500 edits outside of the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 2 December 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 Southasianhistorian8

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Southasianhistorian8 (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:ARBIPA

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

21:37, November 12 Ignores WP:ONUS, edit warring in order to restore POV-pushing/WP:COATRACK content after that content had been removed by Nyttend.
02:11, November 14 Repeats the same WP:COATRACK behaviour at another article, just over 24hrs after Nyttend (a longstanding administrator) warned them about WP:COATRACK on their talk page.
08:49 November 14 Personal attack towards me on their userpage in response to sharing my concern about diff2 and agreeing with Nyttend, claims I'm "piling on my t/p over a topic that does not concern you as a form of petty bullying/harassment and revenge." (bolding mine; Nyttend was the only other user with a message on their talk page)
10:05 November 14 Leaves a retaliatory message on my talk page, spurned by my reverting of their edit in diff2.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20:47, 2022 May 30 Indeff'd for abusing multiple accounts in the area of conflict as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Suthasianhistorian8/Archive. Unblocked in December 2022 following a standard offer.
19:06, 2021 November 11 48hrs for edit warring in the area of conflict.

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 16:31, 2021 November 27 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SAH continues to push their anti-Sikh POV into articles. Diff1 shows them adding repetitive content which was already covered in the article, not to mention that it has its own article. Repeating in such detail can only be interpreted as an attempt to draw a equivalency between Khalistan movement and the Canada-India row that is not supported by sources.

Diff2 shows them doing them same at Hardeep Singh Nijjar, using that article as a COATRACK to add content about a tangentially relevant person, content which belong in an article about that person, and attempting to further their POV that Nijjar was a "militant".

Diffs 3 and 4 showcase an unwillingness to self-reflect when conduct concerns are brought up, getting defensive with personal attacks, retaliatory warnings, and digging up of past dirt (which they already mentioned in the last AE thread about them). At no point do they acknowledge WP:COATRACK either in response to Nyttend or myself.

Contribution history shows they nearly-exclusively edit about Sikh topics, suppressing positive information and restoring negative information. Talk page history shows numerous NPOV warnings. At this point, we either have a LISTENing issue or a WP:NOTHERE issue. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@103.251.217.66: I disagree with your evaluation of this as only a content dispute. I am reporting conduct; specifically violations of WP:EW (after the user made an agreement to never edit war[1] as part of their SOCK unblock request), WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA. I am aware that AE does not and should never rule on content. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has SAH gotten a waiver of the word limit that I'm not aware of? They are at 1552 by my count. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: While BLPCRIME is a reason why I reverted diff 2, it was not the only reason, with the other reason being that I felt SAH was pushing a POV using WP:COATRACK edits, something they had been warned about 24 hours previously for the edit in diff 1. My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist.

The fact that SAH filed a report about Simonm223 to AN today[2] for simply trying to engage with SAH at SAH's talk page[3], then WP:BADGERed voorts at voort's talk page after voorts closed the thread[4] shows that SAH's conduct is the primary issue, not the content of any article. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: it is at DRN [5] on referral by Voorts after SAH made a thread reporting Simonm223 at ANI [6], was warned for forum shopping, then badgered voorts at their talk page[7] The DRN has new posts tonight that I still need to catch up on. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay, seriously, this is getting out of hand now. SAH's response to being asked to state concisely what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same at DRN is to post a wall of text outlining their entire rationale to insert what they call "a brief few sentences or paragraphs" (huh?). Is this not WP:BLUDGEONING of a discussion?[8] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

Discussion concerning Southasianhistorian8

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 Southasianhistorian8

(Note, below is SAH's original statement, the one people have commented on. The altered statement, where he removed/changed the things others had criticised, so that their criticism no longer made sense, can be found here. See my comment down in the admin section (in a moment from now) for why I've put their original statement back. Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC).)[reply]

Talk about desperation. Any outsider can take a look at my handling on Khalistan movement and see that I handled myself very responsibly as opposed to GhostofDanGurney who keeps lobbing personal attacks at editors he dislikes. I only made one revert, and when Nyttend posted on my t/p, I told him I would not revert further, and initiated a discussion on the t/p. The content I added was literally a direct result of the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistan activist, and the RCMP's allegations of India's operations against Khalistan activists, so clearly the event is relevant to the page at least to some degree and I'm extremely confident that editors at 3O or DRN will agree. The content there wasn't even authored by me, I copied it (with attribution) from the Canada-India diplomatic row. If I was so biased, wouldn't I be trying to suppress this information? I figured that precluding such a consequential event would be irresponsible and make it appear as though the page was skewed towards a pro-India narrative. What more do you want from me?

Now, in line with GhostofDanGurney hastily making edits to get one over me such as here-where he engaged in interpretation of a primary source to publicy discredit a figure, as confirmed by ScottishFinnishRadish on A/E, here where he falsely accused me of plagiarizing his work Now he falsely called Arsh Dalla a "low profile" individual thus wrongly invoking BLPCRIME; Ghost could have spent at least 10 minutes researching this guy or at least initiated a respectful discussion on the t/p instead of piling attacks on my t/p. Instead he made a rude condescending post on my t/p, threatening to escalate matters and stating that I need to confirm whether I understand Wikipedia's policies to him, as if he's my boss or something. He has yet to engage in the t/p of the article where I laid out sources and arguments, instead coming here to again win a content dispute illegitimately.

Now just days after his failed A/E request where he was also criticized for making personal attacks and making nonconstructive edits, he's again wasting everyone's tie over this drama. This ridiculous BATTLEGROUND behaviour should not be given carte-blanche here.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostofDanGurney- Is one revert on the Khalistan movement page, in which I believed the removal from Nyttend to be a simple misunderstanding and subsequently went on the t/p, and zero reverts on the Hardeep Singh Nijjar page - for a grand total of one revert considered "edit warring". If so, you've edit warred hundreds of times as well Ghost. You've also told people to "fuck themselves", called them "thots" and "hypocrites" and more; I've never come close to saying something like that. Again, I strongly urge admins to issue a block for these juvenile insults. Literally every disagreement on his t/p is met with a nasty response-[10], [11]. This ill-researched statement is like the last time when you falsely accused me of plagiarizing your work.

Regarding, allegations of BLPCRIME or Dalla's low-profile/non public figure status-I've laid out a comprehensive case here-which shows extensive media coverage surrounding Dalla + sources in which Dalla clearly gave interviews to the media thus making him a high profile person as per Wiki policy. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite, I saw a thread on the article's t/p in which two editors expressed a desire to move the paragraph about the diplomatic row in the lead of the article. I removed the paragraph from the lead, and intended to move it and expand on it in the body of the article, but was unexpectedly called away before I could. By the time I returned, you had reverted me. In hindsight, I should have made my 2nd intended edit immediately afterwards and linked the t/p discussion, so my apologies for that. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(End of original statement)

@Bishonen:, those year old edit summaries are part of a continuing pattern of Ghost's hostility to anyone who disagrees with him, even as recent. The underlying behaviour hasn't changed at all, he was making inflammatory edit summaries, which SFR acknowledged in the first A/E not too long ago-[12] + [13], then right after that he took a quote from a primary source and framed it in a very inflammatory way (also acknowledged by SFR) to clearly cause irritation. His t/p reveals numerous attacks against people who disagree with him as recent as 2023-ironically it was him who did not have consensus and [14]. He also admitted to messaging Kautilya3 on Twitter after a heated content dispute, which is pretty absurd.

As for this edit-[15], I explicitly stated that it shouldn't have been in the lead-Please gain WP:CONSENSUS to add this to the article's lead, in accordance with the t/p discussion. I already apologized for the poor communication on my part here (I should have stated my intention to move and expand the para and linked the t/p discussion) and admit that I should take care to not add WIP edits, but I feel like AGF should apply here, especially when I already apologized and it involves my private life. I'm willing to own up to when I make a mistake.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all, I think that a good solution to this conflict(s) would be a 2 way IBAN between Ghost and myself, after the DRN or any other consensus building forum has concluded. Our editing seems to primarily intersect at two pages-Hardeep Singh Nijjar and Canada-India diplomatic row out of the many hundreds of pages we've edited, the C-I row is not a page I'm particularly interested in anymore. There may be more developments on those two pages surrounding the ongoing criminal investigation, but that's not something I'm too interested in and will likely not make edits towards. I'm committed to resolving the Nijjar content dispute peacefully through consensus, and I hope Ghost will too, and I'll also commit to avoiding GoDG as much as possible from hereon. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I agree, but a lot of my earlier thoughts/responses were unorganized as this a pretty complicated, high stress dispute. Would me linking my earlier responses be a good solution? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was my previous statement(s) up until 21 November 4:38 , I substantially altered it for length and because a lot of the responses were spur of the moment/unorganized-[16]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would also like to point that Bishonen is not an uninvolved administrator and is posting in the wrong section. We've had disagreements in the past regarding a blocked user's sock/meat status-[17]. That was a case in which I and another administrator believed the blocked account to be a sock, while Bishonen believed them to be a m/p.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've had 2 disagreements in the past over users alleged to be HaughtonBrit socks barely a few months ago. In the other case, a user who was initially deemed to be "unrelated" to HaughtonBrit, was later deemed a "possible indicator of sockpuppetry" after my report highlighted significant developments in their editing patterns. I believed the user to be a sock, Bishonen stated that she believed that they weren't. Given the contested nature of the latter disagreement, I dont think Bishonen counts as uninvolved administrator. This is what WP:UNINVOLVED states:Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

The sockmaster in question was also someone whose sock reports sometimes faced significant opposition from admins, and it turned I was correct multiple times-in this case for example, an admin was looking to close my report, and it turned out that the user reported was making numerous edits logged out in violation of their block, which they themselves admitted to on their t/p-[18] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, could you provide your view on this? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, I feel like a topic ban is unnecessary. It shouldn't be ignored that this A/E request is primarily based of a content dispute which is currently underway at DRN-[19]. It should also be highlighted that I provided detailed and policy backed reasons for my proposed changes there, whereas G and Simonm gave curt one sentence responses. Is that not telling? I sincerely request that I be allowed to participate in the consensus building. It should also be noted that I did not edit war anywhere, and am making sincere efforts to gain consensus for my changes.

I also do a lot of work in cleaning up articles in this topic area, which is inundated with POV pushing, poor sourcing and lackluster content. Could you please consider allowing the DRN to conclude and a later IBAN between me and Ghost? I strongly believe that would cease any further conflicts. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my inexperience and mistakes at A/E shouldn't dictate the fate of my editing in the Wikipedia mainspace, which are vastly different from each other. The vast majority of my editing in the main space and on talk pages is productive, and I've worked to arrive consensuses consistently over the past 2 years. The dispute between Ghost and myself became so acrimonious and litigious, that it's impossible to handle both discussing on the article t/p, DRN, and handling numerous dogpiles on A/E. Again @ScottishFinnishRadish, please consider an alternative. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, could you please let me know if something else other than a topic ban is on the table? Again, I find it punitive when I'm contributing substantially to the DRN and trying to seek a consensus there. Can we at least not see the assessment of other editors in that content dispute and what they make of Ghost and Simon's BLP/coatrack claims? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. Honestly, after seeing the immense toxicity on this site, where numerous editors dog-pile on you, lob false accusations against you, gaslight you and arm-twist you into believing their falsehoods, and just in general playing favourites with those in their own clique, all to get one over someone else in a content dispute, I've realized that Wikipedia is no longer a suitable place for me.

I would request an indef site ban for myself, and I do not intend to make any more edits here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen An indef site block would be good, and allow me to start a new chapter in life. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (103.251.217.66 (talk))

I think both needs to calm down. both should talk on the article talk page before making changes to the article and stop reverting changes.
I see this is only as content dispute... I don't think Southasianhistorian8 is attacking you op.. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney&diff=prev&oldid=1255952101 you should assume good faith.. and you are also trying gatekeep article it seems to me... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canada%E2%80%93India_diplomatic_row#NPOV

Statement by Simonm223

~~I would concur that both editors should probably both get some space from each other for a few days. A short-duration 2-way iBan might be a reasonable remedy here.~~ Most of the edits in contention from both editors don't seem disruptive although both could be a bit more careful with sourcing to avoid primary sources and to ensure that secondary sources are included in major edits. The only point of contention I'd take with either's position (as I don't think either is actually entirely wrong so much as operating at cross-purposes) surrounds the interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. Arsh Dalla is not a public figure per the definition laid out by WP:PUBLICFIGURE because his notoriety is entirely from the circumstances of him having been accused of a crime. As such the guidance, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime very much applies here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Southasianhistorian8 there is a key difference between Bishnoi and Dalla. Bishnoi stood trial and was convicted. My understanding is that Canada has declined to arrest and extradite Dalla. As such, since he is a free person and considered innocent both under Canadian law and by Wikipedia's standards, and since all the media coverage around him is about whether he did any criminal acts, we should not be commenting on him on Wikipedia. I hope this clarifies WP:BLPCRIME for you. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly my attempt to provide some friendly help regarding the BLPCRIME issue has left me a bit more concerned about WP:IDHT than I was at the outset. Especially since WP:OSE statements do not override BLP policy. Simonm223 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my last comment here I just want to apologize to @GhostOfDanGurney for originally interpreting this as a two-way interaction problem. I saw this and tried to sincerely help Southasianhistorian8 and the result was an ANI complaint, a DRN page and several repetitive textwalls. This is much more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation than I initially assumed with Southasianhistorian8 specifically and, what's worse, they appear to assume any attempt to assist them is an attack. I have struck my initial comments about a 2-way i-ban as I no longer believe that would be an effective remedy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

Regardless of which side is correct on the merits of the arguments, it does *not* help SAH's case that they've presented their opposition to Ghost of Dan Gurney in an uncivil and excessively inflammatory manner. "he clearly has an extreme vendetta against and is desperate to hound me off this page" fails to assume good faith. So does accusing them of having "a long history of suppressing any critical information on the page... saw this opportunity and rushed to try to hound me further." Vaguely handwaving at a previous report does not suffice to make that anything less than an aspersion. Saying "I find it reprehensible that this bullying behaviour has carte-blanche on Wikipedia" is both uncivil, inflammatory, and presumes that the behavior is 1) bullying, and 2) has "carte-blanche" despite this AE request existing and there having been discussion about it in multiple talk page forums already. Regardless of how this AE gets decided, I'd admonish SAH to find a more constructive, less inflammatory way of expressing their positions. I think all involved would do well to be reminded that in a contentious topic area you need to be on your best behavior. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

SAH is still - whilst this AE is continuing and having started a DRN on the topic themselves - removing sourced and DUE information at Hardeep Singh Nijjar [20]. Quite bizarre behaviour, almost like they want to be sanctioned. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Bishonen is not uninvolved here is so ridiculous that it's verging on WP:CIR. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiggerjay

I've had several of the articles that SAH has been editing come up on various boards that I monitor. Unfortunately, I've been unable to positively contribute for a lack of time to read through the wall of text that SAH generates through their apparent POV-pushing style, and then sometimes Wikilawyering to support their POV. While I think that the situation is primarily one-sided, and GDG is doing a fair job of handling it well, just a reminder that the integrity of WP is not solely upon him to keep other editors in line, and perhaps not taking it too personally. I think a formal TBAN with 500 edits is a good place to start for SAH, and perhaps, if anything, an IBAN for GDG. TiggerJay (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I opened a mediation case at DRN involving User:Southasianhistorian8 and User:GhostOfDanGurney on 20 November that had been requested by SAH on 16 November. I made a mistake in opening the case, because this dispute was already pending here at Arbitration Enforcement, and DRN does not handle any dispute that is also pending in another content forum or conduct forum, and this is a conduct forum. I have closed the DRN case as failed. The instructions that I gave to the editors to prepare draft sections of material that they wanted to add or to shorten are still good advice as part of discussion and normal editing. I have no opinion on the conduct of the editors, because I try to avoid conduct issues when I am trying to mediate a content dispute (including when I am trying to mediate a content dispute by mistake). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Southasianhistorian8

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

Southasianhistorian8, you're at three times your limit and no admins have commented yet. You need to trim about a thousand words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had the time to look into this in-depth, but I plan to in the next couple days. In the meantime, has anyone started a thread at BLPN? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked into this a bit more, but even based on their behavior at this report, the bludgeoning and walls of text, the incivility, and the retaliatory filing below I'm thinking at least a 3-6 month and 500 edit topic ban for tendentious editing with the hope that it will be enough of a sanction that their behavior will be better when they return. I'm also open to an indef topic ban if other admins believe that they should have to offer some proof of constructive editing to return to the topic area.

Bishonen, what SAH linked to was a discussion of your administrative actions and fulfilling WP:ADMINACCT does not make you involved. I don't see any issues with involvement here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a plain dispute over interpretation of BLPCRIME with respect to an edit that was made yesterday, but instead of a discussion at WP:BLPN, there are three enforcement threads visible on this page and another at WP:AN. Perhaps the editors involved should try BLPN first, or other forms of dispute resolution, instead of running here to get each other banned? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encouraged these editors to take their dispute to DRN. I think everyone needs to de-escalate, step away from the article, and let the process at DRN play out. If that fails and this acrimony continues, IBANs, TBANs, or page restrictions might be needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also haven't had time to research this properly, but I've noticed without difficulty that SAH's behaviour on this very page is poor. SAH, you point out that GhostOfDanGurney told someone to go fuck themselves in 2018, (near the beginning of their Wikipedia career) called somebody else a thot in the same year, and you "strongly urge admins to issue a block for these juvenile insults". A block? Six years after the fact? Please don't air ancient history at AE, especially when it has nothing to do with the matter in hand. I see you offer the same diffs and others from your historical collection in the retaliatory report below, too. I'm also interested to see your explanation of Black Kite's point that during this AE, you removed sourced and DUE information at Hardeep Singh Nijjar, 'almost like [you] want to be sanctioned'. You explain that two editors on Talk wanted to "move" the information, and therefore you re-moved it, intending to move it to the body and even, virtuously, expand on it there, but were interrupted at this very point. This statement of yours flies in the face of a) your edit summary for the removal,[21] and b) what you yourself said about it on Talk.[22] In view of that, the drama where you are "unexpectedly called away" is unfortunately not credible. Bishonen | tålk 04:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Just noting that I think Southasianhistorian8 has rewritten much of their statement here today. Many comments others have referred to are now absent from their statement. I know that the length of their content was a concern but I don't think a participant should basically rewrite their original statement in response to other editors' complaints. It's confusing when one tries to understand the flow of the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed they have, and that's not acceptable. Before I commented, I counted SAH's words to see if they had complied with shortening their statement. Yes, they had, it was 554 words. Then, after I had complained about poor behaviour, specifically asking admins to block G over ancient diffs, and trying to explain away Black Kite's complaint of disruption during this case, they "substantially altered it for length and because a lot of the responses were spur of the moment/unorganized". That's one way of putting it. Another would be that after my criticism and Simon223's, they removed the things we criticized. That's unacceptable on talkpages, and just as unacceptable here. Linking to the old version doesn't help much. You simply shouldn't have done it. I have restored the version I commented on, with a link to your new, massaged, less "spur of the moment" version. The time to think is before you post here, not after people have told you what's wrong with it. Note, if you decide to no longer offer an argument that's been criticized, you may of course disown it. But that's done by ~~crossing it out, like this~~. Not by removing it. Bishonen | tålk 09:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

SAH now suggests I'm not an uninvolved admin. I think I am, and I hope one or more admin/user here will please follow SAH's link to evaluate this putative involvement. Bishonen | tålk 11:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not sure what the "500 edit" means in your proposed t-ban? Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The need to both wait 3 or 6 months and make 500 edits outside of the topic area. This way they have to demonstrate constructive editing elsewhere rather than waiting out the tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am good with SFR's suggested 3 or 6 months (I lean 6) topic ban AND making 500 substantial edits outside the topic area (by "substantial" I mean not just adding commas or moving around stuff, but engaging with content and showing that they understand how to use reliable sources and how to edit collaboratively) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indef now? In view of this post by SAH, is it time for an indef block? Or (my preference) should we instead give them a chance to calm down? Bishonen | tålk 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I would give them a chance to calm down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Southasianhistorian8, you don't need to quit editing or be indefinitely blocked. You just have to continue to be a productive editor without getting yourself into disputes. I don't see any favoritism here in this discussion. But when I look over your most recent 200 edits in your contribution history, almost all have to do with arguments with other editors. Can you coexist with editors you don't agree with? That's what the rest of us do. And, believe me, there are longtime editors here who have had disagreements with each other that are deeper and longer-lasting than your dispute with GhostOfDanGurney...we just keep a distance between us and do not provoke each other. Remember, this is not just an editing project but a collaborative one so you have to be able to collaborate even when not agreeing. Can you do that? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a rough consensus for a 6 month and 500 edit topic ban. Any objections? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, is that indicating that the ban expires after 6 months or 500 edits, whichever comes later? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. They have have both 500 new edits and have passed six months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that Southasianhistorian8 hadn't taken a WikiBreak in the middle of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, Seraphimblade, Bishonen, Ivanvector, and Voorts: (left Ealdgyth out because they had clear support), 6 month and 500 edit topic ban, something else, or no action? We're weeks into this, so I'd like to see it wrapped up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a reasonable proposal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loveforwiki

Loveforwiki is indefinitely topic banned from India/Pakistan/Afghanistan, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 2 December 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 Loveforwiki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Loveforwiki (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:ARBPAK

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

23 October - Whitewashing with misleading edit summary. Trying to show that allegiance with Nazism and Imperial Japan is considered bad only in the western world.
27 October - Repeated the above again.
25 October - Created this POV redirect "Bharat country" because he wasn't successful over changing the page on Bharat.
1 November - added a conspiracy theory
9 November - Removes reliably sourced content with dubious edit summary
13 November - Restores his edits without gaining consensus even after being told earlier not to do this.
13 November - Restores his above edit again by using aggressive edit summary
17 November - Suppresses the word "Hindutva" despite the subject being known for it
23 November - Removes the mention of "Trinamool Congress" by locating them to Pakistan

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): [23]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't think this editor cares about the consensus process or anything else. He is here mainly to promote Hindutva agenda. Capitals00 (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24]

Discussion concerning Loveforwiki

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 Loveforwiki

<moved from Capitals00's section> I am not such kind of user. I adds contents with reliable sources. Sorry if anyone gets such vibes.. Sorry to.l Wikipedia communities. Love for Wikipedia always. Loveforwiki (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Loveforwiki

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

I appreciate it can be frustrating to edit in a topic area where your views are often in the minority. If you find yourself in such a position, you'll need to come to talk pages with high-quality reliable sources (in high-profile contentious topics, scholarly sources may be needed to convince others). Using misleading edit summaries, attacking other editors (rather than focusing on content) and edit warring are incompatable with editing in a contentious area. Here, and with a previous warning [25], they do not seem interested in acknowledging fault and learning from mistakes. They continue to tag edits as minor [26] that aren't, after being asked to stop in September. Further edits outside of the field ([27]) indicate there may be a broader competence issue here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:loveforwiki: could you please answer my request to explain when you need to provide attribution in your edit summary? And explain what edit warring is (you denied you were engaged in an edit war on India before). . —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They continue to edit and are non-communicative. Which makes me lean more towards an indef. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most AGF reading of this is that there is a CIR/language issue that is making it difficult to communicate effectively instead of deliberate POV pushing. Either way, I don't think they're a positive in the topic area. For me, the question is if there is a narrow topic ban that would be effective rather than the standard IPA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking about a carve-out of cinema and sport? Are they neatly separated from politics in India, or do conflicts flow over to these topics a lot? I'm open to a narrower topic ban, but I do wonder if the CIR/language issue isn't going to lead to problems elsewhere. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen there can be quite a significant amount of crossover, e.g. The Kashmir Files. This, along with few admins being very familiar with the topic, is why the topic bans in ARBIPA so often end up covering the whole kit and kaboodle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was ready to just go ahead and block, but I'd be content with an ARBIPA ban. It'd functionally be the same thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though in the latter case we preserve the ability for the editor to potentially edit some other area of interest instead of just revoking that possibility. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier

No action. Participants here may, if they wish, submit evidence at the currently open Palestine-Israel 5 case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:08, 4 December 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 Selfstudier

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ABHammad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Selfstudier (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, WP:EDITWAR, WP:POVPUSH

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

Context: Following a content dispute whether the "Gaza genocide" should be included on the Israel article, an RfC on the topic was started on 22 November.
On 27 November, despite the ongoing RfC, User:Selfstudier added content related to the "Gaza genocide" to the article anyway. [28]
Another editor reverted the addition and requested that Selfstudier refrain from adding the disputed content while the RfC is still ongoing. [29]
A few minutes later, Selfstudier restored it anyway [30]

Selfstudier says the RfC is about the lead, not the body, but the RfC is clearly about the body too (check the text here [31]). I contacted Selfstudier on their talk page asking them to self-revert [32] but they said this wasn't edit warring [33], asking me to re-read the RfC (which I read, and is clearly on the body too) and threatened to report me for making a 'false accusation'. Then they went on to remove our discussion from the page [34].

Overall this isn't the first time I'm seeing Selfstudier forcibly pushing their own POV by restoring disputed content in the middle of dispute. For example see Genocide of indigenous peoples [35], Palestinians [36], Zionism [37]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[38] Formal warning on removing discussions (October 2024)

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

Selfstudier is the main editor posting PIA CTOP messages on user talk pages. [39].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning Selfstudier

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 Selfstudier

The first editor to respond thought the RFC was not actionable and did not understand why the RFC was "Considering a link alone in the aether..".

As second to respond, neither did I, since it would it not be possible to add a link in the lead (Option 2) without there being material in the article body discussing the Gaza genocide. So I first suggested that opener should pull the RFC while that was developed.

When that suggestion was not taken up, I prepared a suitable paragraph and posted it at the RFC with the intention of adding it to the article body and which I subsequently did. Any editor could have done this at any time nor was this edit warring, as reporting editor complained of at my talk, because the material that Huldra had previously added to the article was completely different and was added to the lead not to the article body.

When my addition was reverted, I reverted on the basis that the RFC was about adding a link to the lead and not about adding relevant material to the body. Thus, I made precisely one revert, which is not edit warring. In my subsequent !vote, I then indicated option 2 and specified where in the lead the link should be placed. I didn't go ahead and add that link because from my perspective, that is what the RFC is actually about and what RFC opener had actually tried to do initially.

I have no idea what the POV pushing allegation is about, seems reporting editor is simply padding their report. If they think those accusations have any merit, then I would suggest they include them with proper evidence at the current ARBCOM case, where I am a named party. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

I'm only going to comment on the examples given concerning previous possible POV pushing

Genocide of indigenous peoples - The first RFC results were "no consensus" with the closing words: "Our policy on WP:NOCONSENSUS provides further guidance on what to do in situations like this." WP:NOCONSENSUS says "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.", so Selfstudier was correct to revert to the status quo, which was inclusion.
Palestinians - ABHammad also participated in the edit war several times, including after sources supporting the contested material were given.
Zionism - This was part of an edit war trying to undue the bold edit of a now blocked sock, discussed further here. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Doug Weller)

I apologise for having no time right now for an indepth analysis, but when I first saw this I assumed it was Selfstudier bringing this here. So far as I know the 0revert imposed upon ABHammad by User:Barkeep49 still remains in place. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Selfstudier

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

The RFC clearly addresses the body of the article so saying Ongoing RFC is about adding Gaza genocide to the lead not this material to the body is incorrect. That said, Selfstudier is party to an open Arbcom case and this seems like it would be better addressed there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that, if ABHammad believes that this is evidence of misconduct, it should be entered as evidence at the current ArbCom case. I do not see anything of such urgency that we would need to consider stepping in rather than letting that process run its course. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this can be dealt with in PIA5. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rasteem

Rasteem is topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 6 December 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 Rasteem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rasteem (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:ARBIPA

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

07:15, 21 September 2024 - Introduces close paraphrased content into an article [41]
04:14, 30 October 2024 - Moves a page against the naming convention.
02:59, 1 November 2024 - Edit wars over the same page move with another user while calling it vandalism .
13:52, 9 November 2024 - Does not understand that he is edit warring in spite of being warned about it and doing exactly that.
13:58, 9 November 2024 - Labels edit warring warning he received from me as "retaliatory" when I never interacted with him before this encounter.
14:21, 9 November 2024 - Calling a general sanctions alert on caste topics as a "retaliatory warning".
00:51, 10 November 2024 - Accuses another editor of POV pushing when no one other than him was making a pseudohistorical claim that Zafar Khan of Muzaffarid dynasty was a Jat contravening the academic discussion on the same.
03:00, 10 November 2024 - Claims that he only made a single revert when he has made 3 in 24 hours. [42][43][44]
01:32, 10 November 2024 -Misidentifying an academic Priyanka Khanna with a fashion designer to remove sourced content [45]
11:28 10 November 2024 - Removes good faith talkpage message about above and a general note regarding using minor edits while calling them retaliatory.
01:49, 15 November 2024 - Does not understand WP:BRD, immediately restores his content after being reverted and then asks others to follow BRD.
17:31, 15 November 2024 - Tells others to follow WP:BRD while edit warring to restore his own edits that were reverted, the irony is lost on him.
01:13, 18 November 2024 - Tries to poison the well against me based on a made up on the spot rule ("2RR") when I simply gave my feedback which was requested by an Admin before granting their WP:PERM/RB request.
02:00, 25 November 2024 - Abuses warning templates on a new user's talkpage and then reverts the user when they clear their page. Also review this revision history of their page to see the severity of abuse of warning templates and WP:BITEY behaviour.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [46]

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Rasteem is repeatedly failing to meet the standards of acceptable behavior, biting new users, and assuming hostility and bad faith on the part of established editors. His editing in this topic area has been tendentious.Despite being alerted sanctions on caste and WP:ARBIPA, he continues to take part in this behavior and displays WP:CIR issues. There may also be a language barrier given his poorly written or incomprehensible responses. To prevent further disruption in this highly contentious area, I believe a topic ban is the minimum necessary measure here.Nxcrypto Message 10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to unpack in the wall of text posted by Rasteem.

6th - This is entirely misleading [47]. You did not address how my warning was retaliatory, in fact you are basically still saying that my first ever interaction with you was still somehow retaliatory, this explains it better than I can do
7th -It was not a copy edit, you used a poor cited source(that doesn't have an author) for pushing his caste as Jat, the source in question & quotation in question was added by you in the first place[48].Wikipedia is not a place for boosting a certain caste.
8th - You say that you understand what 3RR is but you are still claiming that making 3 reverts in 24 hours violates it which is not correct.
10th - If you are allowed to remove your messages after you read them, why did you restore your warnings on a newcomer's talkpage, if they have removed it themselves?
13th - Bringing up the conduct of other users in order to make their comments less valid when your own edits are under scrutiny is classic Poison the well fallacy. Your continued attempt to defend that hostile stance there is concerning
14th - You were simply told to leave warnings, not abuse them, abuse is when you give warnings that are not appropriate. I can see that you have given that user multiple final level warnings for vandalism when they clearly did not vandalise, see WP:NOTVANDAL and you are not supposed to issue a warning that is meant to be final again and again, for example you reverted this addition of hyperlinks by a new user @HistorianAlferedo: and issued them a final warning for vandalism,[49] when no one would ever regard that edit as vandalism. You reverted this sourced and well explained edit by the same user and gave them a final warning for vandalism[50][51] Similar thing here [52] [53]. You also restored your warnings after they had cleared them despite being aware of the fact that when a user clears their talkpage it is assumed they have read it. The fact that you do not understand that you were abusing the warnings and are now deflecting the blame saying admins told you to do that is very concerning. Nxcrypto Message 02:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested[54]

Discussion concerning Rasteem

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 Rasteem

Answers

1. This was my first sourced article. I wasn't aware of close paraphrasing. After this note,[55] I didn't repeat this mistake.

2. & 3. I moved Hoysala Kingdom > Hoysala kingdom twice. I thought the word "Kingdom" was not part of the full name. After this notice,[56] I didn't repeat such mistakes.

5. On Political marriages in India there was a content dispute among different editors.[57] I had talked to the editor who reverted my edits, explained to him why I considered his GC note as retaliatory. [58]

6. About General notice of GSCASTE. I gave an explanation to the editor who gave me this notice and explained to him why I considered his warning a retaliatory (see answer#5 & diif #[4]).

7. Addition in Zafar Khan's paragraph as Jat ruler was a copyedit per the cited source.^[1] I wasn't trying to promote a specific POV.

8. On 9 November, I accidentally committed a 3RR violation. At the time, 'I was unaware that the 3RR was not only about making 3 reverts using Twinkle. Please accept my apology considering it my first mistake. 'when I said I didn't conduct an edit war, I said it in the sense that I made only 2 reverts using the Twinkle'.

9. There are multiple authors named Priyanka Khanna. I thought journal written by this author[59] but actually was written by this.[60]

10. As I'm allowed to remove own talk page messages after reading it. For explainations about retaliatory warning (see answers #5)

11. & 12. On 14 November after this revert, I didn't make further reverts on this page.[61] And left a notice on Talk:page[62] regarding recent revert and removal of content.

13. I gave a reply to Crypto's comment.[63] I gave there my explanation; it wasn't in the intention of Poison in the well.

14. I was advised by admin that you have to leave an edit warning for every revert you made without checking edits of a user. I asked him, Will it be Back Bitting?[64] If I give many warnings for each revert I made or just after their 1st or 2nd vandalism. He said that's incorrect, & it is necessary to leave an edit warning for each revert.[65]

I've condensed my answers to fit the word limit, but I kindly request a slight extension to provide a more accurate and comprehensive summary. As this is my first time at WP:ARE ®asteem Talk 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Indian History. Allied Publishers. 1988. pp. B_131. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4.

Further answers

6. You didn't ask me for the clarification so I didn't get a chance to clarify. In this conversation I discussed how many warnings I considered retaliatory and for what reasons.[66]

7. Your provided diff is an older one when I added 3 paragraphs with four sources.[67] Later I removed the word 'Jat'[68] from this paragraph, then I thought someone would object why I removed this word then I copyedited.[69]

8. I think I understand the 3RR rule.

13. My clarification on the rollback request was just to reply to Crypto's comment.

14. I just gave a warning notice for each revert I made (See some disruptive edits).[70][71][72][73][74]

I reverted this edit[75] per WP:CASTECRUFT.
This edit removed the word 'Yaduvanshi rulers' & added random 2-3 links.[76]
This edit removed the content 'Chaudhary family & Lohar clan of Rajputs'.[77]

Users are allowed to blank their talk pages, so restoration of the old revision was not required. It was in the sense user learn nothing from their past disruptions & I was compelled to report user at WP:AIV.

Femke, Thank you for clarifying the 3RR rule for me. I'll step back from making mistakes & I'll make sure I understand the policies before discussing them. I will focus on the content rather than the person in future. I admit it was not a good practice leaving warning even after 3-4 warnings. Yes, I did report this user at AIV.[78]

Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish, I had a content dispute with two editors, and with one of them, I've talked and settled the dispute. The person who reported me here, I didn't get a chance to talk to him; that's my bad luck. Please don't topic ban me, as I've already slowed down editing in contentious areas. I've tried hard to refrain from repeating such first-time mistakes. I assure you I will not repeat these mistakes again. I've already accepted my mistakes, also shown by my behavior; I've always refrained from repeating it. ®asteem Talk 17:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Admin:

My first & last interactions with NXcrypto was limited to Political marriages in India there we had a content dispute. On my rollback request, he was asked for his opinion: "He claimed Rasteem is on the verge of the topic ban." Later, he filed this report instead of resolving the content dispute on article's talk page. This report seems like a coordinated attempt to get rid of edit disputes from Arbitration Enforcement. I'll request the admin please also consider this and check my contributions that is largely for reverting vandalism at RC patrol.[79]

Above in my answers I acknowledge and apologize for the mistakes I made, all of which were first-time errors those I didn't repeat. (just noting that this is a comment by User:Rasteem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Seraphimblade I respect your decision & appreciate your involvement in this report. I've seen your closing comment.[80] I kindly request you consider reducing the six-month period of topic ban, if possible, since most of the mistakes I made were first-time errors. If not possible, you can please ban me without the condition of an unban appeal after the time period of my fixed ban.? I asked for it because I've read the comment of admin:Valereee that the appeal is very hard[81] even though I'm not fully aware of the policies of WP:ARE. ®asteem Talk 05:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LukeEmily

Looking at their edit history, I think Rasteem is doing a good job across wikipedia. I have had very brief interactions with @Rasteem:. Came across this page when I was posting a message on their talkpage and was surprised to find this complaint. I do not see any POV pushing for any caste by Rasteem. Most of the above items seem to be unintentional innocent mistakes - made by many senior editors - and I will go through each of them one by one. For example, Priyanka Khanna misidentification might just be because google showed up the incorrect search results. They are also polite, for example - [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=prev&oldid=1256533002 ] here they even apologised to @Adamantine123: although it was not necessary. I don't think any ban is necessary.LukeEmily (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rasteem

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

Definitely seeing some caste shenanigans and edit warring, although the edit warring is fairly widespread. Interested in seeing the response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rasteem: your response is now over 2,000 words. Per the instructions, can you please summarize this within 500 words and 20 diffs or ask for a (small!) extension to the word limit and summarize it to the new word limit. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rasteem, you're again over the word limit. I'll grant you a 200-word extension for your "Further answers", so please condense this significantly. Also, please avoid "shouting" via excessive bolding and colouring.

On the merits: in general, Rasteem is not the only to resort to disruptive behavior: there is too little discussion. In particular, Rasteem, you really need to WP:focus on content, rather than on the person. For edit warring, I expect an editor of your tenure to know that (a) you don't need to break the 3RR red line for something to count as edit warring. Experienced editors usually use BRD, meaning they only do 1 revert. (b) violating 3RR means at least 4 reverts, not 3. Move warring in particular is really not done (and WP:RM/TR is not the place for contentious moves. A normal WP:RM is). In terms of warning a new user, 4 final warnings does not make any sense, please ensure you report to AIV instead. The advice to leave a warning on each revert does not apply after 4 warnings. It's a good sign you admit when you're wrong in some cases, but you need to step back and ensure you understand policies before talking about them.

Given the willingness to learn, I wonder if a WP:1RR restriction and a warning for WP:civility might suffice. I'm not against a topic ban either. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasteem: you're still well over the 700 word count (>1300). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is more a case of trying to go too far, too fast than any malicious intent, but in a highly contentious area, that can be every bit as disruptive, Regardless, once you know other editors are objecting to what you're doing, it's time to slow down and talk to them, not just carry right on. I think I would favor a topic ban at this time, but with the expectation that if Rasteem shows constructive editing and discussion in other areas for a good period of time, it is likely that such a topic ban could be lifted by a future appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a time and edit topic ban would fit here, or just a standard topic ban that has to be appealed? I find that the time and edit topic bans are a bit lighter-weight without letting people just sit them out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the time-plus-edits topic ban is an interesting idea. If you've found them to work well, I don't have any objection to that. I think it's normally six months with 500 edits? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally how I do them. Saves the effort of an appeal if there has been no issues brought up during the tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do prefer the user need not appeal, and in particular when they believe they're making a sincere attempt to learn. Appeals are hard. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard for the appellant, and it's not exactly as if we're overflowing with administrators here, so it's a benefit all around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is acceptable to me too. They seem keen to learn, and doing that outside of a contentious topic area for a while would be useful for them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the consensus is for a topic ban from the India-Pakistan area for 6 months and 500 edits outside the topic area, whichever comes later. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by InedibleHulk

The American politics topic ban on InedibleHulk is lifted., while the GENSEX topic ban remains in place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, 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: InedibleHulk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: WP:CT/AP. (Original 1-year site ban, appeal converting this into t-bans)

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

Notification of that administrator: Here.

Statement by InedibleHulk

I was originally banned on July 13, 2023, for mostly GENSEX reasons. Since then, I've avoided both contentious topics and barely bothered anyone in other fields. The elections now over, what I perceive to be the problem others foresaw me causing is moot, and I'd like to be able to clean up uncontroversial articles like (but not strictly limited to) Mike Sherstad and Joseph Serra. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand Femke's question. Problems (namely using female pronouns for a mass murderer most believed was a man and for too heavily arguing my case) led to my block; repeated assurance that I would stop eventually led to my unblock. I think the "avoid American politics" part came up because mass murder and gender disputes were hot-button issues at the time; some wanted me banned from gun control instead. It may have had something to do with things I said in previous elections about how Trump was preferable to Clinton or how Harris should have beat Biden. I didn't really have much to feel or say about Trump vs Harris, even if I could have, and that much hasn't changed. I was only as interested as I was in Trump's prior campaigns because he was a pro wrestling personality; now that he's more fully transitioned into a regular politician, I'll let politics regulars handle him, his opponents and whatever resultant subtopics and drama. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this doesn't address the circumstances of the ban/block and explain why this editing restriction is no longer necessary, I don't know what will. The elections are over and I've lost interest in the only politicians I've bickered about here. If there's something else this restriction was meant to stop that I haven't addressed, please, be specific. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And while this appeal seeks an AP2 unban alone, I think GoodDay is right that I might prove myself an improved GENSEX editor now as well, if given that chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is still entirely an AP2 appeal. I wouldn't mind a GENSEX unban, as "gravy", and have certainly learned my DEADNAME lesson long ago. But discussing both at once would get confusing and I run into far more AP2 pages "randomly", so that leads. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, my issue with your issue is that I wasn't topic-banned (from AP2) for any particular issue, so I can't say what I'll do to avoid whatever it is except to say I'll let politics regulars handle him, his opponents and whatever resultant subtopics and drama.

Femke, I agree that my summaries are often misunderstood. They have been for almost 19 years and, as always, when confusion arises, I try to explain. In this latest case, Read it again? was a question intended as a suggestion, not a demand, and not a dumb suggestion either (since Seraphimblade seemed to see what Liz didn't from reading the same part). Also, I'm IH, not EH.

Aquillion, last year, I vowed to back away from that case altogether and would rather say as little as possible about it still. Generally speaking, though, I don't use the word "believed" to imply just belief. Beliefs are at the root of all we say, think and know. I could have used either of those verbs instead, in hindsight, but they all have their own plausibly troubling connotations if one focuses on what's not written. They (just) thought (but didn't know), (merely) knew (but didn't say) or (only) said (but didn't believe). I'm far from always a perfect communicator, but that was me on my best behaviour. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TiggerJay, consider the shouting and unduly harsh talk over. I'm not sure what these "other things" you allude to are, but I can guess swearing is one thing, questions (rhetorical or not) are another and the rest is probably reasonable and doable. I'll try to fall more in line with ESL, by simply and succinctly saying what I did, but won't follow the given examples precisely, on account of the roboticness. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, yes, I had an iffy feeling about that one shortly after I hit "Publish changes". Then it was confirmed a bad feeling on my talk page. Now you're the third one here to reinforce that sentiment, after I'd already agreed to save words like those for self-deprecation (which will likely stop now, too). Like all edit summaries, it's become unchangeable, but still forgivable. I'm sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I would tend to agree that this is pretty short on detail. I would like to see the response to Femke's question before making further comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more complete statement more addresses what happened, and in the original scenario, the AP2 issue was a more tangential one, so I don't have a particular opposition to lifting that. If this request has now been modified to also be an appeal to the GENSEX topic ban, that was much more directly on point when the original incident occurred, and I don't support lifting that at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk, I think the edit below ([82]) might kind of illustrate the problems with your approach. I realize it's certainly not related to either of politics or GENSEX, but that edit isn't so bad as to be a flagrant lie, and it doesn't even seem all that implausible to me. At most, it's unreferenced. Do you see how using the edit summary of "LIAR!" comes across as needlessly aggressive? You could still remove it with a summary of "I don't think this is accurate" or "This would need a citation" instead, and that would be far less confrontational. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by InedibleHulk

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 GoodDay

Lift the t-bans - IMHO, any editor deserves a chance to prove themselves & there's only one way for that to happen. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Describing what happened here as using female pronouns for a mass murderer most believed was a man and for too heavily arguing my case is downplaying the diffs; but beyond that it's hard to miss the fact that InedibleHulk is still, even in an appeal, carefully wording their statements to avoid referring to Hale as a man and is in fact presenting that as just a belief. While this isn't a GENSEX appeal, it's pretty glaring to see that sort of wording even in an appeal (where one would expect someone to be on their best behavior). --Aquillion (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiggerjay

While InedibleHulk has generally been contributing positively, making useful edits in non-TBAN areas, his edit summaries are concerning, sometimes falling under WP:ESDONTS and can appear as uncivil, even when doing otherwise mundane. Such as using the edit summary of "LIAR!" when removing an edit. Left unaddressed, this can easily spiral out of control again when these same edit summaries are applied to contentious articles. Even in his own defense above, he cites this on his talk page, and in it, clearly illustrates that he finds his edit summaries otherwise acceptable and that his summaries are simply a shout into the darkness instead of intended as a personal attack. I choose to AGF that he does not intend to be uncivil, however, before lifting any TBAN in any contentious topics, I would like to see his edit summaries conform more to WP:ESL and completely avoid the "shouting" or other things which, regardless of intention by Hulk, which can and have been broadly understood to be uncivil. TiggerJay (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by InedibleHulk

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

This appeal is very light on details. What problems were there that led to the unblock conditions and how do you plan to avoid them in the future? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on two minds. On the one hand, AP2 is a wide topic ban and the GENSEX ban may sufficient to prevent behaviour like last time. On the other hand, I do find ~~EH's~~IH's use of edit summaries not that conducive to editing in contentious topics. For instance [83] (which said LIAR!), but also at this AE [84] "Read it again", after Liz indicates she still found the appeal to short on information. Most often, the edit summaries are simply cryptic. I'd like some more assurances for EHIH to improve communication via edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the commitment around edit summaries, I'm now happy to give IH another try in AP2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Femke. InedibleHulk, usually when an editor is appealing a topic ban or block, they make a formal request/argument that addresses the circumstances of the ban/block and why this editing restriction is no longer necessary. I don't really see that here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see with this appeal is that the argument is "the issue is moot, so I'm fine," rather than "I won't do this again, even if a similar issue arises." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give this editor a chance to demonstrate they can edit constructively without having to stay miles away from the topic. Topic bans are something we should be using only when really needed. It's been a year. Let's see if it's still needed. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IH irks me sometimes (often his edit summaries, mentioned above by others), but I have no concerns about removing the AP topic ban and giving him a chance. I'd be slightly more concerned about the GENSEX topic ban, but (a) he's not asking for that to be lifted, and (b) I'll acknowledge that this might be a knee-jerk instinctive concern. But sure, let's at least lift the AP topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's lift the AP topic ban, and we can worry about the other stuff that IH is far less involved in later on. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing consensus here to lift the AP topic ban, so barring any objections I'll close with that result shortly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, 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: IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 3 month block for topic ban violation

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

Notification of that administrator: I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IdanST

I'm indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict for creating the Rapid Response Unit (Israel) (a translation of its Origin[he]) when I had approximately 460 edits with no WP:ECR permission.

I was subsequently blocked for 3 months due to my edit here, as ScottishFinnishRadish claimed it was a violation of my TBAN. My edit involved correcting the nationality of Yoav Gallant and Benjamin Netanyahu to indicate they are Israeli nationals, not Palestinian nationals. My intentions and the edit itself were not related to the conflict but rather focused on accurately representing their nationality.

It appears that my edit was reverted 3 hours later (here) by TRCRF22 because the table in question is not about personnels and their nationality but rather about personnels and the countries that the ICC's investigations concerned. This proves a misunderstanding on my part regarding the table's purpose, as I would not have edited in this area if I'd understood it correctly.

Approximately 10 hours after the revert, I was blocked for 3 months. IdanST (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

They were previously blocked twice for ECR violations, with two failed appeals, then topic banned for ECR violations, permission gaming, and NPOV issues. This block was made after violating that topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

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 IdanST

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

You regret editing against your topic ban because you made an error in the edit. This gives me little confidence you would abide by the topic ban if you see future errors. I'm not seeing sufficient reason to grant the appeal. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this illustrates very well why a topic ban means to not edit in the restricted area at all. If IdanST thinks that making an error is the problem, then I would decline this appeal. Don't edit anything that even seems close to the line. Go edit articles about chemical compounds, or Spanish literature, or medieval architecture, or any of the myriad of other subjects that aren't about Israel and Palestine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IdanST, you cannot go anywhere near the topic, including not to make edits you think are correcting errors. You cannot discuss the topic anywhere, including leaving barnstars. When you are topic banned, you need to go edit somewhere else completely. From your user talk and your failed appeals, it seems clear you don't understand what a topic ban means. We tried to give you an opportunity to learn how to edit outside of a contentious topic, which is a terrible place to learn, and you didn't take advantage of that opportunity. I can't support an appeal right now. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mk8mlyb

Mk8mlyb is topic banned indefinitely from the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:39, 9 December 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 Mk8mlyb

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mk8mlyb (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:ARBPIA

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

16:19, 5 December 2024 Mk8mlyb remove material from article with edit summary "Source contains antisemitism"
15:21, 6 December 2024 M.Bitton leaves them a CTOP notice
14:53, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb removes the same material from the article again with edit summary "Stop using sources that are antisemitic. The statement is false."
15:08, 6 December 2024 I revert them and leave a message in my edit summary to refer to Talk:Zionism/Archive 24#Revert as it pertains to a section of the article they are removing.
15:15, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb removes the same material again with edit summary "This is garbage. If we have to discuss whether to remove something that's obviously antisemitic, then something's wrong."
15:34, 6 December 2024 I left a message on their talk advising them that they had violated active arbitration remedies in regards to compulsory BRD on the article and request they take more care (it turns out that they'd violated 1RR and enforced BRD twice)
16:42, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb leaves a comment on my talk "I'm sorry, but if you're going to use that as an excuse to justify not doing anything about what is obvious antisemitism, then something's wrong with you. Many of those sources are antisemitic propaganda, if not all of them."
17:10, 6 December 2024 comments at Talk:Zionism "No, it's not. Israel is not engaging in ethnic cleansing. That is pro-Hamas antisemitic propaganda used to distract from the truth."

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 15:21, 6 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I tried to be helpful and request that they take more care in the future and obviously this editor is not here to be a net positive. Of note, one of the sections of text that they were removing has the script  just before it.TarnishedPath^talk 12:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update, since the filling of this report Mk8mlyb has made the following comments on his and Selfstudier's talk:

05:00, 7 December 2024, 05:10, 7 December 2024 and 06:07, 7 December 2024. All three comments throw around accusations of antisemitism. TarnishedPath^talk 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from M.Bitton's statement below, this topic area already has enough heat in it without having editors wading in and weaponising accusations of antisemitism. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 23:30, 6 December 2024

Discussion concerning Mk8mlyb

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 Mk8mlyb

OK, so I got here after a brief discussion, and so I'd like to ask again: what did I do wrong? I'm trying to remove what is clearly antisemitic content and propaganda. I'm just trying to tell the truth. Zionism is not about clearing the land of Palestinian Arabs, at least not the mainstream type. And the sources I removed are from a guy who has demonstrated antisemitism and justified the October 7 massacre. I read the article I was given and it explains that Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased because of the variety among its users and to promote critical thinking. It seems that using an antisemite who justified a terrorist attack as a credible source, especially over sources that debunk his claims, goes against that. If you're willing to defend antisemitic content that violates the site's neutral point of view for the sake of procedure, that says more about you than me. And even if it didn't, presenting a neutral point of view does not mean ignoring basic facts and showing a false balance between facts and lies. I want an explanation for this. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I didn't say that. I basically said that my edit was in line with the site's guidelines. The fact that you won't even explain what I did wrong and write me off as a bad guy is just dumb. If you have a good explanation for this that doesn't involve antisemitism, I'd be happy to hear it. I am here to be a net positive, it's just that people don't like what I think that involves. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are Wikipedia's standards on what is antisemitic? Because whatever they are, the result has been a swarm of anti-Israel bias. Article after article slams Israel, from accusing it of human rights abuses such as denying water and food, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, to outright genocide, to even comparing it to Nazi Germany, none of which are closely true. Losing a war is not genocide, and it's Hamas that started the war when they invaded Israel and killed hundreds of innocent Jewish people. Israel has repeatendly sent food and aid to Gaza and the West Bank to help the Palestinians, and it's Hamas that has repeatedly stolen the aid for its own selfish gains. Israel consistently put their own soldiers in danger to protect the Palestinians from their attacks on schools and mosques where Hamas hides its rockets and missiles. Look, I don't mind showing the suffering of the Palestinians and criticizing the Israeli government. Israel is not perfect. But to act like there are fine people on both sides of Israel and Hamas is a false balance. This is not American politics, where both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the situation. It's not both sides, and Israel is in the right to defend itself against genocidal terrorists. If Wikipedia is to truly maintain its credibility and commitment to facts and a neutral point of view, it needs to fix the articles to show these facts. But we're not. And that's the problem. You're probably wondering why I'm bringing this up here when I should have brought it up on the talk page, and I guess you'd be right. I probably could have handled this a little better. But my point still stands. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I guess I can see the issue. But I have to say, if the rules allow such bias to permeate through the articles of the Arab-Israeli conflict, then the rules have to be changed. And I am not acting on media misinformation or social media. I did some research on my own. Also, it's not just about one sentence or source. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You haven't even fully explained what the problem is. I'm not here to cause trouble. If you give me a chance I'll back off and let it be. Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it. I was wrong to edit the sentence against consensus and without checking the rules. I'm not doubling down. But I do have a source proving that the writer in question defended the October 7 massacre:^[1] Mk8mlyb (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I understand the content policies just fine and I'm not trying to double down. I just don't think they're being followed. There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Yeah, I guess so. Though I'm not sure how that's related to policy. I probably took things a little too far. I'm sorry. I will go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without justification. Mk8mlyb (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, come on. I said I was sorry for ignoring the CTOP notice and taking things too far. I promise to go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without proper reason. Can we just call it a day? There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Is anyone listening to me? I said I was sorry for ignoring the CTOP notice and taking things too far. After thinking about my actions, I understand what I did wrong. I promise to go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without proper reason. Can we please just call it a day? I'm willing to play ball. There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does specific mean? I've acknowledged exactly where I went wrong and and have pledged not to repeat those things. I admit that I should have heeded the CTOP notice and not accused people of being antisemites without proper reason. I also admit that I should have brought up the issue on the talk page and sought a consensus rather than rush in headfirst, and that I should have made sure my sources followed the guidelines. What do I have to say to be more specific? I don't get it. If you give me a chance, I'll back off and let it be. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/ex-plo-spokesman-rashid-khalidi-explains-away-oct

Statement by M.Bitton

The above comment by Mk8mlyb says it all. Not only do they not recognize the issues with their editing, but they are insisting that they are right and everyone else is wrong (or pro antisemitism, to be precise). A topic ban will probably prevent them from digging themself into a bigger hole. M.Bitton (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Is it just me struggling to connect the words to the actions? There are 14 sources cited. What is the specific meaning of the statement "the sources I removed are from a guy who has demonstrated antisemitism and justified the October 7 massacre"? Why is the editor at that specific article out of 6,920,655 articles editing that specific sentence in such a seemingly bizarre way detached from policy? Have their actions been caused by external factors like misinformation in the media, social media commentary etc.? If they have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, they should probably not be editing an encyclopedia, let alone articles in a contentious topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Mk8mlyb, let's assume for the sake of argument that all statements after 'Because whatever they are...' are the case. It still doesn't explain or justify your actions, actions that resulted in this AE report, removal of a statement with 14 sources. Wikipedia claims to be a rules-based system. It looks like your actions, regardless of any larger scale patterns that may or may not exist in Wikipedia's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, are inconsistent with the rules. That seems to be the issue. Can you see it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This editor shows no sign of acknowledging fault or of understanding what editing within the rules requires. This (false) BLP violation would justify action all by itself. Besides that, it's about time that administrators cracked down on casual accusations of antisemitism, which are becoming more and more common. Zero^talk 04:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for source discussion, but for the record Khalidi has been quoted many times calling the Hamas attack a war crime. Here, for example. Zero^talk 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mk8mlyb

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

I'd like to see if Mk8mlyb recognizes the issues with their editing and will commit to not doing that anymore so we can leave this with a logged warning, or if we'll end up at a topic ban. I looks like all of their problematic editing in the topic has happened just in the past day so I'm willing to go with a just a warning if some understanding is displayed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point a topic ban is called for because they're still substituting their own POV for sources (see Femke's diff). I also don't think this is something that a time and edit limited tban will address, so I'd say indeed so they have to explain the issues and how they would avoid them before being allowed back in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mk8mlyb, it appears that what you consider to be "antisemitic" might not be in line with ~~Wikipedia's standards~~ that of reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that a warning is sufficient here. Mk8mlyb has, I think, been presented here with the problems with their editing, and instead of taking that on board has just doubled down. I think all a warning does is see us right back here, probably sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems there is a clear consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from ARBPIA, unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Vanamonde; I've seen what you've said, but it's a bit of "too little, too late". I'm not convinced that your participation in one of the most hotly contentious areas of Wikipedia is a good idea at this time. Certainly this is a case where "indefinite need not mean permanent"; if you edit constructively in other areas for a few months and come back with an appeal, I think you'll find us very willing to consider lifting the ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mk8mlyb is doubling down, which makes it difficult to avoid imposing a topic ban. They are fairly new, so may be able to demonstrate they can learn from feedback outside of the topic area and appeal in due course. To answer their questions: Antisemitism has no place on Wikipedia, but well-sourced content critisizing the current government of Israel is not antisemitism. If there are sources that are of insufficient quality, please do bring this up on talk when challenged, but don't WP:edit war over it: the topic area is sufficiently contentious as is. A more serious issue is the unsourced claim that some writer defended the October 7 massacre per WP:BLPREMOVE. You should never add contentious material about a living person without a source anywhere on Wikipedia. Just to note they also edit in line with their own interpretation rather than sources in different topic areas [85]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Examining their edits I'd also support a topic ban. I'm very concerned about the link above on a different topic which violates WP:NOR.Doug Weller talk 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issues here are pretty profound. I'd support a tban; maybe 6 months/500 instead of indef? Valereee (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mk8mlyb, FWIW: an opinion piece in Campus Watch is not proof of anything. It may echo what you believe to be true, but that doesn't make it a reliable source for 'proving that the writer in question defended the October 7 massacre'. That's the kind of policy you should start learning somewhere other than a highly contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mk8mlyb, so you understand that the meforum.org post you used just a few hours ago to prove Khalidi defended Oct 7 was not proving that? Valereee (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object if others think it needs to be indef. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the request I was hopeful that a warning would be sufficient here, but given that Mk8mlyb has doubled down and has shown no inclination to understand the relevant content policies, a TBAN is called for. I would strongly prefer that it not be time-limited; for a relatively new user, I could see a convincing appeal being made in 3 months, and I could also see the issues never being addressed. Indefinite, appealable in 3 months, would be my preference. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mk8mlyb, I have seen your latest responses, and probably others have too: but they are not specific enough to convince me that you can constructively edit a topic this contentious at the moment. If you wish to edit in this area, show us that you can edit within the guidelines elsewhere, and we would likely grant an appeal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mk8mlyb, this discussion will close when it closes, maybe tomorrow or the day after or after a few days. You can't just say you're sorry and have this over with. We're trying to determine how to address a serious problem with your editing. You have very strong opinions about politics in this area and I'm not sure you can adhere to NPOV in your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tattipedia

Tattipedia blocked 1 week by ScottishFinnishRadish for ECR violations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:04, 9 December 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 Tattipedia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tattipedia (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

17:17, 7 December 2024 Comments in an RFC in violation of WP:ARBECR.
18:04, 7 December 2024 Remsense leaves Tattipedia a CTOP notice for PIA.
19:14, 7 December 2024 Tattipedia replies back to the CTOP notice "ohh thank you".
21:20, 7 December 2024 Tattipedia again comments in the same RFC as previous in violation of WP:ARBECR.

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 18:04, 7 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tattipedia has engaged in a RFC which is subject to WP:ARBECR after being advised that they can't and acknowledging it. Notably when @Theleekycauldron reverted their last violation of ARBECR at Special:Diff/1261677047 they noted that "ARBECR and probably a large language model". TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, it happens. TarnishedPath^talk 15:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:25, 7 December 2024

Discussion concerning Tattipedia

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 Tattipedia

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tattipedia

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

Tattipedia, I would be very interested to hear your response here (and note, your response, not a chatbot's response). If you now understand the ECR restrictions and will abide by them, hopefully this can be resolved without the need for further action, but if you continue to violate it, that will certainly become a problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I blocked for a week while you were posting this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No troubles, but would you mind leaving this open and copying their response here if they make one? We still might need to figure out what to do going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorChkmt84

Indeffed and then unblocked by me, reblocked by Seraphimblade, all as standard admin actions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 9 December 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 DoctorChkmt84

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DoctorChkmt84 (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 and WP:ARBCAM, indef per WP:NOTHERE.

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

[86] 8 December 2024 WP:CB
[87] 8 December 2024 WP:CB

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 [88] 8 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[89] 8 December 2024

Discussion concerning DoctorChkmt84

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 DoctorChkmt84

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DoctorChkmt84

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

This doesn't seem like an AE issue. Especially when the main remedy being sought is a nothere block. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to develop a thorough case for a new editor with 9 edits. I also agree that AE doesn't seem like the place for this newbie. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't like that this is just coming straight to AE for an indef, rather than this editor being told why their editing is a problem. For clarity, these edits are a problem, but let's give people an opportunity to change course before we start talking about indef blocks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm all for a chance to discuss and learn, but no sooner were they unblocked than they just went straight back to it without even trying to do that, so I've reinstated the indef (as a normal admin action). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile editor, hasn't found talk pages yet. Every edit so far reverted. AE isn't the right place for this, though. I'll post another warning at their talk. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NM, already indeffed by SFR. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually unblocked, as I hadn't seen the discussion here. Was just going through my morning watchlist check. The CIA approving all Hollywood movies combined with multiple edits about microwave targeting, including add a BLP to an article was sufficient for me, but seeing this I see that others think differently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to open a section, 'Please respond here before editing again', which I strongly suspect wouldn't be seen, then at the next edit pblock from article space to see if we could get them to a talk or help desk. Valereee (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's still a good idea. They are on mobile, but not using an app so I think they still reliably see notifications/alerts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic

Raladic is warned against edit-warring and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 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 Raladic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Void if removed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Raladic (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/Gender and sexuality

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

27/08/2024 SYNTH of a percentage to push a POV not present in the source
27/08/2024 Admitted this was to advance a particular POV
22/11/2024 Undoing consensus wording to hide negative connotations, with incorrect edit summary, and POV editorializing/SYNTH.
23/11/2024 POV / Misrepresenting a source (the source is SECONDARY for the relevant claim)
23/11/2024 Revert with misleading summary, describing a fair summary of sources as SYNTH
23/11/2024 POV / misrepresenting a source while trying to prevent its use (not published by SEGM)
23/11/2024 Continuing to misrespresent the source with 20 co-authors (only 2 are SEGM/Genspect affiliates), and citing a defamatory SPS to cast aspersions on a BMJ journalist source
23/11/2024 Dismissing a source as fringe, then:
23/11/2024 editing another article to add "fringe" to the lede to try to prove this point
07/12/2024 Unsourced POV addition of contentious labels to a WP:BLP, and an edit comment that misrepresented the state of talk
09/12/2024 After an AfD started by Raladic ended in keep but rename, unilaterally rewriting longstanding consensus content to strongly push a new POV, with a misleading edit comment.
09/12/2024 Ignored requests to discuss and continued POV pushing.
09/12/2024 After POV rewriting, immediately proposing it for deletion again.
09/12/2024 Edit warring

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 12/07/2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After I was brought to AE earlier this year with no action, and the related action against Colin, there was a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised. I have had no wish to engage in tit-for-tat reporting, but Raladic's conduct has, if anything, got worse in the months since. Raladic has a very strong POV on trans issues and pushes it constantly, exhibiting WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, bludgeoning, stonewalling and tendentious editing.

Some of these recent diffs revolve around a 3-month long dispute that began in August with Raladic reverting sourced content. Since then, despite the emergence of additional sources, Raladic has engaged in POV pushing, battleground behaviour, editing nonconstructively, and stonewalling, which is all evident in talk, culminating in Raladic bringing every opposing editor to ANI.

Raladic has a general habit of ignoring requests to follow BRD, and instead re-reverting prior to discussion, and then stonewalling any subsequent discussion.

What I've covered here is only some recent behaviour. I can provide numerous other examples if requested.

Full timeline of the last two diffs, for clarity (times in GMT):

18:54 Raladic's AfD request closes as keep/rename

19:10 wholesale rewrite with POV changes to longstanding content, misleading edit reason. Content removal continues.

20:26 Revert my restoration of prior consensus, with no discussion.

20:41 Revert another editor's attempt to restore prior content.

21:08 Having cut much of the article, opens a new AfD

22:25 Reverts a third editors's attempt to restore prior content. Void if removed (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ @Vanamonde93 @ScottishFinnishRadish If there is to be an allegation of "edit warring on both sides" on the basis of one counterexample, I would like the opportunity to demonstrate a fuller picture. I request 250 words and 10 more diffs. Void if removed (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Vanamonde93 Ignore my request for more space. With Black Kites's outrageous comment I have no interest wasting any more time on this process. Do what you will.~~ Void if removed (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 I may as well post some of the diffs if you've given me space.

Edit warring:

24/11/2024
24/11/2024 (Note that in between these two, Raladic gives the editor a CTOP notice, warns the editor about edit warring, then reverts one more time 3 minutes later)
24/08/2024
24/08/2024

Void if removed (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Raladic

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 Raladic

1 & 2: which resulted in consensus change that I made as noted in the talk page.
3-8: Maintaining WP:NPOV (as I explained to them), which results in the now stable version at the article. Note that the editors including VIR have repeatedly ignored the fact ([90], [91], [92]) that an investigative report is a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source. Other editors also had to explain to VIR and some other editors that refining articles is very common practice.
9: VIR then yet again followed me to an article I referenced where I noticed that text from the body was not in the lead and moved it up, which is now at the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine stable article. (But did require yet another endless thread of editors explaining started by VIR).
10: Literally sourced in the article. However it did prompt me to analyze the article and notice that it failed the notability criteria, so I started an AfD, which resulted in a move on the legal case as the closing admin was swayed by the prior puffery in the article.
11-14: Rewrote the article post move, removing WP:FLUFF that was tangential to the court case to bring the article up to standard for legal cases, focusing on the case, not celebrity endorsements and the likes. For some reason, this apparently needed explanation. After that it became pretty quickly clear that I was correct in my initial assessment that the legal case is a run-off-the-mill case that very likely fails WP:EVENTCRIT as routine news, so I separately nominated the legal case as directed by the closing admin in the discussion I had with them at their talk page, which I felt would be the best course of action, though arguably could also have been a DRV. With regards to the changes I reverted after I made the necessary re-write of the article post-AfD, I immediately engaged the talk thread after reverting VIR, as supported by @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist who re-iterated the removal of puffery and the obvious necessity that a article in different scope looks different to the prior article. I made two more reversions of editors who tried to reinstate the counter to guidelines content (mainly lead-follows-body puffery), so I made 3 reversions and of course could have waited for YFNS or another user to revert them instead, but in any case, I stopped short of the brightline.

All in all, as Shakespeare said, looks like Much ado about nothing up there. You'll note that in many of the talk threads related to these "reports" by @VIR, many editors have shared my sentiment and as the final edits at articles have shown, my sentiment also appears to typically on the right track. I am one of many highly active editors in the WP:LGBTQ+ space, and have made thousands of fact-based edits in the space and collaborated with many editors productively, so frankly this AE report appears to be little more than retaliation by someone with an apparent WP:COI (as was pointed out by several other editors in the past including in the previous AE of VIR, for the admins handling this case in case they are not aware, let me know if you need more details), so I think this report may be in WP:BOOMERANG territory, especially the ludicrous accusation that Colin's case in any way referenced me, it didn't. Raladic (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ - Preemptively requesting word extension (250 extra for now?) to respond to any followups (currently at 482 above). Raladic (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YFNS - I was referencing the main part of the edit, which was the known for founding the anti-trans LGB alliance, as was sourced in the article ([93]). Fair enough on the Short-desc and category being more contentious, but the ref does say that she self-identifies as gender-critical, which we have synonymous as anti-trans/trans exclusionary. I had never been to this article before 12/2 (when I noticed its lack of notability, hence AfD nomination), so when I read it more, I found it surprising that her only presumed claim to notability as founder of the organization as cited was missing from the first sentence. That's what I meant with, the source was there, because it was. Raladic (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the extra evidence presented by YFNS for a BOOMERANG for VIR, I'd like to add that VIR has really not taken the feedback since their AE on board and has since then continued with endless discussions that typically end up nowhere, continuing the WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of their WP:MWOT arguing in this space. Raladic (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Void if removed - Btw, in your additional comments by editor filing complaint, which is in a request that is obviously about me as is clear from the title, you referred to me exclusively by my username, 7 times. I do have pronouns, please use them. Raladic (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 - the fringe medical source can be accessed through the wikilibrary and has an entire section of the paper dedicated to it, looks like YFNS below already elaborated on it. As for the anti-trans advocacy of LGB Alliance, it's in the court documents, as well as [94] which I already elaborated on above. Raladic (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 - YFNS already responded to it. You can also read this thread on more context. In any case, it's all of these continuous disinformation that anti-trans editors are pushing, just as Colin's latest one where the editors selectively omitted evidence that I helped correct (which my edit improved to clarify this only applies to PI at the article), as any first-year trans health surgeon knows that PI is just one of many other preferred modern techniques, but since the Cass review was a policy-based evidence making piece from a place with rife anti-trans sentiment and didn't actually have any trans-health experts as authors, all of this was missing to advance their transgender health care misinformation.

In any case, this appears to be an uphill battle and at this point, it's clear that anti-trans editors have won in their campaign to spread misinformation on Wikipedia and driving away editors by wearing down anyone willing to fight their misinformation, so I already decided to retire yesterday as this is not worth my mental health and recommend ArbCom opens a case to curtail the coordinated anti-trans fringe misinformation spread. This AE thread has turned into a mud slinging witchhunt and should be treated as such. Raladic (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

I would like to suggest a boomerang. VIR's diffs are mostly links to their own WP:PROFRINGE behavior:

1 & 2 : WP:CALC is part of the policy WP:OR. Raladic had every right to add it and seek consensus.
3 - 5 : There was no consensus for the version VIR preferred. I will plainly state that I intensely dislike WPATH - but I don't let my personal feeling get in the way of RS and FRINGE
6-7 : This is clearly splitting hairs. Multiple SEGM members were authors of that paper. More affiliates and frequent collaborators on top. To list some choice names Stella O'Malley, Patrick Hunter, and Kenneth J Zucker were authors. Famous for, in order, 1) founding SEGM, Genspect, and Therapy First 2) banning trans healthcare in Florida for all ages while being part of SEGM, and 3) creating the living in your own skin model
8: SEGM is clearly WP:FRINGE, VIR has been arguing with anyone and everywhere for years that it is not. At his last case, he was warned to take the advice of admins to stop repeating arguments.[95]
9 : Medical researchers did explicitly describe SEGM as a "fringe medical organization", one of the kinder terms RS use (the SPLC calls it the hub of the modern anti-LGBT pseudoscience network)
10 : @Raladic: I suggest you double check/clarify. The sources in the article at the time of your edit described LGBA as an anti-trans group, but the body didn't.
11-14: Consensus was that Bailey wasn't independently notable but may be through the case. Rewriting a BLP to an article on a legal case obviously requires a rewrite - VIR went to talk to argue about just one line, glossing over the rest of the puffery removed.

I'll note that since VIR's last time at AE where told to drop arguments he's:

Restarted arguments at Conversion therapy about gender exploratory therapy almost immediately after the case.[96][97]
Argued at gender dysphoria in children trying to replace systematic medical reviews with the Cass Report and arguing that transgender children shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.[98]
Argued WPATH's (the world's largest/oldest health body for trans people) members have a COI with SEGM while trying to downplay their unequivocally false statements about conversion therapy[99]
At least 200 edits arguing SEGM doesn't actually push conversion therapy on talk and multiple noticeboards..[100]
Restarted arguments at ROGD trying to sanitize it in the lead.[101]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic thanks for clarifying! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin The WP:SPLC doesn't just consider SEGM a hate group, but the "hub of anti-LGBT pseudoscience". WP:FRINGE applies.

@Vanamonde93 The article repeatedly refers to "fringe medical associations", has a section called "fringe medical associations" where they state Several international associations including the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM, 2023) and Genspect, 2023a, Genspect, 2023b have formed in reaction to GAC. According to a Yale School of Medicine report, both groups have spread “biased and unscientific content” about GAC and that SEGM is “without apparent ties to mainstream scientific or professional organizations”, and has a supplemental table of "fringe medical organizations" that lists SEGM.[102] The other ref supporting the statement is a CBC investigation citing multiple researchers and discussing SEGM's pseudoscience and calling them a "fringe group".[103] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A final note to the admins: One "side" here is a small group of editors citing founders SEGM, known for anti-trans misinformation and support of gender exploratory therapy, and conversion therapists like Zucker. Pushing positions contrary to the overwhelming majority of major medical orgs, literature in the field, and human rights bodies globally. Please, just bear that in mind and don't ignore WP:FRINGE. A good editor resigned because it wasn't dealt with. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

I have experienced ongoing issues with Raladic’s behavior, including edit warring and stonewalling, for over three months in the article about WPATH. Initially, Raladic reverted my edit, which was supported by two highly reliable sources—The Economist and The New York Times—with a misleading edit summary claiming there was a consensus not to include the information.

[104]

The Economist reported that WPATH leaders interfered with the systematic reviews they commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, both The Economist and The New York Times reported that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for treatment of children under pressure from a health official.

I raised the issue on the talk page, asking where this supposed consensus was reached.

[105]

Raladic kept insisting that the topic had been discussed and argued that the information about WPATH should be placed in another article, not the WPATH article itself: [106]

I pointed out that a consensus could not have been reached on information that only became available after prior discussions on the talk page were concluded. This indicated that Raladic’s claims were unfounded. Subsequently, Raladic shifted their argument, stating that criticism of WPATH should not be included due to WP:NOTNEWS, and asserting that a smear campaign against WPATH existed in mainstream media.

[107]

I brought the issue to WP:NPOVN.

[108]

There, Raladic argued that the story reported by The New York Times in June 2024 about Dr. Levine advocating for removing age limits was already addressed in the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People (hereafter "SOC") article by referring to The New York Times' 2022 report. However, this was not possible since the June 2024 information did not exist in 2022, and Dr. Levine was not mentioned in the SOC article at the time of Raladic's posting.

[109]

I sought advice from Firefangledfeathers on how to handle this.

[110]

Raladic strongly opposed including the removal of age limits in the WPATH article, insisting it belonged in the SOC article. When I added The New York Times report to the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People article, Raladic reverted it: [111]

I initiated another lengthy discussion on the talk page:

[112]

With Firefangledfeathers mediating, the information was finally included. However, The Economist's report was omitted because Raladic argued it was the sole source for the claim about WPATH suppressing the Johns Hopkins reviews. Later, The BMJ, a peer-reviewed journal, corroborated The Economist's findings. After discussion, multiple users (at least six) agreed on a compromise wording that I introduced to the article. Raladic, however, twice reverted the consensus version ([113], [114]), replacing it with their own version that lacked consensus and relied on primary sources, disregarding reporting by The Economist and The BMJ.

As evident, Raladic has consistently engaged in stonewalling and edit warring on WPATH and related articles, obstructing the inclusion of critical reporting by reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Economist, The BMJ, and The Hill. Despite consensus among other editors, Raladic continues to revert others’ edits, ignoring the reliability of sources and the opinions of fellow contributors. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue worth noting (previously overlooked in the above due to the lengthy discourse that's been going on in the aforementioned WPATH article), is that Raladic, along with others, made claims that challenge the reliability of sources. For example, during the WP:NPOVN discussion, it was argued that every Economist article should be classified as an opinion piece. This issue was then brought to WP:RSP, [115] where the community rejected this assertion. Currently, Raladic argues that every investigative report qualifies as a primary source, even though Wikipedia's guidelines do not support such a classification. [116] Furthermore, this user has perpetuated a possible BLP violation, claiming that a journalist from The BMJ has a "vested interest" without providing reliable evidence to substantiate this accusation. These claims seem aimed at rejecting The BMJ's peer-reviewed report that addressed WPATH's suppression of evidence contrary to its policies. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin

I'm concerned to see the comment below about a logged warning for edit warring on both sides. That needs evidence of a pattern of behaviour, not one example plucked. If a single unwise revert was the standard, might as well give everyone a logged warning.

The issue here is largely down to Wikipedia's mechanism for working out what is a reliable source. Void has swiftly learned the rules and finds sources that meet WP:MEDRS and WP:V. Raladic has not. Raladic's working definition of a "reliable source" is "anything I can use to discredit sources that say inconvenient things" and "is not a reliable source" amounts to nothing more than "says things I disagree with". This is the very definition of an WP:ACTIVIST: "flexible approach to policy interpretation, depending on whether or not it aligns with the activist's". So we get blogs and random PDFs used to discredit systematic reviews in the highest tier of medical journals. We get endless "guilt by association" with the bogeyman of SEGM used repeatedly. As VIR notes, a paper written by over 20 international academics, published in the SAGE journal "Human Systems" is misleadingly described as "published by SEGM" in an attempt to discredit. This edit, claims a paper written by two authors represents the consensus views of "medical researchers". That's pretty typical. Those two people agree with Raladic therefore it's a reliable and authoritative source. This approach to source is not unique to Raladic (see Talk:Cass Review#See Also where User:WhatamIdoing complains about "editors post non-existent, made-up rules" wrt SEGM). But the fact that there are other editors with similar issues should not stop us dealing with this one.

Both WP:FRINGE and "anti-trans" is pushed on talk and in articles to describe anyone who's model of trans healthcare is not aligned with Raladic's, even if that model or the research is supported by leading journals and several nation's healthcare experts. This is not an approach compatible with editing a contentious topic, which requires editors to write about views and people they disagree with at a level above a Twitter attack piece, and to permit nuance and an appreciation that "its complicated". The BLP violations are particularly concerning. As editors at J. K. Rowling (e.g. User:SandyGeorgia) know, we can't go around randomly inserting "anti-trans" into such articles. This edit that VIR lists, sums up this activist approach that is WP:NOTHERE.

If this was writing about global warming or vaccine safety or the efficacy of a cancer treatment, an editor taking this approach to sourcing, to discrediting sources simply for believing the Wrong Thing would have been removed long ago. I don't think Raladic's approach is compatible with editing this contentious topic. -- Colin°^Talk 17:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt Vanamonde93's "I have yet to see evidence in this discussion of that occurring" well it's in the links and on this very page. Maybe you just have to think about it a bit more. Have you got an explanation for this edit. It is clearly misleading as I explained. That SEGM is supposedly "an anti-trans hate group" is unsourced, but also doesn't change whether the article written by 20 international academics (who as VIR says, almost all have no link to that group) is reliable or not. It simply isn't one of our sourcing tests any more than "Drives a Tesla therefore is as evil as Musk" forms any part of our assessments. WP:FRINGE is about extreme ideas, not about organisations (who have many beliefs), nor about papers that are published in Archives of Disease in Childhood or the BMJ or reports that are accepted by the healthcare experts of England and Scotland. SLPC has its qualities and limitations but it is no more qualified to discredit a systematic review in the BMJ than Guide Dogs for the Blind.

The repeated "anti-trans" claims are no more worthy of Wikipedia's time than to suggest that because NICE determine some anti-cancer drug lacks evidence of efficacy and has evidence of harm, that NICE is a pro-cancer organisation. It really is that level of argumentation we are dealing with here. You asked for sourcing of "anti-trans" but that's not how it works. You don't start with a claim you want to make and go find a source to back it up. That way would end up with our lead saying "Elon Musk is the worlds richest man-baby", something eminently sourcable to people who don't like him. And proving a negative is hard, because people don't go around writing "Elon Musk is not the world's richest man-baby". What do sources that are attempting neutrality say? What do sources that aren't fighting legal battles against bigoted politicians say? Wikipedia is not an activist blog and we do not assess our sources according to the prejudices and hatred of social media and the blogsphere. Sourcing in a contentious topic is hard, and it needs editors who are prepared to put their prejudices and hatred aside. That is not in evidence here. -- Colin°^Talk 21:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 I'm aware "sourceable isn't sufficient for inclusion" but the text frequently added claims a consenus of experts/academics/healthcare professions/people agree X, when in fact the source can only support text saying "Activist and legal expert witness Dr Bloggs thinks X". That's a frequent silo-thinking mistake made by activists, who can cherry pick sources making personal claims (or unreliable sources like blogs making sweeping claims they have no justification for). Wrt making stuff up, well there is the claims SEGM published a paper that was actually written by a large number of non-SEGM academics and published in a reputable journal. And the invented rules WAID mentions on talk that actually have no bearing on RS judgement.

Wrt "the insertion of content that misrepresents a source" look at this edit on Cass Review which added this isn't a factor when using alternative methods such as bowel vaginoplasty or peritoneal vaginoplasty that do not require such tissue. with summary Fix statement around penile inversion vaginoplasty and add the mention of alternative methods that don't require them from the report directly claiming the Cass Review supports the sentence they added (changed from p178 to p180). But the report on p178 says Impact on subsequent genital surgery. 14.41 If puberty suppression is started too early in birth-registered males it can make subsequent vaginoplasty (creation of a vagina and vulva) more difficult due to inadequate penile growth. In some transgender females this has necessitated the use of gut in place of penile tissue, which has a higher risk of surgical complications. and p180 says 14.57 For transgender females, there is benefit in stopping irreversible changes such as lower voice and facial hair. This has to be balanced against adequacy of penile growth for vaginoplasty, leaving a small window of time to achieve both these aims. Not only does the report fail to support "this isn't a factor when..." but directly contradicts that to say the exact opposite: it is a problem and the alternatives are bad. -- Colin°^Talk 11:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable that Raladic should comment openly on "anti-trans editors" which is a personal attack worthy of sanction. But then User:Black Kite openly describes the person filing this complaint and anyone complaining about activists as "anti-trans POV pushers". For the record, I'm deeply sympathetic to the trans situation and am horrified at the US political direction. But the those campaigning seems to have forgotten to argue with integrity, and misinformation is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The blogs and magazine articles and opinion pieces and random PDFs by activists do not trump WP:MEDRS. Anyone thinking otherwise has no business editing an encyclopaedia. Sometimes the facts are inconvenient and disappointing. Assuming any editors countering misinformation in this area are "anti-trans" is not acceptable. It may surprise some, who clearly haven't thought much about it, that this issue is complicated. That there are a variety of opinions on trans healthcare among professionals. We do not need editors or admins whose understanding of the issue is a simple one of Good (myself) and Evil (anyone who disagrees with me). Indeed, anyone who doesn't understand how compilated this topic is, doesn't warrant judging contentious topics at all. -- Colin°^Talk 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, can we have a logged warning against User:Black Kite for "treating Wikipedia as a battleground". Or are admins allowed to label their underlings in any negative way they like with impunity, and to quite openly state that they are fundamentally prejudiced in support of Raladic no matter what edits they make. -- Colin°^Talk 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Evathedutch

I agree with Colin's concern the most based on what I've seen on the WPATH and SEGM pages. For example with respect to the "fringe medical organization" claim here It made me think about the label "fringe" within a contentious topic. I find that people go around saying "they're fringe" when they disagree more than people go around saying "they're not fringe" when they agree. So what is reasonable counter evidence that an org is not fringe? We have to go back to what the WP:FRINGE bar is for fringe. WP says "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The fact that SCOTUS heard a case related to youth gender medicine, and the Economist quoted a SEGM representative in their coverage of it, is very strong evidence to me that SEGM doesn't meet the WP:FRINGE bar for fringe. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/12/02/a-big-transgender-rights-case-heads-to-americas-supreme-court

Most concerning was when Raladic overpowered a WPATH edit after very strong sources were presented and several editors came to a reasonable consensus. Raladic says consensus doesn't matter in very selective ways, consistent with WP:ACTIVIST.

PS I will bring the above to the respective talk pages as well. Evathedutch (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking note: I've moved the above into its own section, in line with how AE is formatted. The above was originally posted as an inline reply to Colin's 10 December statement; see Special:Diff/1262314526. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of issues with "fringe" for which it shouldn't be based on testimonial adjudication alone

1) People can and do say "fringe" more easily than people who say "not fringe", so a pure source on source only scale is tilted to begin with

2) What people mean when they say fringe may not meet the bar for what wikipedia means for WP:FRINGE That's way we should take other indications for evidence

Also landscapes of contentious topics can change so we should give less weight to dated sources.

Of course SCOTUS is not there to adjudicate if SEGM is fringe, but the Economist tacitly adjudicate SEGM as "not fringe" by including their point of view where its particular field is central to the SCOTUS case. I am not sure it falls under WP:MEDRS. But if even if I take it in that direction, I would make the same #1/#2 case but the evidence would be that they commissioned a systematic review (SR) of evidence with McMaster University which is known as the birthplace of evidence-based medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39252149/ Again, McMaster is not going to say "SEGM is not fringe", and its unreasonable to expect that, but the action of the SR demonstrates that. If you look on the WP:MEDRS page it shows how SRs are at the top of the pyramid. Now, if we go full WP:MEDRS direction, that many sources on that article have to be reevaluated (I don't think sociology counts as medical). This brings me back to supporting Colins point about Raladic engaging in WP:ACTIVIST behavior by invoking WP policy selectively when it suits ones objective. Evathedutch (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking note: I've also moved the above into Eva's section, in line with how AE is formatted. This was originally posted as an inline reply to Simonm233's 19:31, 10 December 2024 statement. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

I was pinged and have glanced over this. Vanamonde93, I believe the answer to your question is that Wikipedia editors in this area do not operate via the Wikipedia:Amnesia test, but instead begin with certain ground truths in mind, so that the reliability of a source can be determined by comparing the source's POV against the ground truth. So, e.g., we know that "Organization X" is anti-trans, so sources that say they're anti-trans/pseudoscientific/bad can be tentatively assumed to be reliable until proven otherwise, and sources that say they're researchers/pro-science/pro-children/good can be assumed to be unreliable.

This sounds worse than it really is; in fact, we all do this. It's much faster and more efficient to say "Hmm, supports an obvious conspiracy theory – yeah, we can just dump this one" than to do a full evaluation of every source. But when the real world has strong divisions, we often end up with some editors whose ground truth is that the subject is "X" in other conflict with other editors whose ground truth is that the subject is "not-X", and there is no opportunity for compromise. They will never agree on which sources are reliable, because a source's reliability is determined by the source's POV, and there can only be one Right™ POV. Consider, e.g,. whether the Liancourt Rocks belong to Korea or to Japan. The reliable sources are the ones that agree with my POV, and the unreliable sources are the ones that agree with your POV. In this subject area, one of the ground truths held by one side is that WPATH's current recommendations represent a pro-trans and pro-science position. This is not entirely unreasonable, except that we then extend it to say that any person or organization that disagrees in any way is both anti-trans and pseudoscientific by definition.

The community is not set up to manage this kind of conflict well. In the past, we have reduced these conflict either by suppressing the POV whose editors are least suited to playing our games (see, e.g., WP:GAMERGATE) or by developing a durable supermajority against the minority POV (as we did, e.g., in WP:ARBSCI). I don't think we should take either of these approaches in this subject area, but we don't have many other tools left. But AE admins can rejoice: solving this problem is outside your remit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223, about "its particular field", I suspect that part of the problem is that it's a multidisciplinary subject. Queer studies may have a different view than sociology. Specialists in gender-care medicine may have a different view than specialists in evidence-based medicine. Ethicists may have a different view than political scientists. Which one of the fields has the True™ answer about what's mainstream and what's fringe in the trans movement? Maybe there is more than one mainstream view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

@Vanamonde93: regarding the description of the LGB alliance as anti-trans there are quite a few sources presently in LGB Alliance that support the description

Various quotes demonstrating reliable sources call LGB alliance anti-trans, trans-exclusionary or similar terms

The Times Cites founder Simon Fanshawe on the founding of LGB Alliance "He and 21 other signatories were concerned support for transgender policies, such as allowing primary school children to change their gender identity too quickly, are harming gay people and undermining women’s rights."
BBC Reports on the LGB Alliance opposing bans on Conversion Therapy "The letter was coordinated by the LGB Alliance, which describes itself as promoting the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men. It expressed concern that "the current push to ban conversion therapy... is being used as political cover to promote an affirmation-only approach to gender identity"."
The Guardian describes one of the founders of the LGB alliance, apparently in an attempt to defend themselves against anti-trans claims saying, "The organisation LGB Alliance was founded to “prevent the dissemination of the lie of gender identity”" And, let's be honest, calling Gender identity a lie is WP:SKYBLUE anti-Trans rhetoric.
Pink News says of the LGB Alliance's attempt to stall or prevent gender recognition laws, "The LGB Alliance has been warned by the UK’s advertising watchdog over “potentially misleading” claims in two paid-for newspaper adverts in Scotland. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it received a number of complaints about the newspaper advert, called ‘Press Pause on the Gender Recognition Bill’. The ASA said the anti-trans group’s advert was “potentially misleading” because “the legislation it refers to is still under consultation”."
In Journal of Gender Studies, K. Guyan says "LGB Alliance (2019) (a UK trans-exclusionary LGB organization) argued the NRS proposal 'would suggest that other sexual orientations exist beyond attraction to the opposite sex, same sex or both sexes' (p. 2) and requested that the census not include the term 'Other sexual orientation' as a response option"
In Policy Studies Journal, Turnbull-Dugarte and McMillan say "The case of the LGB Alliance charity is of note. The trans-exclusionary position of the organization engendered significant debate among the LGBT+ community in Scotland."
In Metaphilosophy, Monique says "some trans‐exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain)"
In International Journal of Sociology, McLean says "Furthermore, the LGB Alliance has argued that ‘attempts to compel women to believe that male genitals can be female is a form of sexual assault, an attack on the rights of lesbians and a threat to their very existence’" This statement is housed in a section of the essay called "Anti-trans tropes".

So, basically, what we have here is an organization founded to exclude trans people (it's literally in the name) that advocates against gender identification laws and against conversion therapy bans and that regularly issues statements that make it clear the organization's focus is anti-trans activities. It's actually been very frustrating trying to navigate two editors with a long history of behaviour that looks a lot like tag-teaming [117] consistently pov pushing that this organization and its founders are not anti-trans despite this broad preponderance of evidence including several WP:BESTSOURCES such as the International Journal of Sociology. I think the frustration felt at such antics should, at the very least, buy Raladic some grace. Or possibly even result in a boomerang. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evathedutch I suspect one of the good admins observing this page is going to instruct you to refactor you comment so that it doesn't appear to be part of Colin's. Might want to get a head start on that. Notwithstanding that I think you're missing an important part of WP:FRINGE's definition: "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Neither the Supreme Court of the United States, nor the Economist is appropriate as a basis to adjudicate whether a medical organization is fringe. That would fall to WP:MEDRS compliant sources ideally but, at the very least, would come from reliable sources in medicine, psychology and sociology to make such an adjudication. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970is of course correct I should have notified them and I apologize for the oversight. I'm rather sick today and it appears I missed a rather important process there. Again, apologies for the mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I needed to use almost all of my word count to provide @Vanamonde93 with the requested quotes. I can try to cut but without cutting down those quotes it's going to be challenging to get to 500 words. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

Sure, that second AfD was a bit overkeen but it is hard not to see this report as an attempt to take an opponent off the field. The suggestion of a boomerang is not unreasonable but I'd rather that Raladic chill out a little bit and Void chill out a big bit and a half so that nobody needs to get sanctioned. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

I think it best, if both parties took a 3-month break from the contentious topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Raladic has retired. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (LunaHasArrived)

I wanted to point out that over the last couple of months Raledic has made a huge effort to Wikipedia (going back 2000 contribs on her page takes you to Nov 5th) including the effort of moving the LGBT pages to LGBTQ+ following consensus. I would like to suggest that any sanction take into account how it would effect her area of editing where she contributes massively. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Sweet6970)

I see that I have been accused here, above, by Simonm223 of tag-teaming, though without being notified of this. This is probably the discussion which Simonm223 is referring to:[118] WP:TAGTEAM includes It is often difficult to tell the difference between tag teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team". The recent complaint brought by Raladic at ANI may be relevant background here. [119] Yes, I often agree with Void if removed – that’s because he is usually right. (Or to put it another way, he often agrees with me because I am usually right.)

I have come into contact with Raladic in various gensex articles. We often disagree. But Raladic’s behaviour over the Allison Bailey article is more than a content dispute – it is disruptive (and rather odd) behaviour. As VIR has mentioned, there was a disagreement about whether Bailey should be in the category of ‘Anti-transgender activist’; she is not described in that way by reliable sources, so this goes against WP:CAT. I initiated a discussion on this.[120] Raladic did not take part in the discussion, but unilaterally changed the wording, without providing any source [121]. At the same time, she proposed the article for deletion. So there is a contradiction here: Bailey is ‘known’ for founding LGB Alliance, but at the same time she is not notable enough for an article. The deletion discussion was closed as keep and rename to the case name. [122] She (Raladic) then immediately opened a new proposal to delete the new/renamed article, despite the clear ‘verdict’ to keep and rename the article to the legal case. This is disruptive and a waste of editors’ time. The impression I get is that Raladic is so opposed to Allison Bailey that if she is not described as an anti-transgender activist, then she (Raladic) wants Wikipedia not to mention her at all. This is not sensible, neutral, editing. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Black Kite’s complaint about alleged anti-trans POV pushers being civil and policy-compliant – is BK saying that being polite and complying with Wikipedia policies should be grounds for being sanctioned? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Raladic

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

Raladic, how much of an extension are you looking for? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Raladic is granted an extension to 750 words. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think very much of this is actionable: the disagreements about whether things are FRINGE, secondary, NPOV, etc. are fundamentally content disputes, and what VIR describes as misrepresentation or misleading comments looks more like reasonable disagreements or ambiguities to me. I do think everyone here could be a bit more careful with the revert button, particularly when it comes to reïnstating bold changes without discussion. That's true of Raladic (change, revert, adding it back without discussion; change, revert, adding it back while discussion is ongoing), but it's also true of VIR (change, revert, adding it back without discussion). While WP:BRD is not policy, it does reflect best practice in this area; once your addition has been contested by revert, it's time for discussion then, not for trying to gain the advantage with another revert. Besides that informal note, I'm not seeing a need for any action here at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more inclined to go with a logged warning for edit warring on both sides, and if it keeps up after that maybe step up to enforced BRD for those editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be on board with a logged warning for Raladic: there seems to be more of a pattern of edit warring (e.g., also at Cass Review, where I've just imposed the BRD requirement), and Vanamonde's comments below are also relevant. I don't think I've seen enough evidence to justify a logged warning for VIR at this time (the one edit I mentioned doesn't really establish very much); if people want to make an affirmative case for sanctioning him, it might be easier to do that in a separate report. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Void if removed, should be sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues that most of this isn't actionable - whether a source is fringe or not is something the editor body needs to reach a consensus on, and talk page discussions are the way to do that. There are a few diffs above that are potentially concerning, but I cannot see the sources in question. I would like to hear from Raladic about what evidence supports the "anti-trans advocacy" claim here, and the "fringe medical organization" claim here (I cannot access the sources: I would like to see a quote, to determine whether sources are being misrepresented). Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing is obviously correct in saying that many users are not setting aside their preconceived POVs in this topic, but that in and of itself is not sanctionable. Ignoring our content and behavioral policies when it is convenient to a given POV, on the other hand, is sanctionable. A lot of the evidence presented above is still not what I would consider actionable. In a topic as polarized as this one, arguments over the reliability of sources are inevitable. I agree with Colin above that discounting a source solely for its POV isn't appropriate, but I have yet to see evidence in this discussion of that occurring.
That said, I do see several instances of Raladic pushing the envelope. This edit in particular bothers me: it is very obviously an attempt to discredit the letter in a manner that no source is doing. That edit is partially mitigated by Raladic's own subsequent modification, but it is part of a tendency to use the strongest possible language for one set of parties in this conflict. This is also evident in the other examples I asked for evidence on above: the sources evidently support language in the same general direction as what Raladic added, but they have chosen to use the most strident language possible, which is the opposite of the approach this topic calls for. I would log a warning for battleground conduct, including edit-warring, for Raladic specifically, though I can see a case for logging an edit-warring warning for VIR as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: To keep this brief: I am well aware that being sourceable isn't sufficient for inclusion, but the insertion of content that misrepresents a source, or is simply unsourced, is clear-cut sanctionable misconduct, whereas the insertion of content that is UNDUE is much harder to judge and often out of scope for AE. If you want me to elaborate on that general principle, please ask on my talk page. As to the diff you cite, what I'm seeing are assertions and counter-assertions as to the authors' reliability and impartiality, but if you want us to judge the claim that Raladic is actively making stuff up to discredit the authors, we will need more detail. Editors are allowed to challenge the reliability of sources, provided they have a factual basis for doing so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: Multiple users say above that you dismissed a source as written by SEGM, when it was written by authors mostly not affiliated with that group (point 7 in the OP). How do you answer this claim? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a request on my talk page, VIR and Raladic may both have an extra 250 words. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this have not changed after reading the latest posts: I see enough evidence of misconduct for a logged warning for Raladic against treating Wikipedia as a battleground, but I don't see enough evidence for anything more. This is a fraught topic, which requires strict adherence to our PAGs. A good many arguments here amount to discounting sources based on POV rather than reliability. There is precedent for doing so, but that requires a wider discussion, outside the scope of AE. I don't see sufficient evidence presented in this discussion to move to ARBCOM, but it's quite possible the wider dispute requires it, and we cannot of course prevent anyone from filing a case request. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of this and would support a closure along those lines—the heat–light ratio here is not improving with time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep intending to take a look at this since I know there's been a lot of activity. And now I do so and find that Void if removed (789), Raladic (864 but who I give a break to as the person being reported), Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (617), Sean Waltz O'Connell (688), Colin (825), amd Simonm223 (987) (or exactly half the non-uninvolved admin commenting) have exceeded the 500 word limit (or in Raladic's case the extension to 750). That horse is clearly out of the barn but I note it for anyone moving forward in this discussion. Please don't wait on me to close this. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I don't think anyone needs to and in fact I don't think anyone should cut down previous comments per WP:TALK#REVISE (this is what I meant by That horse is clearly out of the barn. My intent was instead to note it so that if anyone above word limits (or below but may be going above) would ask for an extension. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is very good at combating homophobic, misogynistic and racist behaviour. It does not, at the moment, appear to be very good at combating anti-trans POV pushers (unless they are obviously offensive), because many are civil and policy-compliant. The cynic in me wonders if this is trying to remove an editor who is trying to push back against some of this behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Evathedutch: Please keep your comments to your own section. At WP:AE, statements from each individual must be made in separate sections per person. I have moved your contributions to #Statement by Evathedutch; please keep any future comments of yours in this AE report in that place. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Indian History. Allied Publishers. 1988. pp. B_131. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4.

[2] ttps://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/ex-plo-spokesman-rashid-khalidi-explains-away-oct

[1]

[1]