Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive340

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

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

Appealing user

Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from BLPs related to post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive327#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05 and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[1] [2]

Since my topic ban was scaled back to only include BLPs, I've engaged in a lot of productive discussion and editing within the AMPol 2 topic area. Probably the biggest achievement has been consensus at Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) on political positions - ending a dispute that has been ongoing for over a decade - but I've also engaged in routine maintenance and vandalism removal across the topic a. Lifting the restriction on BLPs would allow me to do the same in the entire scope of AMPol 2, including handling the sorts of routine vandalism that occurs on political BLPs. I think my pattern of behavior and achievements in the seven months or so since the ban has shown my general commitment to productive behavior and conduct within the topic area. Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To respond quickly to starship.paint: from my recollection, that first bit was in a fairly contentious period where frequent edits were being made, and discussion on the talk page was ongoing. The day of those edits the discussion was this (Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties), and edits I made there were in response to talk page discussion on the matter - specifically, in response to comments byCarlp941 and BootsED. The tl:dr of the broader dispute at hand was that a consensus had been reached to add content to the main page, but the consensus didn't actually follow specific reliable sources. After further research and discussion, this consensus was modified pursuant to reliable sources. During the interim period here, the page was fairly tumultuous on both mainspace and talkspace. If there was a technical 1RR violation there, I apologize, although the full context of talk page discussions is important here.

As to ongoing reverts - many of these are responding to vandalism or source hijacking maintenance. Unfortunately, political party pages are frequently subject to drive-by edits from users or IPs, specifically in the "ideology" or "faction" section of said pages. The most common mode of operation is to delete reliably sourced content or add content (without adjusting current reliable sources - creating the misconception existing sources support it). These drive-by editors generally do not explain their edit, nor do they stay behind to discuss. As it stands, we have strong consensus on the page for specific wordings in these sections, hashed out either through discussion or RfCs. Other reverts in this thread are generally in response to specific issues with sourcing or the addition of incorrect information/removal of correct information. I could provide context for each one if you absolutely desired - most of them were hashed out on the talk page. But broadly I would just categorize this as maintenance of a page that receives a lot of edits. Toa Nidhiki05 17:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To respond succinctly, starship.paint:

• The first one you listed ([3]) is two things: unexplained removal of reliably sourced content with a talk page consensus (removing center-right - very sloppy at that, as they didn't remove the citations), and also source hijacking (adding that only the "the populist faction" of the party receives support from specific groups).
• The second one ([4]) kind of relates to question on whether party platforms in and of themselves are the most reliable source for what parties support. As far as I know this dispute has not actually been resolved, but the other editor in question here, JohnAdams1800, noted the specific dispute in the second edit ended with an impasse on amiable terms. I'd consider this broadly a low-level dispute, personally. Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So for those specifically starship.paint:

• For June 24, the sources don't actually back up the claims. Putting aside how poorly worded "it has been argued" is (who is arguing this?), the sources cited don't actually mention neoconservatism or populism at all. Just try searching either - you won't find it. There might be merit to talking about factional divides, but those added sources don't back up the claim, which means the content can't be added.
• For July 31, that was part of the low-level neoliberalism dispute JohnAdams1800 mentioned (see: this talk page discussion). Several editors objected to identifying the party as having a core ideology of protectionism. The discussion kind of stalled out and is probably worth looking more closely into. On the face of it that content you mention could be noteworthy and I might have been too reckless in reverting the whole thing, but it's also not an especially important bit of information (USMCA was a fairly major trade deal, and the Biden admin isn't really noteworthy to what the GOP views trade as). Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should support if Toa has not been involved in much controversy. Toa's talk page archives does have one controversy, a violation of 1RR on 19 June (another controversy is present but I think it was minor and resolved). 1RR: 01:34 / 21:35 / 21:35 again Since then, Toa has carried out a high number of reverts at the same article. 24 June / 25 June / 2 July / 3 July / 15 July / 21 July / 22 July / 24 July / 29 July / 31 July / 11 August / 15 August / 19 August / 20 August / I am not saying these reverts are bad, but perhaps we can get Toa's comments on the above (1RR and the volume of reverts). starship.paint (RUN) 15:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, I skimmed through the "Proposal: "Big tent" for both parties" discussion and your reverts above. On the surface, based on the arguments brought forth and the sources brought forth, it seems that Toa's editing is within the bounds of reasonableness. But, perhaps Toa can offer more explanation for these three diffs in particular, as they seem to be separate from the issues in the other diffs: 24 July / 29 July / 31 July. starship.paint (RUN) 02:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toa, for the 24 June diff, I was actually interested on the part that you did not respond about. You removed However, it has been argued that the preference of urban voters, college graduates and high-income earners continues to favor non-populist Republicans from the neoconservative establishment Reference 1 and Reference 2. For the 31 July diff, you, in part, removed As of 2024, the last free trade agreement enacted was the USMCA in 2020, which replaced NAFTA while maintaining most of its provisions. No other free trade agreements have been enacted during the Trump or Biden administrations Reference starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now read the sources and Toa's explanation and I am satisfied with the explanation. At this moment I am supporting the repeal of the topic ban unless some other significant evidence is brought up that would force me to re-evaluate my position. starship.paint (RUN) 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting about this appeal, but don't know the full details about this dispute. I agree with User talk:Toa Nidhiki05 that our edit dispute was a low-level dispute, specifically regarding support for neoliberalism by the Republican Party over time. We have both made thousands of edits, and occasional edit conflicts are bound to arise. The pages about political parties and politicians are among the most contentious pages, with edit conflicts much more frequent. Users often try to impose their own views when editing. I personally don't edit most BLPs of politicians. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to speak out in support of Toa Nidhiki05. I am surprised that there is a ban on Toa's contribution to post-1992 United States politics in place, as I found the work he did on the Republican Party page to be very well done and reasoned. I found his comments during a debate on the "factions" of the party helpful, constructive, and showing out-of-the-box thinking that greatly helped us better understand the problem at hand. I even left a positive note of thanks on his talk page.

In regards to the revert violation, my understanding is that it occurred near the end of the 24-hour period and was an honest mistake. Toa really took to improving the factions and political position section of the article and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a lot of back and forth from editors during this time, some of whom were confused or mistaken about what was discussed as the discussion on the topic at hand had gotten disorganized on the talk page and spread out over multiple sections.

While a lot of editors simply used their own personal opinion or low-quality references, Toa stuck to finding and providing higher-quality journal articles that helped ground the debate. Looking back at Toa's original ban, I think I understand how editing on Wikipedia can make people very frustrated, especially when some individuals are quite clearly either trolling or mistaken. I think that understanding intent is an important aspect to consider when punishing editors, and while obviously one should always strive to maintain proper decorum, I think that Toa's heart and intent on Wikipedia is in the right place and deserving of this appeal. BootsED (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Give T.N. a chance to prove themselves. Lift the t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I will have time to review this tomorrow (Monday) and we need some input from other admins also, especially those who worked on the initial sanction and prior appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now reviewed the history, but before opining I'd still welcome input from admins who participated in the initial sanction discussion and/or the earlier appeal. This could include Guerillero, Vanamonde93, Bishonen, Swarm, Black Kite, and Seraphimblade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am okay with lifting the topic-ban, similar to the two comments below. However, if this is granted, I would suggest that Toa Nidhiki05 move cautiously in returning to these articles, as opposed to (for example) jumping into the most contentious BLPs about people involved in the current elections. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I had seen this but held off of commenting because I had wanted fresh eyes on it: but I suppose it's not getting enough attention. I skimmed Toa Nidhiki05's recent edits, and I did not find anything egregious, so I'm willing to accept an appeal. I reviewed the discussion of the Republican's political position, and while I believe the OP could be better about sticking to sources rather than personal opinion, so could everyone else in that discussion, and some were doing a lot worse. I assume, too, given the polarized nature of this topic, that any genuine infractions would have been brought up here, and none has been. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm seeing a fair bit of improvement from the time the topic ban was placed, so I think lifting the ban is worth a try. Toa Nidhiki05 is, I'm sure, well aware of what the result will be if the problems start up again, but that hasn't happened to date, so I think this is worth a shot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As this has been open for a fair bit of time, unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this appeal as successful. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Jaredlcravens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Jaredlcravens (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

arbitration enforcement topic ban of gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaredlcravens#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240905201500-Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Reason for sanction was "You have been sanctioned for clearly being unable to constructively edit on the topic of a person's gender."

Wikipedia page of Imane Khelif I edited (Imane's gender is currently being internationally disputed) says "Khelif was born female," and the sources cited for this are only news article quotes from Imane saying "I was born a female" and "I am a female."

I replaced Khelif "was born female" with "claims to have been born a female" because the sources cited do not evidence Khelif being a female, they only evidence her CLAIM of being female.

My comment to this revision was "Sources listed quote Imane as saying "I am a female," no evidence in these sources of Imane's biological sex. It is merely a claim. So the most factual way of stating this, and the statement that most accurately reflects the sources, is that Imane states or claims to be a woman."

This was a very objective, non emotional, topical comment. Not only do I believe my edit was the most factual and true according to the source, but I believe the comment in question was absolutely constructive. If you look at the arbitration log, you'll see that ScottishFinnishRadish has been continually sanctioning anyone who he/she disagrees with on the subject of sex/gender.

I would like the sanction removed, as I have done nothing to violate the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality decision and my comment was very constructive.

• Who is the sanctioning administrator, and in what way should I notify? I didn't see this anywhere in the instructions. Thanks. Jaredlcravens (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your attention, I appreciate it. It's very much an unsupported claim, as Khelif has offered, and there exists publicly, no evidence of Khelif's biological sex. People are capable of lying. "Khelif claims to be a woman" is the most factually and semantically correct way this can be stated. I understand that it would be unproductive and just plain poor writing to have the article on Theodore Roosevelt say he "claims to be male" but in a case like this where there's a legitimate dispute, wording should be approached in a much more careful and selective way. A medical doctor from a professional sports organization claims Khelif is a man, and several professional boxers and coaches in the league are very suspicions of that too. There's enough here to acknowledge that there's serious doubt, and because no evidence exists publicly, it's both false and irresponsible to use Khelif's verbal claim as fact in this article. For instance, you wouldn't allow us to say O.J. Simpson was innocent of the murder on his Wiki. Instead, "found not guilty" or "acquitted" is appropriate and factually true. Jaredlcravens (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No I'm not very experienced here, I assumed the user who sanctioned me would automatically receive notifications of this. I've followed the instructions as best as I could. Jaredlcravens (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• The cited source ([5]) states Both boxers have always competed in women’s divisions and there’s no indication that they identify as transgender or intersex, clearly indicating that this is not some dubious or unsupported claim, but rather stated as clear fact in the source's own voice. Inserting that the person "claims" that into the article, as though such a claim were otherwise unsupported, is therefore both a misrepresentation of the source and a violation of the biographies of living persons policy, and this editor is rather lucky to just be topic banned rather than indefinitely blocked given those. I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, it looks like Jaredlcravens has not, as is required, given notification about this appeal to the sanctioning administrator. If that is not shortly done, this can be procedurally closed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Jaredlcravens, is it somehow difficult for you to see that ScottishFinnishRadish signed the sanction notice on your talk page? And you need to leave them some notification; anything is better than nothing. I am starting to doubt whether you are competent to participate here at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Raladic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Void if removed (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

1. 14:25, 10 January 2023 Early warning by another user following their recent edit warring block (linked below) in the CTOP area and a COI warning by another user just prior due to the appearance of the user being here for promotion of a singular topic
2. 11:21, 16 April 2023 POV pushing (revert, Sideswipe9th)
3. 15:45, 13 October 2023 POV, removal of historic context of TERF movement (revert, Loki)
4. 13:57, 13 October 2023 Further attempts to try to whitewash Gender critical feminism of its origins
5. 22:19, 15 October 2023 More POV attempts trying to remove GCF from its TERF origins
6. 14:53, 21 October 2023 More POV attempts trying to whitewash Gender Criticam feminism, removal of RS
7. 11:10, 22 December 2023 Another POV attempt at deleting the hate group designation as they will try again below in June 2024 (revert, Snokalok)
8. 14:31, 31 December 2023 NPOV trying to whitewash Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy (revert, Pepperbeast)
9. 10:05, 29 January 2024 POV removal of pseudoscience note (revert, LesbianTiamat)
10. 19:58, 5 June 2024 POV removal of RS, repeating SPLC removal they also attempted in December 2023 (revert, Amanda A. Brant)
11. 16:11, 6 June 2024 POV, Repeat removal of the same RS content from another article (revert, Zenomonoz)
12. 21:57, 21 June 2024 POV removal of RS of the historic evolvement of TERF and GCF terms (revert, Raladic)
13. 10:59, 10 June 2024 POV promotion of furthering ROGD fringe theories
14. 15:46, 8 July 2024 More continuation of the same FRINGE POV pushing, RGW disruption as called out by The Hand That Feeds You
15. 08:57, 31 August 2024 POV removal of that country's largest medical organizations criticizing the restriction of PBs (revert, Snokalok)
16. 08:14, 30 August 2024 It seems they now decided to start WP:HOUNDING me personally and get involved in articles they never had any involvement in
17. 09:48, 31 August 2024 More WP:HOUNDING to the list, commenting on a project they have never been involvd in and accusing me of canvassing on a discussion they also have never shown any involvement with

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 21:45, 19 December 2022‎ Edit warring block in CTOP area

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

• 08:57, 23 January 2023
• 22:14, 8 June 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has shown a continuous repeated pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and arguing with users. Their editing appears to be a pattern of a WP:SPA (editing almost exclusively on about 10 articles(talk)) with the sole intent of furthering Gender criticism feminism as a non-fringe movement and erasure of its origins, as well as the WP:PROMOTION of their personal beliefs and Gender critical organizations (for which they also received a COI warning by another user over a year ago, which was just deleted without addressing it).

The user appears to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but instead only to promote their personal beliefs/WP:POVs (many of which have been in opposition of WP:HID) on this and continuous arguing with any editors that fall into the trap of trying to do so. Of their 1,500 edits, only 28% of their edits have actually been to the mainspace, of which at least 33% had to be reverted by other users(at least the ones tagged with mw-revert, likely many more that were manual reverts) due to (as the above Diffs give a bit of a highlight of and were reverted content) continuous WP:POV pushing. As the above diff history shows, this isn't a single once off, but at this point, a two year long, steady pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, much of which the majority of their editing has been in talk page arguing. It is especially egregious that some of their editing is (trying to) remove the same things again, months after they were previously reverted. Their continuous pattern of WP:CIVILPOV pushing and arguing in talk pages with long WP:Wall of text to wear down others is systemic. They usually always have a long answer ready after someone reverts their POV-pushing in the talk page on why their edit was right, often WP:TAGTEAMing with others that support their ideological views. At this point, I do not believe that these arguments, or the edits to the main space (much of which was reverted POV pushing) are a productive addition to the project, so I request a WP:TOPICBAN from WP:GENSEX topics, broadly construed.

@Sweet6970, Wikipedia has a higher standard against the WP:PROMOTION of hateful transphobic views than the UK (see WP:HID/WP:NQP). Raladic (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 you missed on June 5th that immediately after their self-revert, the immediately re-reverted and removed the information again out of the lead. Just as they then did on June 6 from the other article, after having been reverted already on June 5, basically trying to ram through their POV on the other article after failing on the first one. Please also note that this POV push had started in December of 2023([6], [7]) as YFNS has pointed out as further evidence below in their statement (and which had been settled already by NPOVN, so the June 5/6th incidence was a covert repeat attempt against settled consensus. Raladic (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• AE notice given

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.

• This warning was a turning point for me and I definitely took it to heart, and I have to say I have learned an enormous amount since then from this editor. Despite regular disagreements, I consider them fair and even handed and I have improved my own contributions as a result. Certainly I was far too combative early on, but I've definitely toned it down in the last 18 months, especially after getting involved in subjects where WP:MEDRS applies.

• Here I simply changed the text to match the wording of the main article. I felt this was more consistent, and that the arguments for "controversy" over "discredited" should not be rehashed on another page. This is currently the consensus wording, so I'm not sure why there's an issue here?

• The 22 December edit was a standard disagreement over content and is wrongly described in the report as an "attempt at deleting the hate group designation" which isn't even mentioned.

• On January 29th I reinstated the lede and asked the editor responsible to stop edit warring and take it to talk.

• In the June 5th edit I noted "Hate group" had been added to the lede of the SEGM page but not the body, which I removed because I didn't think the source supported it but I immediately self-reverted as I had erred and read the wrong source! I then moved it to the body per WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY and WP:SPLC which states SPLC's hate group designations are not necessarily DUE for the lede.

• This June 6th edit was because the source was simply not terribly good (a substack reposted by a non-notable publication), but it was replaced with a better one in a later edit so I had no further objections.

• The 21st of June edit was to remove material from the lede which had just previously been disputed in the body as not due for wikivoice because it was opinion. I think that should have been discussed on talk, but since it was reverted I left it. If there is no appetite among a group of editors for a discussion there's little point in raising one so it makes sense to simply move on in that situation.

• The June 10th edit - systematic reviews are not FRINGE, so I dispute this description of this discussion. Turban's paper on sex ratios is contradicted by systematic reviews, so it is entirely valid to raise on talk whether it should be given that level of prominence, or should be placed in context (ie, the conflict between self-report survey information and clinical observation).

• The 31 August edit is mostly a reinstatement of the previous wording, but also a trimming down to remove bloat. This section is supposed to demonstrate the evolving use of puberty blockers in the UK. I don't think an episode of woman's hour mentioning the NHS had updated its website is the best source for that. Likewise the claim attributed to the BMA (the trade union and professional body for doctors) is not supported by the source, and saying in 2022 it supports "self-id" is irrelevant to the timeline of the NHS backing away from puberty blockers. I think this should be more concise for the reader and stick to the most important points, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A logical next step would have been to raise this on talk, and I may have got round to doing that myself today to see what other editors thought, were it not for this AE request.

• I don't think that replying on the NPOV noticeboard is hounding - I was simply offering helpful information that there may have been some confusion as the editors appeared to be talking about two different sources.

• WRT the LGBT->LGBTQ rename I think it is fair that if a page move that is expected to instigate a category rename that affects tens of thousands of pages it should be seen by a good range of people, and only notifying one project could possibly skew that. This is not hounding, merely a coincidence. I have to say though, I'm not sure of the proper protocol here and some advice would be helpful - is it possible to raise concerns of WP:VOTESTACKING without also violating WP:AGF? As in, I am assuming this is done in good faith and not wishing to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, I just think the end result is too narrow an audience for such an impactful change, and it would have been better to err on the side of more eyes rather than fewer.

WRT the edits to Gender-critical feminism, there are differences of opinion, and those are evident on talk. I don't think a few edits out of context cover the amount of good faith effort I've made to read the sources and try to present what they actually say with NPOV. If most of my contributions are on talk, that is because GENSEX is an area where consensus is incredibly difficult to achieve and requires huge amounts of discussion and source evaluation, something which I have spent time doing simply because I find it interesting. I also endeavour to make changes conservatively via talk first because I know how sensitive the subject is. Sometimes I make bold changes, and if reverted try and follow BRD. I try and avoid anything that can be construed as edit warring.

As for edits in other areas, at the start of the year I tried to branch out into creating pages on the Slow Horses book series but, frankly, I got sucked in by the release of the Cass Review in April. I would ask anyone to read my contributions on Cass Review and Puberty Blocker and see whether I am sticking to RS and attempting to neutrally present what RS say and actively seeking compromise, trying to advance NPOV in good faith. Void if removed (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further response Re: "LGB Alliance founders" issue.

As an inexperienced editor I wrongly thought that making a tiny correction would be a simple task, and I became mired in a WP:RGW crusade, with some snarky and WP:BLUDGEONING behaviour. With hindsight, this was a terrible way to learn the ropes, though I did discover an awful lot of policy and procedure along the way. After a combative start, and lots of pointless WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY I did get better at working toward compromise in this WP:CTOP. I brought the "founders" issue up again in July last year when a new secondary WP:RS appeared, but I was again in a minority and after admittedly too much pointless discussion the stick was dropped. What I (eventually) learned from all this was to not reflexively respond to every reply, because unless other editors agree with you a discussion is going nowhere.

Almost a year later I came across WP:WSAW and (along with the publication of another WP:RS) perhaps unwisely thought I could demonstrate my growth as an editor, and offer a constructive compromise to allow additional material to be added to the organisation's history to improve this page which otherwise doesn't work, and perhaps get some closure on a bad early chapter, but after what I thought was a promising start I was unsuccessful. While a disappointing experience, I believe it shows my commitment to improvement. Though I admit my mind hasn't changed, this isn't a topic I plan on ever raising again. Void if removed (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Barkeep49 RE: June 6th edit, please see fuller June 8th explanation about establishing DUE for lede with involved editor here. Void if removed (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Barkeep49 June 10th edit was referencing this discussion. Void if removed (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Barkeep49 RE 22 December - the report is wrong, this was not about "hate group" designation, it was about weight, balance and order of newly added content (and I mistakenly cited RSOPINION incorrectly). The "hate group" designation did not happen until June 4th 2024. When that designation did appear my argument was that it was due for the body, attributed per WP:SPLC, but for the lede I thought it should have secondary coverage in a WP:RS to establish WP:DUE. That is what I was arguing for, why I didn't think a reposted substack was sufficient secondary coverage, and wanted to hold off for notable secondary coverage. Void if removed (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Barkeep49 Re: 31 August I'm not sure how Void found this discussion The LGBT -> LGBTQ page move triggered mass category speedy renames affecting many hundreds of pages, including those on my watchlist, I went looking for why, drew the move closer's attention to my concern it possibly hadn't been seen by enough eyes for such a widespread change (which they responded to), and went to notify the one project that had been notified of the move that I had raised that concern as a courtesy, found a discussion in progress, and noted it there. Void if removed (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this, thought I should just pop in here as an old source to note that the POV pushing in regards to Void if removed's editing started from the very beginning of their account in 2021 and involved me. Their first edits were to start tendentiously arguing that Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet didn't count as being transgender, despite what the references said. They also began edit warring about that on the book article I had recently made about Forbes, The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes. They then disappeared for almost a year and then popped up at Mermaids (charity) in September 2022 to start pushing more of their same topic POV edits. And that has been the entirety of their editing ever since. In their three years, they have made two articles, a short author stub and Cass Review, which continues the same topic area issues. Silverseren^C 00:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When Void if removed first showed up on my radar I was concerned about their editing and raised these concerns on their talk page, as linked above. In the subsequent 18 months Void has become a much better Wikipedian, to the point where I think they are one of the best editors in this contentious topic domain. I say this even though we disagree on much. My experience is that Void is capable of listening to advice and genuinely seeks to improve as an editor.

Some of the diffs demonstrate revising text that then ends up saying less of what I assume Radalic would like the article to say. And? This is normal. Such articles attract poorly sourced negative shit or dubious claims that fail source verification. Editors disagreeing on the weight of a factoid or strength of a source is normal. Void is not one of the editors who add such poor material.

Void is capable of accurately describing and understanding the many sides in this culture war area and offering high quality sources to backup what they say. As someone who bangs on about MEDRS, I appreciate their focus on the best reliable sources in these medical topics. Void created the Cass review article, now a most important medical trans topic, and has helped defend it from misinformation.

When I find myself disagreeing with Void, I am relieved that I don't have to deal with (a) unsourced personal opinion (b) stuff sourced to some blog or low-quality magazine or (c) misinformation they credulously repeat.

Nearly all editors on these articles have a POV that becomes obvious fairly quickly. In a contentious topic domain, the point is you have to demonstrate an ability to work with editors who have a POV you don't like or agree with, and to push for the best sources and most accurate and fair text. I don't think the diffs presented are evidence of a problem with Void in this regard, despite the two paragraphs of WP:UPPERCASE that followed them.

WP:ACTIVIST says Editors operating in good faith, not seeking to promote specific views, will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors. Void has his opinions, sure, but I find those three C's in my experience editing with Void. I think they are here to build an encyclopaedia. -- Colin°^Talk 17:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Talk:Cass Review#BMA (percentage) would appear to be the flashpoint that provoked this arb request. IMO it is an enlightening read wrt POV pushing and encyclopaedia building. -- Colin°^Talk 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 for what it's worth, the edit summary of the 6th June edit makes it clear the issue is DUE for the lead, not WP:V. As you note, there was a link to the SPLC website that verified the text, and in fact Void added that ref to the body text mentioning this designation which the edit retained. The revert wrongly argues "SPLC is a WP:RS" as it isn't an independent source establishing DUE. -- Colin°^Talk 17:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start off by saying I was surprised to see void appear here and that they are an editor I have been able to compromise and cooperate with in the past. However a couple of their comments in their reply astonished me. Firstly, in the section about the tenth of June edit they seem to believe that they raised on talk wether to put Turban in context. From what's written Void wanted to remove the claim at minimum and the entire mention at maximum, I made the suggestion about context and received no feedback so to see Void claim they made the suggestion feels slightly insulting. Secondly whilst a single edit doesn't show overall behaviour this edit and the entire topic thread (both done post warning) are particularly bad in terms of being combative and failing to drop the stick. LunaHasArrived (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 Sorry to add on, but I don't think my second diff above has been considered (admittedly I failed to put a date on it) it was from 23 June this year so definitely seems applicable. 16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep49, combative may have been the wrong language to use. Void admits that their early behaviour on this topic was bludgeony and I struggle to see much improvement. With the recent discussion(June 2024) Void made up 15/35 of the comments and seems very keen to have the last word in any reply thread. Void has commited to not bringing this topic up again but the recent behaviour struck me as problematic and I feel like it should be considered. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate request by Raladic. It starts This user has shown a continuous repeated pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and arguing with users. [my emphasis] Without civil, rational, argument, Wikipedia cannot function. All this complaint amounts to is that Raladic disagrees with Void if removed on various content matters.

Raladic refers twice to something which is supposedly ‘whitewashing’ gender-critical feminism, as if being a gender-critical feminist is some sort of criminal offence. In fact, ‘gender critical’ views are protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010, and several people have successfully made legal claims for discrimination on the grounds of this philosophical belief.

I also note that this complaint starts with edits in January 2023, and refers to a block in December 2022. The heading for this page includes: Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VIR's FRINGE promotion has not been sitting right with me for a while and I think a GENSEX TBAN may be necessary. Their whitewashing of conversion therapy is particularly galling. Below are a few of the more egregious things I've seen from them:

1. Gender-critical feminism/Gender-critical feminism#Conversion therapy
   • Mass deletion of section on GCF views on conversion therapy[8], and then multiple walls of text on talk arguing for it's removal.[9]
   • Here they argued to remove material about the origins of the GC-movement in the 70s because it was from an encyclopedia of trans history.[10]
   • Additionally, I would be rich if I had a dollar for every time VIR notes the majority of RS are critical but says we should go out of our way not be (clear WP:FALSEBALANCE.[11] I'd be richer if I got another for every time they've argued we should scrap the article in favor of directly quoting books by GC feminists.
2. Conversion therapy/Gender exploratory therapy
   • For the past few months, they have repeatedly argued on talk the section should be rewritten to say GET isn't conversion therapy, often citing primary sources from GET practitioners and advocates.[12][13][14]
   • This continued on the fringe theories noticeboard when I sought input there
3. SPLC
   • As mentioned above, they have repeatedly tried to remove statements about organizations from the SPLC by calling them opinion pieces. They did this at SEGM[15], particularly at talk[16]
4. ROGD
   • Here they bludgeoned multiple editors while being told they were misrepresenting the sources[17].
   • They've also tried to add FRINGE sources to the further reading section.[18]
5. VIR has made 235 edits to the talk page for LGB Alliance and 59 to the article itself.
   • I believe they have a COI with the organization which I will not disclose here due to WP:OUTING, but which I will email an admin evidence of.

Having seen VIR frequently pop up in discussions, I believe their behavior can at best be described as WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:RGW, WP:CPUSH and WP:PROFRINGE. On VIR's talk page at the moment is a discussion where they claim that the majority of transgender children are "LGB kids with mental health issues" that are being transitioned improperly and will regret it... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I've emailed the evidence - in addition to what I believe is an overly close relationship with the LGBA, there's evidence of canvassing and relations with other prominent GCFs he's written about / cited.

I'm also tempted to write WP:YFNS's law: You are not allowed to say bigoted things about trans kids unless you generalize it to most of them - ie "you shouldn't have transitioned because you're just gay and mentally ill and will regret it" isn't ok but somehow "most trans kids..." is somehow fine. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I should link my essay. Anyways, I agree with YFNS' call for a GENSEX TBAN. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence provided by the user starting this complaint consists primarily of edits that are old and/or a few recent disputes. One of those disputes is on Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy, where VIR has been attempting to have the article be balanced in line with due weight. As the sources VIR discusses on the talkpage make clear, this is controversial and while there is not a widespread agreement that it's accurate, there is also not a widespread agreement that it's inaccurate. There is no solid evidence for or against it, yet some editors wish to exclude any and all information about the current debate over how it may be investigated further, because they think that it's unproven = WP:FRINGE. That's simply not true. For something to be fringe, it must either be conclusively disproven, or there must be widespread agreement that there is no way it can be reality. Editors know this, hence why they are trying to shut down any source discussion as RGW and not include any sources that investigate it as possibly true.

The other dispute is as Colin points out (Talk:Cass Review), and I have nothing to add to that. There are also claims of POV pushing through removal of SPLC designation of being a hate group. While they are considered reliable, that does not mean that information needs to be included, and explicitly states that their classifications should not automatically be included in the lead, yet it was readded fairly quickly after VIR moved it to the body, without any talk page discussion in at least one case (Genspect). Ultimately, this pattern follows in most of the other evidence - VIR makes a bold edit B that someone disagrees with, they are reverted, and nobody starts a talk page discussion about it - but there is no evidence that VIR has gone on to make the edit again without discussing though they may continue to improve the material in question via further edits.

Ultimately, there is one group of editors who wish for Wikipedia to only aspouse one viewpoint on this topic, even though they don't outwardly state that is their goal. As part of that, they are trying to remove users (and sources such as the Telegraph) that they dislike from Wikipedia. I trust that AE administrators will see through that. If anything, the filing user is hounding VIR, and the behavior of users who are ignoring or attempting to shut down valid DUE discussions on talk pages should be warned against doing so. I don't believe AE can implement it, but probably the best solution here is a BRD restriction - if any user reverts an edit in this topic area, they must explain their reasoning on the talk page to allow for others to chime in and discuss rather than hiding it in an edit summary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint is that VIR shows a continuous repeated pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and arguing with users ... the majority of their editing has been in talk page arguing ... They usually always have a long answer ready after someone reverts their POV-pushing in the talk page on why their edit was right. But doesn't this sound like how WP:BRD is supposed to function? starship.paint (RUN) 12:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Void definitely acts and edits in a way that often feels bad faith or blatantly POV, but with that said, I really can’t deny that he’s one of the less painful editors with a clear POV to collaborate with. That’s not to say his edits aren’t tendentious, but like, he is indisputably polite about them in a way that others aren’t.

He never cites British court cases to say that you as an editor are not allowed to compare the article on terfism to the article on white supremacy, he never goes on tirades about his wounded national pride in which he says that everyone with an American IP shouldn’t be questioning the weight to give British govt sources, he never blanks entire sections in favor of rewriting them in barely comprehensible English with no other changes, and he is sometimes willing to meet halfway.

Take that for what it’s worth.

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

• Void: it would be great if you could get your response down to 1000 words (seems to be at 1100 right now) but your request is granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Raladic please do not edit comments after people have responded to them. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to try and go through the 2024 edits reported here. I will not have time now to do all of them:
  • Jan 2024 - the revert seems to be restoring a long established LEAD, for which there was no talk page consensus to change and where Void was the 2nd person to revert someone attempting to BOLDLY change it. I am untroubled here.
  • 5 June - Void immeadiately self reverted (wasn't even like they were asked by someone to revert, they just realized their own mistake). Absent that it would have been a problem, but we do have that, so not a problem.
  • 6 June - The substack explanation doesn't fly as there was a link to the SPLC itself supporting the information included
  • 21 June - A single revert, along with the explanation provided doesn't trouble me on its own.
  • 10 June - I'm still making my way through this discussion, initial thoughts are credit for starting the discussion, but possible concerns about number of editors who had to explain Void was wrong (absent any indication that was a WP:LOCALCON).

  My initial impression is that this is an editor with a point of view but one who is, in 2024, squarely editing with-in Wikipedia norms and standards for a contentious topic, though if further evidence supports repeats of 6 June and talk page POV pushing (the worst case outcome for the 10 June discussion) this impression will change. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 10 June and 8 July: I've now read these two+ times. On the one hand having to reexplain the samethings to the same person is exhausting. On the other hand, I Void is bringing new sources, and reasonable enough (if not ideal) sources to the table. On the third hand, rebutting that is even harder and so a good faith effort from one person becomes a complete drain on the energies of others. But also this is an area of active academic research so there being new sources worth discussing also is an appropriate talk page endeavor. I may or may not come back to comment on this further.
  • 31 August I do not find the reasons for removing the BMA (that it was old and the section was too long) compelling. If there was a chance it needed updating it seems very possible to find out what the current BMA stance is on puberty blockers and so the right move would have been to update rather than remove. And why a major medical group was the right one to be removed in the name of preventing UNDUE coverage is not at all clear to me.
  • 30 August This is at a major noticeboard. Void clearly has shown an interest in the topic area. This to me explains how they found it and why they participated in something they'd never edited before - in fact that is the whole point of a noticeboard, to draw eyes on something from people who weren't already involved with it. I find nothing troubling about their responding to Raladic (though Void should probably attempt to avoid responding directly in the future where possible given the way Raladic is interpeting their actions).
  • 31 August I'm not sure how Void found this discussion, but their participation in it doesn't strike me as troubling either. I ran their interactions and I'm not seeing anything that immediately is troubling but I note it in case there is something there.
  • 22 December Went back here per Radilacs response to my first batch. WP:SPLC notes that they are reliable but their labeling shouldn't automatically be included in the LEAD. I'm curious in what circumstances Void would find it appropriate to include a gender related hate designation in the lead given their reluctance on these two.
  • I have also evaluated the diffs provided by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist. On the whole I don't find their evidence shows what they claim. I would encourage them to email paid-en-wpwikipedia.org their evidence of the COI and to let me know when they have done so, so that I may fully evaluate that claim.
• Having now reviewed all the December 2023 and later diffs from Radilac (plus the diffs from YFNS) , while I don't find everything Void did to be ideal and I find Void to have a clear POV, I see them to be generally following the contentious topics guidance for editors. Void does seem to often be holding a minority viewpoint, but the way they act on that is with-in the bounds of our policies and guidelines (both content and conduct), and I personally do not find repeatedly holding a minority viewpoint with-in a topic area to be sanctionable. It's a fine line an editor like this has to walk but for now Void appears to be walking it. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @LunaHasArrived: I've spent a lot of time already on this report (given the credible accusation of CIVIL POVPUSHING it felt like this deeper dive was necessary in order to confirm or not the allegation). The comment you link to doesn't strike me as combative (it strikes me as an attempt to find a new compromise). The discussion continues for a long time after that and from a skim of Void's comments I'm not seeing combative there. Can you link to 2 or 3 comments, along with the phrases you find combative? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Luna: thanks for your clarification. Things I think about when determining if I think someone's replies have bludgeoned the conversation, and thus crossed into disruptive editing (which is what is actually a policy/guideline violation as BLUDGEON is an essay) are the number of replies, the length of those replies relative to others contributions in the discussion, how many replies are in given chains and the closely related how often the editor lets someone else have the last word, and how frequently the negative patterns above repeat. I think Void is close to, but not over, that disruptive editing line but given their past history it's osmething they should be aware of. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Realized I should have pinged Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist about emailing the COI evidence and letting me know when that's been done so I could take a look at it. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've received the evidence. I need to examine the COI stuff more closely and have passed along the CANVASS information to ArbCom as acting on that is more their remit (or not). Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm broadly in agreement with Barkeep, but I'm not going to go into the level of detail they did as to avoid duplication. Having a POV, even one that is generally not the POV found in our articles is not in and of itself disruptive. When I'm looking at evidence of civil POV pushing I'm most interested in seeing examples of stonewalling or refusal to accept consensus, which is beyond simply taking part in discussions. Reasonable discussion from other points of view can actually serve to make our articles better, as it forces us to answer the arguments of a "devil's advocate," and makes it more likely to provide stronger sourcing or more balanced text in situations that may be overlooked when editors share a point of view.
  While not all of their editing was perfect, it appears to me that they are good faith contributor following community norms. They also have shown positive development as an editor while engaging in this topic. As such, I don't think there is much to do here, except perhaps for a reminder to bow out when it is clear that consensus isn't shifting, and not to avoid repeating arguments, especially when they're not gaining traction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Absent another admin weighing in with a contrary take I plan to close this in the next day or two with no action taken (though I do hope Void takes the feedback on board). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

The sequence of reverts:

1. 2024-06-30 IOHANNVSVERVS adds a new section
2. 2024-08-13 xDanielx removes it
3. 2024-08-13 IOHANNVSVERVS restores it
4. 2024-08-15 xDanielx removes it
5. 2024-08-15 IOHANNVSVERVS restores it
6. 2024-08-15 Alaexis removes it
7. 2024-08-15 Nableezy rewrites the section, with better adherence to WP:V
8. 2024-08-15 IOHANNVSVERVS restores his version alongside Nableezy's
9. 2024-08-20 Alaexis removes both
10. 2024-08-20 IOHANNVSVERVS restores both
11. 2024-08-26 xDanielx removes IOHANNVSVERVS' version
12. 2024-08-26 IOHANNVSVERVS restores it (while also reverting my other minor edits, not sure why)

Note the 1RR violation on 2024-08-15. Nableezy requested a self-revert; IOHANNVSVERVS didn't reply.

The pattern of dismissive replies, sometimes with links to WP:IDHT or WP:CIR, is also frustrating. For example, 2024-08-13 and 2024-08-13 were perfunctory replies which didn't meaningfully engage with the concerns raised about sourcing. Several such concerns were never really answered. Edit warring without more substantive engagement makes it difficult to reach an understanding or compromise.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict on 2023-11-15
• Filed an AE request on 2024-07-09

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Ealdgyth and ScottishFinnishRadish: An RFC might make sense, but here at AE I'm not asking for a resolution to the content dispute, which I will probably WP:LETGO. Rather I'm requesting enforcement, at least of 1RR since it's a brightline rule, to ensure that future content disputes can proceed on a fair playing field. I'll try to file more expediently next time (I had a busy few weeks IRL), but I didn't think there was that much time sensitivity around incidents with conduct policies. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to keep this report simple, and avoid dragging admins into the content dispute. Since I've now been accused of POV-pushing, I'm inclined to respond, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to this request so I'll collapse it. If editors genuinely think I've committed sanctionable POV-pushing, I think a separate request would be the better venue. Here it seems like a distraction, since even if the accusation had merit, it wouldn't excuse the conduct that's the subject of this report. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: I already acknowledged the more explicit Khalidi 88 source in my (collapsed) summary above. I was summarizing events chronologically; that source was added later. As I mentioned, it's too old for a "Present scholarship" section - it's a 1988 paper which summarizes Segev's 1984 (so 40 year old) book. Please cut out the sarcasm. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: regarding the source you highlighted, such vague language (what happened in 1948) is not useful without more context. I did read the article to understand the context, and explained why it didn't back up the content in the clear manner that WP:V requires. I didn't receive a substantive response. I have never and would never deny that massacres and expulsions occurred. The question at hand was whether works which also examine additional causes, such as Morris' seminal 2004 book, are part of the modern scholarship, or outdated historiography as a few editors have claimed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-09-10

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.

I will respond shortly. Please don't close this thread. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have permission to exceed 500 words? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Barkeep49. Here is my statement [19]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, I'll note that most (~1000 words?) of my statement is taken up by summarizing and explaing diffs, including quotations of the content which was in dispute and being added or removed in each edit. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the reason I didn't think I violated 1RR at the time, and why I'm still not sure if I've done so, is because in the first revert [20] I restored both a change to the lead and a sentence beginning "present day scholarship". In the second revert [21] I did not restore the lead change (per 1RR), and though I again restored the "present day scholarship" sentence, I did so while also adding an additional citation. So it wasn't just a revert but I also changed the content.

This additional source was added to address Alaexis' objection that "Indeed there is no doubt that the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, but how does it follow from this that "violence and direct expulsions perpetrated by Zionist forces [was] the primary cause of the displacement of the Palestinians"?"[22] (emphasis in original) The citation I added said "Segev's was the first account published in book form to use the Israeli archives to show that mass expulsions of the Palestinians by the Zionist forces, before May 15, 1948, and in succeeding months by the Israeli army, were the main cause of their flight." Note that the edit of Alaexis that I (partially) reverted had only an edit summary of "no consensus, see the issues at the talk".

So I wasn't just repeating the same edit/reversion, but I substantially changed the content by also adding that citation, addressing what was Alaexis' primary objection on the talk page at the time. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, regarding "If you have concerns about other editors' conducts you are able to file separate AE requests for them." - I really don't understand how AE works in this regard. I could have sworn WP:BOOMERANG was a thing and that "we're going to look at the entire situation when assessing AE reports. Bringing up the behavior of an editor that was party to a specific dispute is expected."[23] Anyways, I'm a Wikipedia editor not a Wikipedia prosecutor; I have little interest in filing a separate report. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 "I was referring to the fact that your sandbox (at least from my skim) was alleging misconduct by multiple other editors." The others I accused are parties to this specific dispute. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments by xDanielx. 2 weeks is certainly not too stale to consider, so I would humbly request admins do not discard that evidence. I recently had an interaction with this user here where they in my opinion, expressed a wrong and confused perspective about reliable sourcing and my responsibility to inform them of changes. While the conversation was quite civil, I think they might need a refresher on Wikipedia policy on ownership of articles and the responsibility of sourcing, verifiability not truth and so on. Andre🚐 19:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

had a busy few weeks IRL - had time to make 50 edits though, including commenting at the AE I filed above. Levivich (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same "various causes" POV-pushing that have been featured in my previous AE reports. Look at this discussion in which xDanielx and I participated: Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Merge, split, or re-scope?, where xDanielx says "I wouldn't agree that the causes are not in dispute" and I and other present like 10 sources that say the causes are not in dispute, sources with statements as clear as:

• "the hard facts regarding the developments during 1947–48 that led to the Nakba are well known and documented"
• "now a recognised fact by all but diehard Zionist apologists"
• "It is no longer a matter of serious dispute..."
• "There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba."
• "We don’t need to prove what is now considered a historical fact"
• "serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948"
• "What happened is, of course, now well known"
• "The facts about 1948 are no longer contested"

(Note how many sources xDanielx brought to the discussion.)

How does an editor come out of that discussion, with those sources, and then make this edit, with the edit summary Per talk discussions, the sources don't really support this...?

Yeah, on Aug 15 it was a 1RR violation, but this "various causes" POV-pushing is a more serious problem. There is no good-faith way to interpret those sources and say "I wouldn't agree that the causes are not in dispute." And there is no good-faith interpretation of that talk page discussion as consensus that the sources don't really support this. And there is no good-faith interpretation of the sources in which they don't support that content. Words are written in black and white, they mean what they say; "no serious dispute" means no serious dispute. Levivich (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Van: thanks, I will do so, due to RL it'll probably be a day or two. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After detailed reading of the complaint, it becomes clear that pillars #2 (NPOV) and #4 (civility = no editwarring) were violated by repeated removal of well-sourced DUE content. This complaint seeks to penalize the defendant for unplugging the chainsaw being used to fell the pillars without using proper Briteline^TM safety gloves.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original text added on 30 June that xDanielx repeatedly removed contained the following: This has established what Ilan Pappé has summarised as the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’, a process involving massacres and expulsions at gunpoint. In light of the ever-growing historiography, serious scholarship has left little debate about what happened in 1948. (dated July 2022) I am certain that admins can judge whether a boomerang is appropriate for denying even now in this report that "massacres and expulsions at gunpoint" are "violence and direct expulsions". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx: I'm sure it has escaped the attention of absolutely nobody that Benny Morris is name-checked no fewer than 45 times in the entry. This does not explain why you began edit-warring to remove a different POV than Mr. Morris' starting on 13 Aug. Your claim that "what happened in 1948" is vague in the context of this source is quite simply false. "What happened in 1948" had already been clearly exposed earlier in the same section on Nakba denial: The Nakba—Arabic for catastrophe��is the term used to capture the events of 1948 which led to over 80 per cent of the Palestinian population being violently forced to flee, and becoming stateless refugees in and outside historic Palestine. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:, just wanted to respond to your comment below. You're right that my edit summary wasn't well phrased. What I intended to say was that the provided sources do not support the change but now that I re-read it I can see that what I wrote was different. I'll make sure I'll do better in future especially in the IP area. Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• By my (admittedly somewhat tired and cranky) count - the latest diff listed is 15 days old. I can't say I think that uninvolved admin time is best utilized in investigating something that is that stale. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is... *I* am busy. Like SUPER busy. It's fall - I'm trying to put some weight on some older horses before winter, it's crunch time with work, I have clients wanting pedigrees, so why should *I* drop everything to deal with something this messy that the filer didn't think was important enough to deal with when it happened, but rather waited until they had time. Uninvolved admin time is not an unlimited resource... Ealdgyth (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is long-term edit warring from multiple parties, there's sniping in the talk page discussion about it, and there's no RFC. The last revert was two weeks ago, and multiple parties were edit warring so unless we want to drop some 0RR sanctions there's not too much to do here right now. XDanielx, start an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Logged warning is fine with me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bright line rule violation. So I think we should log something about that, but agree that something which last happened two weeks ago (at least in a 1RR sense) is stale. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @IOHANNVSVERVS how many words do you need? If it's more than say an extra 100 put it in a sandbox and we can respond substantively. If it's 100 or less go for it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I find 1800+ words for an initial statement too much (even granting some grace for theoretical Brandolini's law) but will leave a final decision for some other uninvolved administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Skimming over your sandbox draft I noticed any number of ways that it felt that it could be made slimmer and part of the value of a word count, for me, is to force people to hone in on their strongest points (we can't all be Blaise Pascal). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IO, I appreciate you focusing your reply and hope to substantively analyze it soon. If you have concerns about other editors' conducts you are able to file separate AE requests for them. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @IOHANNVSVERVS a boomerang is a possibility for the person filing the report (though as Vanamonde notes below, some things deserve their own thread). I was referring to the fact that your sandbox (at least from my skim) was alleging misconduct by multiple other editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @IOHANNVSVERVS yes I understand they are party to the dispute. However, the only two ediotrs who are party to this AE thread (at least at the moment) are you and xDaniel. So a boomerang is possible for xDaniel for their conduct (which is even older than yours) but you would need to file a seperate thread for anyone else you think should be sanctioned. Speaking only for myself, if the only thing is this edit war I agree with Vanamonde that you reverted more than anyone else and so if all that's happening to you is a logged warning it is unlikely that more than that would happen. And it's possible that less would be done. If there is other conduct with those editors that you want to highlight that is different. But again should go in its own AE report. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After reading IOHANNVSVERVS' reply, I don't see anything that suggests this was not a brightline 1RR violation. A revert is still a revert whether involving the same or different material and so the small changes IO talks about doesn't change that they were repeatedly reverting this content and did so against a number of other editors. Absent any admin feeling otherwise, I plan to process the logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a logged warning. This is a bright-line violation, per BK49, and I'm also seeing two more reverts than anyone else has made, unless the timeline is incomplete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, based on what you have provided so far I can't tell if this is a legitimate content disagreement based on different sources or if xDanielx is engaging in sanctionable POV-pushing - but I take claims of source misrepresentation seriously, and I would suggest you file a separate report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still working through the sandbox report. A good bit of it doesn't appear actionable to me, and it does not change my view of the need for a logged warning about 1RR: there is rarely any urgency to fix what you perceive as an unjustified revert. That said, I wanted to note my unhappiness with [25] this revert by Alaexis. That edit summary is demonstrably false: this is the state of the talk page at the time, and sources supporting the disputes content are prominently featured. I take no position on whether they are sufficient, or whether the disputed content should have been included; but sources had been provided, and claiming they had not is plain dishonest. It's also a very poor look to make that sort of revert, and then fail to engage on the talk page for another 10 days [26]. xDanielx is, on the other hand, engaging substantively on the talk page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alaexis: It's encouraging that you undertake to do better, but my concern is broader than imprecision in your edit-summary. It looks very much like a reflexive revert with no prior and little subsequent engagement with the substance, which is evidence to me of treating the subject like a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

The Mountain of Eden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

One week block from editing the article Mohammad Deif

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Diff of notification

I was accused of violating WP:1RR. I did not. I committed only one revert. On my talk page, I explained that an edit that Makeandtoss accused me of being a revert is just a copyedit since I did not undo any other editor's edits.
So far, ScottishFinnishRadish has refused to answer my repeated attempts to ask why I was blocked, both on my talk page, and their talk page. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An univolved admin refused to unblock me on procedural grounds, and advised me to appeal here. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really write "I won't do that again" if I didn't do it the first time. The first edit that alleged a revert was not a revert. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish:

• Date of restore death into infobox w/ the note that Hamas is disputing the death.: 21:46, 27 August 2024
• Date of Undid revision 1243089857 by Makeandtoss (talk) The references are already at the end of the sentence: 13:11, 30 August 2024

⇒ More than 24 hours.

• Date of edit for which you are alleging a partial revert: 14:30, 12 August 2024
  • That's 18 days and 36 edits later. I think that should be considered as established text.

The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish: the edit in question was not a removal of content. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish: Unattributed??? The attribution is at the end of the sentence: <ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/01/hamas-commander-mohammed-deif-killed/|title=Top Hamas commander Mohammed Deif killed in Israeli strikes, IDF says|author1=Louisa Loveluck|author2=Shira Rubinwork|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=August 1, 2024|access-date=1 August 2024|archive-date=3 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240803052718/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/01/hamas-commander-mohammed-deif-killed/|url-status=live}}</ref> (emphasis added). The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, ScottishFinnishRadish: I went back and looked at the allged first revert, and I believe it is absolutley unfair to call it a partial revert.

• The 14:30, 12 August 2024 edit: changed "is or was" to "is"
• On 03:58, 29 August 2024: a different editor changed "was" to "is or was"
• My alleged first revert on 12:36, 30 August 2024: I chaged from "is or was" to "was (or, according to Hamas, is)".

You have to compare to the most recent version, not a version from 36 edits and 18 days prior. I am disappointed that this is not an open and shut case that I did not violate 1RR. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not procedurally close the appeal on the grounds that the block has expired. If appropriate, a 1 second block could be issued to add a statement to the block log saying that the previous block was successfully appealed after the block expired. Or, as I see the case currently standing, a 1 second block could be issued to say that an appeal of the previous block closed without a consensus, as I am not seeing the community affirming the sanctions imposed against me. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negating the effect of an edit is a revert. There have been many long term edit wars over attribution, like the locus of this revert. The whole point of 1rr is to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring, and is a bright line. In this case the editor has already had an issue with 1rr and not recognizing a revert, and responding with hostility to the 1rr notification.

As for my responsiveness, I received around 40 alerts and notifications in the past 24 hours, and I have around 5400 pages on my watchlist. I don't see any ping from their talk page, just an unblock request that didn't generate a notification. The message on my talk page looks to be about 24 hours old.

Lastly, it would be nice to see one of these appeals say, "I won't do that again." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit was a partial revert of this edit. That's about as clear a 1rr violation as you can have. As far as my remedying the 1RR violation, that is covered at WP:CTOP, Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted... An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes. With clear violations I sometimes make a revert while addressing the behavior.

In this situation we don't even have to get into the weeds of what negating a previous edit means, or that we have CTOP sanctions that refer to something that isn't defined in policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was also a revert of this. Looking back just to the beginning of August this is a long running slow edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And lastly, restore death into infobox w/ the note that Hamas is disputing the death. is a clear demonstration that they were aware they were reverting an earlier removal. You don't restore something that wasn't removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain of Eden, in my earlier 1RR warning I said, After some amount of time which is highly variable and seldom agreed on content becomes the status quo and removing it is a bold edit rather than a revert. If you're editing in a contentious topic it's safest to assume that any removal is a revert. Continuing a long term edit war is definitely going to fall on the revert side of the line. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I don't see continuing a dispute they were aware of with a summary like Only Hamas would use the present tense of the verb while leaving the IDF/Israel claim unattributed as seeking consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to like this idea because it's premised on the notion that certain events, like a block, should trigger a checkuser in PIA. An offer. If they pass a checkuser they can be unblocked. I'm curious whether the user would accept this kind of deal. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the question was raised, the Lehi Street bombing socks are probably not The Mountain (Icewhiz). But, as far as I can tell from a technical data (that does not qualify as evidence at SPI), The Mountain could be a sock of User:Plot Spoiler. This result is (surprisingly for me) consistent with the fact that they registered their account at 2024-04-30T21:39:22, less than an hour after Plot Spoiler's last sock, User:Loksmythe, was blocked at 2024-04-30T20:45:08...unless it is all a coincidence, which is absolutely possible. I am not going to file an SPI (mainly because a) the evidence I have is not evidence at SPI and b) blocked accounts can simply create a new account if they haven't already done so and rapidly gain EC thanks to the many tools Wikipedia provides for new users to get them started). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reported editor is not paying attention to their block anyway, see Lehi Street bombing (article created by sock on 24 August and substantially edited by edited by another on 2 September). Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Apologies, I got as far as "you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week" and assumed it was a full block. Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, a source title does not constitute inline attribution in the way I understand that, reported editor likes to wikilawyer stuff, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This was clearly not a revert, not unless we're going to classify every single edit as a revert (which would make editing in 1RR areas untenable). The effect of this edit was to add a statement. Adding attribution elaborates on that statement; it does not "undo" it. That sort of addition is not a revert unless comparable attribution had previously been present and had been removed, which was not the case here.

I'm also a bit puzzled by the fact that the blocking admin then immediately restored the previous revision afterwards; maybe I've just missed it, or perhaps practice has changed, but AFAIK that has never been part of the remedy for 1RR/3RR violations. The 3RR is about conduct and not article content; therefore, the remedy consists of a block or some other preventative measure but does not normally involve undoing the offending revert as an administrative action unless BLP violations or some similarly compelling situation requires it. Actual administrative action to change article content is rare and reserved for situations like WP:BLP where the issue is the content itself and not editor conduct; the administrator guidance for edit warring talks solely about blocks and the like, not about throwing a final revert onto the pile to "fix" things.

Both of these things - the 3RR generally not covering genuinely new additions that might "water down" the text except in the most egregious cases, and revisions to article content not being part of the remedy - are IMHO important because the 3RR sits on a delicate balance; we need a red line to prevent revert-wars, but we also want to avoid situations where the red line could be weaponized to force the article into a particular state, which could lead to WP:STONEWALLing and paradoxically encourage revert-wars by rewarding the first mover. This is even more true for the 1RR; the 3RR is somewhat safe because pushing things to the line is itself misconduct, but the 1RR requires so little that an even slightly intransigent editor raising totally reasonable objections and making entirely reasonable reverts could bring editing on a low-traffic article to a standstill if it was interpreted too broadly. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sometimes I think that the ambiguity over what constitutes a revert or not for purposes of 1RR is just hopeless. I can readily understand why The Mountain of Eden perceives that the first edit listed did not constitute a revert, but I also understand why the party who originally complained thought it was. I'll allow some time for statements, especially from the blocking admin, before commenting further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally agree with this. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First off, in response to ScottishFinnishRadish's comments, those who participate regularly on AE appreciate his efforts in this area and have no concerns about his level of responsiveness. With regard to the substance of the appeal, however, after further review I am unable to agree that the first disputed edit constituted a revert. The situation appears similar to this hypothetical: Editor A edits an article to say X is true, Editor B deletes that statement, and Editor A then inserts Jones says X is true. Editor A has reinserted the concept of X, but as a much more qualified assertion that might, depending on the circumstances, be acceptable as compromise language even to B, thereby resolving rather than perpetuating the editing disagreement. I do not believe this would constitute a revert for 1RR purposes, and in any event it is not so clearly an improper revert as to warrant a block. Therefore, subject to other admins' further input, I am inclined to accept the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's what happened here? And if it is I'm reading the article history wrong. SFR can you clarify what the diffs that constituted the 1RR were for you? Thanks Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: From the discussion on User talk:The Mountain of Eden, I believe this is the diff whose status as a revert is disputed. There is no dispute that there was a revert (or another revert) later that day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks NYB and SFR. I think The Mountain of Eden has violated 1RR. This is mitigated by the fact that they attempted to find consensus through differing wording combinations and by participating usefully in a talk page discussion about it (a discussion which was mainly a bunch of IPs acting unhelpfully and in violation of ECR in the topic area). On the other side of the ledger is that Mountain still doesn't seem to realize that there was any violation which doesn't inspire confidence for the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I still am not convinced that restoring part of a prior edit is always a revert, nor that the use of the word "restore" is an admission that it is. The example I gave here the last time this issue came up is this: Editor A edits a 1RR article by adding X, Y, and Z, Editor B removes that with the edit summary Z isn't true, and then Editor A posts X and Y with the edit summary restoring X and Y which no one disagrees with and omitting Z. That would be a sensible attempt to seek consensus, not edit-warring. The actual edit history here is more complicated than my examples, as ScottishFinnishRadish correctly observes, but I ready understand why The Mountain of Edit does not perceive they violated the 1RR. That being said, if no other admins here agree with me, then a consensus to modify the sanction does not exist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At least for now it's just me and you. I am curious what a hypothetical third admin says as I see the consensus seeking element at play here that seems important to you, while also seeing the broader context that led to SFR's sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Selfstudier: I'm confused. The Mountain of Eden is only blocked from a single page. Are you suggesting that Lehi Street bombing socks are also The Mountain (Icewhiz)? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish and Barkeep49: I too would be interested in what other admins think about the issue we disagree on, but while we've been waiting for more input, the page-block expired by time several days ago. Should we continue to leave this thread open, or close it as unsuccessful (over my dissent) for lack of consensus? Meanwhile, if any other admins would like to weigh in, now is the time. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to NYB's request for more input. I agree with NYB in principle that an edit that partially negates a previous edit isn't necessarily a revert by definition, but in this case, I think the disputed edit is indeed a revert, because I cannot parse the language and come to the conclusion that the intent was anything other than to largely negate a previous edit. The effect is marginally mitigated by an attempt to find different wording, but the qualifier was also very clearly intended to minimize the weight of the claim. It could easily have been proposed on the talk page: why wasn't it? As such I would have declined this appeal, were it not moot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Vanamonde. Given this I think we can close this appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPS

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

1. [27] 21 August 2024—violates WP:PSCI by immunizing Anthroposophy from falsification through performing WP:OR (seeks to reject the label of pseudoscience through attempting to make it look like a category mistake—but not according to any WP:RS)
2. a lot of previous edits at the same article, 21 August 2024, see e.g. [28], having the edit summary cutting like a knife between physics and metaphysics

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [29] 2 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Wikipedia is a collaborative environment—up to a point. We don't seek to "collaborate" with those who breach our WP:RULES with impunity. More to the point: Johnrpenner is violating WP:RULES such as WP:PSCI and WP:OR. If he thinks I'm wrong, he should WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS to that extent. Merely giving us his own opinion won't do. Again: his assertion that the label of pseudoscience is a category mistake, is solely based upon his own opinion. He did not WP:CITE anything to that extent. Even if his POV were the unvarnished truth, he still does not have WP:RS to that extent.
• @Theleekycauldron: Until May 2024, I had no idea that Penner is a Wikipedia editor. In respect to what you say: I would accept a restriction of 1RR and a limit of 500 words per topic. Also, you have to consider that these Anthroposophists overtly stated they want me banned from Anthroposophy, so, while they knew they stand no chance in respect to their own edits, they were merely flamebaiting. Anthroposophists are generally speaking highly educated people, so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials, it is a token they are merely acting a show. Playing dumb and employing vicious libel (flamebait) is justified, according to them, since they are defending the public image of Anthroposophy. I mean: for a university-educated Lead Technical Writer it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy. And if I lambasted them for failing to do so, my criticism was genuine and to the point. What do they stand to lose, here at Wikipedia? A bunch of disposable accounts. Since both Johnrpenner and the previous Anthroposophist at WP:AE are extremely fond of performing WP:OR—I don't think that's just a coincidence. When multiple accounts misunderstand Wikipedia in the same way, we may suspect they're WP:MEAT.
• @Ealdgyth: It was not intended as mockery. I don't think he is unintelligent, and if he appears as unintelligent, that's for flamebaiting purposes (just to make me angry).
• Full disclosure: there was an off-wiki hounding campaign against me, see [30], [31], and Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence—which I now came to see as flamebaiting. Its objectives are overtly stated: recruit other editors against me and get me banned from Wikipedia. So, I see my opponents at these articles as an organized campaign, starting with October 2023, or even earlier. The only damage I did to Wikipedia is extensively bickering about being hounded. It is rather unusual for Wikipedia that a cult organizes off-wiki to take action against a specific editor.
• If I get banned from Anthroposophy, the "Fortress Steiner" (here) will regain its upper hand. Anti-fringe editors will be reluctant to intervene, since they lack a deep understanding of the topic. So I will have to get unbanned as the only person able to restore order. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [32] 21 August 2024

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theleekycauldron, I am concerned about your comments here at this time in the AE and making them in the uninvolved admin section. I reviewed the talk page[33], and the only recent dispute was from this interaction at Talk:Anthroposophy#Violation_of_WP:PSCI. However, I couldn't verify any of your claims made without diffs there such as bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors, so that was a serious red flag when I instead saw tgeorgescu making very short replies and largely behaving properly at the time. The only little knock against them was that they should have stopped interacting before the I have already reported you at WP:AE. . . comment, but even those comments are relatively chill compared to your characterization. If there are recent diffs prior to when you commented, those are absolutely needed, because when I see a mismatch like that in depiction, that looks a lot more like battleground pursuit on your part that we'd typically see of involved editors behaving poorly. If anything, it looks like tgeorgescu's talk page use had actually vastly improved and it wasn't until you started needling tgeorgescu with your initial comment that they got off the rails here at AE. At least as I've tried to review this report with an even hand, you created more heat than light.

However tgeorgescu, I do have some advice after seeing your comments on talk pages over the years. Remember to center yourself on the ideas of WP:NOTFORUM/WP:FOC more often on article talk pages. I have seen you give in-depth answers at times when not needed or just posting on the talk page not clearly tied to any edit.[34] Sometimes I've seen you come back for an "and another thing" comment when the conversation was just likely to die. I saw that before your warning theleekycauldron mentions, and it looks like you've been vastly improving in what I've reviewed so far. That said, be careful about personalizing comments about editors or how comments might appear to be a battleground mentality. That too creates more heat than light like I just cautioned theleekycauldron. When I look at the AE after their comment, you brought up that you felt like you were being trolled by Johnrpenner at the article with comments like so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials. Even if you feel like that, don't take the WP:BAIT. You honestly were fine from what I can see initially until your interactions with theleekycauldron here. It wasn't until that moment I was seeing AE comments with a bit too much bite towards editors, so it didn't appear anything WP:PREVENTATIVE was needed on your part to that point. KoA (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Looks like tgeorgescu is exhibiting the exact same behavior that landed them a logged warning for battleground behavior and incivility nine months ago. that's a shame, because they seem to solidly be in the right that Johnrpenner is only here to push a pseudoscientific POV. If Tgeorgescu doesn't agree to stop bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors, and generally behaving as if yelling at people about how wrong and stupid they are is the best way to make them go away, the pseudoscience topic area will lose a valuable editor. perhaps a topic ban from Anthroposophy is in order, since the last row took place there as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support topic banning Johnrpenner from Anthroposophy, broadly construed. Also support restricting tgeorgescu within ARBPS, broadly construed, such that they may not write more than 500 words across discussions related to this topic area (not 500 words per thread) in a calendar month; and placing them under 1RR. They are reminded to seek out admins before engaging in disruptive behavior in their attempts to combat disruptive behavior. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @KoA: I'm taking my cues from this thread. Some of it was from before Johnrpenner was a wikipedian (although this isn't), but I don't think it'd be ridiculous to say that it's relevant to the onwiki portion of this spat. I'm also considering the sum of other threads they've started since the SamwiseGSix AE thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  KoA, just as an example of a long-winded "own the crazies" rants see User:Tgeorgescu#My quarrel with anthroposophists, or Talk:Anthroposophy#Category. I'd be interested in scaling back that type of engagement with the topic. I don't know if a word limit per month or discussion would be helpful, but even some advice or a warning might help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  On a broader note, this issue comes up a lot where a milder sanction might be able to end disruptive behavior, but we end up warning a few times instead, and eventually we hit a tipping point and we end up with a more severe sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnrpenner has been an editor since 2005 but is not yet experienced, having under 1800 edits. Their first edits (example from April 2005) concerned Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy. The current edits are not appropriate and I support a topic ban from articles related to Rudolf Steiner, or just Anthroposophy if others support that. I have spent time advising tgeorgescu that they should cut back on excessive commentary but in checking a couple of recent discussions, I could not see a problem. We need editors like tgeorgescu who are able and willing to keep articles based on reliable sources so my only suggestion in that area is that I would be happy to investigate if anyone wants to draw my attention to a future discussion where a participant might be overdoing it. I agree that ScottishFinnishRadish's links just above ("own the crazies") show excessive enthusiasm: tgeorgescu should stick to verifiable facts related to current editing proposals. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It certainly seems that some action is needed here, so I'll try to take a look. For the moment, just commenting to avoid the bot carting this prematurely to the archives. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like the topic ban has pretty clear consensus, so as far as tgeorgescu goes out seems like we just need to decide on the level of reminder/warning, or discussion restriction we want to go with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm rather torn on that. I don't generally like to give more than one warning, or it turns into "Stop that, I really really really mean it this time", but I sure don't love the idea of rewarding a harassment campaign either, and it seems there's at least pretty credible evidence that something like that is going on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue, as I see it, is that a single admin has much more blunt tools than AE as a whole. At AE we can tailor a word limit or other anti-bludgeoning measure, but a single admin can only block, topic ban, iban, or set a revert restriction. That seems overkill for this behavior. Perhaps we can form a consensus here that if the behavior continues after a warning any admin can institute an anti-bludgeoning sanction as an individual admin action? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not up to speed at all on this report. But is there a reason not to just institute it now? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic ban? I don't think there's a rush on that part, as they haven't edited in two weeks. No reason not to log it, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I thought you were proposing an anti-bludgeon sanction in lieu of the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe an "anti-bludgeoning" sanction could be applied at page level, rather than to a specific editor? Having had a look at Talk:Anthroposophy, tgeorgescu is far from the only frequent poster there, so maybe some sort of "If after X amount of discussion, consensus has not been reached, engage further dispute resolution or drop it" sanction could be applied there in general? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone else has dropped 3000 words to themselves, like Talk:Anthroposophy#Category. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's...impressive, indeed. I think we could find a sanction that could curb that type of thing; there's really nothing added to the discussion by a huge wall of text like that (and if it's a "note to self" type thing, that can always be kept in one's userspace instead). But I still don't think Tgeorgescu is the only problem there, either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I linked to their 3000 word "note to self" on their user page earlier in this discussion as well. I don't think they're really the core of the problem, but they need to moderate their response, and as they've already been warned we need either a warning with some teeth, or a tailored sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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