Blocked for 1 week -Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge User who is submitting this request for enforcement TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested The History Wizard of Cambridge (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:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions [1] Revert of Nug on 21:34, 11 December 2021. [2] Revert of Volunteer Marek on 22:00, 11 December 2021. Mass killings under communist regimes is under a strict 1RR. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [3] Received a 48 hour block for edit-warring earlier this year at Cecil Rhodes on 09:06, 3 April 2021. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 06:29, 10 December 2021. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I explained the discretionary sanctions and asked The History Wizard of Cambridge to self-revert the 1RR violation prior to filing this AE report, deliberately declining to revert it myself or to take any particular stance on the underlying content, but The History Wizard of Cambridge refused to do so. The History Wizard of Cambridge previously deleted content in two non-consecutive edits on 5 December ([4], [5]) although those edits were not reported here because it was ambiguous whether they qualified as reverts and whether the user was then aware of the discretionary sanctions in effect at Mass killings under communist regimes (notwithstanding the prominent notice that displays whenever editing the page). Under the former account name of BulgeUwU, which was considered obscene and had to be changed, this user was the subject of an ANI report by Pudeo detailing what other users called "mass POV changes" (Pudeo), "ridiculously blatant POV-pushing" (Ineffablebookkeeper), "deliberate falsification or just incompetence" (Red Rock Canyon), and "improper synthesis" (Fences and windows). Among other things, The History Wizard of Cambridge/BulgeUwU wrote in wikivoice that British historian Robert Conquest (author of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties) "committed plagiarism" using a source that failed verification, after which the user conceded: "Even though the word plagiarism is not used [in the source], I don't know how else to accurately describe [Conquest's] actions."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [6] Discussion concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by The History Wizard of Cambridge Statement by Paul Siebert I myself noticed this edit war, and I posted this warning on the talk page. There is a clear 1RR violation here, but before making a decision, two considerations must be taken into account. First, this edit by @Nug: restored the source that is, according to this RSN discussion is unreliable. In addition, several users ([7], [8]) objected to that. Therefore, the user whom The History Wizard of Cambridge reverted clearly violated consensus. Similarly @Volunteer Marek: repeated the same edit, and that action also was against a consensus. Second, there is a serious reason to suspect that the opposite party was acting as a tag-team. I believe, many admins are aware of that reason, but if they aren't, I can explain it, either here of by email. My opinion is that this article has a very bad karma, but we currently are starting to work productively and collaboratively on fixing its problem. Thus, a dispute resolution is currently in progress, and Nug is an important participant in it. I think that AE sanctions will bring unneeded drama, which will immediately create a very toxic atmosphere. However, if admins decide that sanctions are needed, then both warring parties must be sanctioned. In my opinion, a final warning to all parties would be the most fruitful solution. @RegentsPark: I think you are absolutely right, but in addition to that, I propose to look at the problem that I partially discussed in my previous statement. This article is a focus of interest of two warring groups of users. The 1RR restriction does not prevent an edit war between the groups, as each user in the group only makes one revert in 24 hr. It is easy to see that this type edit war has already begun. The reverts made by The History Wizard of Cambridge are just a part of the long series of reverts and re-reverts made by the two opposing parties: the full history is this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). As we can see, we have a full scale edit war between two parties. More importantly, three users who restore this text are ex-members of WP:EEML. And, in this situation, to block or warn just a single user, who was not patient enough to wait 24 hours, would be the least logical step. It would be a clear signal to all parties: "You may continue your conflict, just try to observe some formal decorum". Therefore, it would be fair to apply additional restrictions prohibiting the execution of the second revert independently on whether the first revert was done by the same user or by another editor. If necessary, I can make it a subject of a separate request. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] I think it makes sense to ping @Seraphimblade: too, for it seems there are some aspects in this story that he overlooked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Update: the 'tag-team' edit war still continues. I am seriously contemplating a separate AE request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Robert McClenon Does the filing party really think that the best way to improve this article, which was the subject of the largest AFD in the history of Wikipedia, is to identify an editor or editors who have violated 1RR and sanction them? I don't think so. I suggest that we warn the reported editor, and advise the reporting editor that this sort of enforcement by clock isn't useful either. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (uninvolved) IP editor I don't know if uninvolved persons are allowed to comment..if not, my apologies. @RegentsPark: and @Seraphimblade:: I strongly urge you both, as well as any other admins that may happen to review this, to thoroughly read the statements by the editors directly above and carefully consider the entirety of the whole situation here; first of all, 1RR is clearly failing to prevent disruption on this page. 1RR does no good if there are a tag team of 10 (or whatever many) editors each taking their turn to revert once a day! To block one editor for reverting twice against a tag team of editors - who were adding unreliably sourced (per RSN consensus) material, no less (which is not just some frivolous content dispute, mind you, and is a violation of WP:V), is not reasonable. On a final note, I remind all admins reviewing that WP is intended to not be a bureaucracy, that IAR is a core policy intended as a safeguard against situations when the enforcement of the letter of the rest of policy would result in a broken system, as well as a countermeasure against editors, or groups of editors gaming the system. And that's all. Do the right thing! Peace! 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C2:BB5:D65F:F72A (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) Result concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is a clear cut 1RR violation, and on highly contentious articles, 1RR is an absolute bright line. I'm also not at all impressed by the failure to self-revert when notified of the issue. I was waiting for the reported editor to respond here, but by now they have had plenty of time to do so. I would suggest a week or so block from editing the article (though not the talk page or any other page, so that discussion may continue), but the point needs gotten across that 1RR means 1RR, period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] I agree that this is a clear cut 1RR violation that was pointed out and not self reverted. But, I think a warning is probably a better bet than a block. Everybody has a bad moment and the response here seems like one of those. That offending edit was reverted by someone else, History Wizard seems to have taken a cool down break of their own accord, time to move on. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 14 December 2021 (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.

Request concerning Maneesh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GENSEX

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

1. [9] I have no problem saying "transwomen are male" ... Not POV, just a simple facts. I'm terribly uninterested in a wikpedia that censors such simple truths. Please do go out there and do your best to ban me if you think your efforts will be successful - this pretty much speaks for itself.
2. [10] Removal of sourced article content to comply with the POV noted above.
3. [11] Revert-warring that preceded the above outburst.
4. [12] More of the revert-warring, over the same WP:GENSEX issue.
5. [13] Maneesh promoting the same POV in the Talk page of Man.
6. [14] Maneesh revert-warring against consensus and ONUS to promote the same POV in the article text of Man.
7. [15] Maneesh editing the Man article to erase the mention of transgender men and women (text that was previously arrived at through consensus on Talk).
8. [16] Maneesh opening a discussion on Talk:Man by equating gender identity with mental delusions.
9. (added by Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)) [17] proposed article text for Man that would replace references to trans men and trans women with some men identify as as women and some women identify as men - I have added this here because I referred to it in response to Springee, below.[reply]
10. (added by Newimpartial (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)) [18] In their filing below, Maneesh has announced their intention to continue to disrupt the WP:GENSEX subject matter area while denying that discretionary sanctions apply to their editing, against site-wide consensus.[reply]
11. Added by Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC) [19] An additional reply, right here.[reply]
12. Added by Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC) [20] right here, again. Maneesh characterizes gender identity as a harmless folk notion saying, anyone can identify as anything they like and there is generally nothing wrong with that - this statement runs flatly counter to the MEDRS and is purely disruptive. Competence is required.[reply]
13. Added by Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC) [21] Virtually nothing NewImpartial has said here has made any sense, I now understand the mentality of who I am dealing with. - Clear personal attack, at AE, concerning a GENSEX issue.[reply]
14. Added by Newimpartial (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)This response to this question posed at Maneesh's talk should make clear that Maneesh feels that the site-wide values embedded in MOS:GENDERID have nothing to do with my general civil conduct on this website and that accepting the scientific consensus on gender identity, even as an appropriate way to treat people in general social situations is equivalent to being asked to accept Zork as their lord and savior. I asked that question because I wondered whether the explanation here, that the edit containing the "space alien" comparison was only a confused expression of Maneesh's understanding that intersex people are like everyone else, and nothing more. From the scandalized reaction documented in this diff, it seems clear that recognizing the scientific consensus about gender identity - or even acting as though it were true - is so offensive as to be obscene. More disruption undoubtedly awaits, then - clearly this filing was premature, compared to what is in store from Maneesh's "scientific" (but, alas, also "folkloric") POV.[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the IP contribution below, the hyperbole used here reflect the same POV and are stylistically reminiscent of an IP that contributed to the recent RfC on the J. K. Rowling lead [22] [23]. This IP was subsequently taken to ANI by Bodney.[24] The IP has offered a very peculiar mangled quote (attributed to me) on both occasions, this time and in November. I never have and never would say that I "can't wait until every last homosexual is dead and buried" - that is a misquote that almost inverts the meaning of my comment (one I made several years ago). In the ANI discussion, I concluded that To have seen that quote, the person behind the keyboard was almost certainly either (1) a participant in old gender debates, since indef-blocked or otherwise departed (there are a few of those) or (2) someone acting as a MEATPUPPET who was pointed towards old debates by one of their participants (or bystanders). I stand by that analysis, and would therefore propose that the FRINGE POV comments of this IP be given very little WEIGHT, if any. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

Discussion concerning Maneesh

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

Statement by Maneesh

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

On WP:GENSEX

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

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

[26]

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

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

[28] Revert-warring that preceded the above outburst.

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

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

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

[30] Maneesh promoting the same POV in the Talk page of Man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding NewImpartial's complaint: "[35] Removal of sourced article content to comply with the POV noted above.", essentially the same edit (that removes source article that complies with the same "POV") was achieved 9-0 consensus (including my support) lead by Crossroads. Maneesh (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Crossroads

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

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

2. This removal is absolutely correct and removed WP:UNDUE weight. We don't interrupt every sentence about sex differences on Wikipedia to give a shout-out to transgender and non-binary identities. Even after removal, it said these sex-specific conditions were "mostly" in women even though most medical sources would say "only" in women. Yes, contrary to what Newimpartial claimed on that talk page, it is still the norm in WP:MEDRS to use "women" to refer to adult humans of the female sex. This can be seen by searching Google Scholar for "only in women" or "pregnant women", in quotes, and selecting "since 2021": [36][37] Newimpartial continues to argue tendentiously in that discussion, attacks Maneesh by saying he is playing a shell game, then doubles down and attacks GoodDay, saying, Don't be a mug.

3 & 4. As I explained, it is normal in MEDRS to refer to "men" and "women" in reference to the sexes, so there's nothing POV about these edits. "In female humans" does read oddly and sort of alien. While BRD would have been better, Newimpartial is also guilty of edit warring in the same timeframe as the edits they reported here ([38][39][40]), and against 3 different editors rather than 1, so any "guilt" logically applies to them as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ping RegentsPark.

Regarding Newimpartial's diff 11, Maneesh is correct that the overwhelming majority of MEDRS regularly use "men" and "women" when referring to adults of male and female sexes. [41][42] Newimpartial's "MEDRS" is a cherry-picked article in an open access journal making an explictly "right great wrongs" argument for language reform, among other things. Frankly, the position that in ordinary medical articles we can't simply say "men" and "women" to refer to sex, as the vast majority of people do, without getting caught up in exceptions, is held by very, very few of the authors of MEDRS as shown by how they write, and is therefore WP:FRINGE. And this has been the norm on Wikipedia since the beginning as well, including at sex differences in medicine, as documented at WP:GNL. It is Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th who are being disruptive at Talk:Sex differences in medicine by ignoring that prior consensus and making a huge deal out of a routine additional use of wording that is already on the page (!) and WP:FILIBUSTERing removal of a random shout-out to transgender identity. Literally disrupting good editing. And this sort of obstructionism in transgender articles is rampant. It is very unfortunate to see it spread into medical articles that have nothing to do with gender dysphoria. It is no wonder that an editor would get frustrated when faced with this behavior. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by SMcCandlish

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

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

Statement by GoodDay

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Seraphimblade Maneesh was originally made aware of the sanctions in January 2020 [43]. The diff that Newimpartial used above was my refreshing it as twelve months had passed. Not sure if that changes your view on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with everything Newimpartial has said in their initial analysis. However there is some additional context I'd like to add. My first interactions with Maneesh were reverting two changes they had made to Sex differences in medicine [44], [45] which changed the context of that section as I stated in the talk page [46]. Maneesh's reply to this on the talk page was deeply offensive [47] by stating that Transwomen are obviously also men, adult males. Whenever I attempted to point out to them the inaccuracy of that statement [48], I was accused of religious thinking [49]. Newimpartial has already addressed the brief edit war that occurred on the article where Maneesh refused to acknowledge WP:BRD, which ran concurrent to a discussion on the talk page:

• My asking Maneesh to self revert [50]
• Maneesh refusing to self revert [51]
• My attempt at explaining BRD [52]
• Maneesh accusing me of tendentious editing [53]

As part of this exchange, Maneesh invited me to count the number of occurrences of "men" and "women" below each respective title out of the total number of points [54]. However Maneesh then moved the goal posts to synonymous use of men/male and women/female [55] within the MEDRS in the article, before extending it further to the same synonymous use in any news media [56] while simultaneously attacking my English language skills. This is I believe what Newimpartial correctly identifies as the shell game. I stated my objection to this movement of the goal posts [57], however Maneesh doubled down and accused me of falsifying my claim[58].

I'd also like to point out that I am also not the only editor Maneesh has accused of religious thinking or editing [59] in this topic area. I would argue that Maneesh is engaging in some very heavy WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour over the last couple of days at Talk:Sex differences in medicine, Talk:Woman, and possibly Talk:Man. Although I wasn't a participant in Talk:Man so I'll leave summarising that to another editor. In addition to making a generalised battle out of the discussions, Maneesh is also very clearly engaging in an ideological battle by casting aspersions on multiple other editors for editing on "religious grounds". As I said before, I agree with Newimpartial that a topic ban in this area is warranted as it is seemingly impossible to carry out a civil discussion with them to build consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Addendum, @RegentsPark, how can you build a compromise consensus when Maneesh has only a single acceptable outcome for the language choice in the article? [60] Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Admins, based on these diffs [61], [62] would a one way IBAN between Maneesh and Newimpartial (Maneesh at fault) also be warranted in addition to the TBAN? They're very close in content to being the transphobic attack helicopter meme. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Springee

This is a subject area I'm not overly involved with so I can't say I understand all the history. I do think that NewImpartial is too quick to assign -phobia type motives to other editors and too quick to assume their POV is the sky is blue correct one. For example in the [Man] article there was a section outside of the lead that was addressing trans- cases. The material had no citations. NewImpartial felt that was fine and actively removed CN tags. If one looks at the Talk:J._K._Rowling#Bludgeoning_of_D-preference_editors discussion where NewImpartial has been far and away the most active participant. I believe several editors complained of -phobic accusations again. A big issue with many of these topics is they are often very expansive so PROPORTION is critical. I suspect NewImpartial's understandable, good faith interest in trans topics results in a feeling that it's often one of the most critical aspects of any particular topic vs one of many and one that many readers wouldn't find significant. That is fine but they need to understand that others might not agree yet that doesn't mean they are "denying trans people" [68]. Such accusations aren't helpful and certainly come off as POV pushing, especially when combined with bludgeoning talk page discussions. Springee (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update in reply to comments made by Bilorv and I believe a few others regarding the Man article. It was claimed that Maneesh "edit warred against consensus". I don't see that this claim was ever backed by diffs. I don't see it. There was an small edit war regarding content in the article lead. That seemed to be NewImpartial vs other editors and it was clear the current consensus of editors was against NewImpartial and with Maneesh (example diff [69]). Looking at the talk page history of the Man article I see nothing that shows a consensus for this content in the lead was ever established. Springee (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Statement by Aircorn

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

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

Statement by IP editor

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

Statement by Dtobias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Joe Roe:: Another admin saying that merely stating a viewpoint (consistent with the definitions of Male and Female on Wikipedia itself) is inherently ban-worthy. And do you have reliable sources for it being a minority viewpoint? Polls I've seen in both the US and UK show wide variation depending on exactly what question is asked, but often show substantial majorities favoring views that go against the activist positions grounded in "Trans women are women", such as when polls ask if trans women should compete in female sports. [70] [71] *Dan T.* (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

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

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

Statement by Sweet6970

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

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

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

@Maneesh: and @Newimpartial: in particular, but also to anyone else interested in this case: I have started a discussion at WP:NOT. [72] I am proposing a new section Wikipedia is not the Thought Police. I believe that the wording I am proposing expresses what is already Wikipedia policy. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: I wonder why you have referred to the expression ‘thought police’. I’m pretty sure that has not been used by anyone on the page which gave rise to this dispute. I proposed a section at What Wikipedia is not, the section heading to be ‘Wikipedia is not the Thought Police.’ [73] Please note *not* the thought police. There were then numerous responses from editors who disagreed with me i.e. bizarrely, those who disagreed with me appear to be giving support to the view that Wikipedia *is* the thought police. I’m still trying to get my head round that. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tewdar

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

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

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:Maneesh)

I support a TBAN for Maneesh. I think we should continue to be a stickler about formal awareness rules until the DS system is reformed, and I encourage everyone to sign up to be updated. That said, Maneesh's edits since the DS alert and his doubling down on comments made prior are sufficient grounds for a sanction. He continues to defend an anti-trans dogwhistle ("identify as ... aliens") and outright transphobia ("transwomen are obviously also men").

Many editors in this topic area, including ones that frequently disagree with each other, have expressed deep frustration with the level of discourse. There are tough, good-faith debates to be had, but basic respect for trans people shouldn't be optional. I don't see any other way to a higher level of debate.

I know that posting here means one's own conduct is up for review, but if bringing up a Newimpartial comment from 2 years ago is meant to be a defense of Maneesh, well, that sucks. I would oppose any sanction against Newimpartial, if that's their point, because (again) it was two years ago. And if it's unrelated to a defense of Maneesh or a call for action against Newimpartial, then it's just space-wasting mud-slinging. Firefangledfeathers 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

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

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

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

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

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

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

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

Statement by OID

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

Statement by EvergreenFir

I'm INVOLVED so I will just comment here.

The question that needs to be asked is:

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

Statement by Bilorv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Shibbolethink

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

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

Example interactions:

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

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

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

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

@Sesquivalent in general, I advocate for TBANs rather than site bans when it comes to problematic behavior. I think there are certain topics that people get worked up about, and it prevents them from being rational, courteous, etc. I have seen no evidence that Maneesh has had these problems outside of this topic area. If anyone were to show me such evidence, then I would advocate for a site block instead of a TBAN. I also would remind you that site bans (and TBANs) are meant to be preventative not punitive and, in general, asking people to "cool off" rarely works, in my experience. I'm advocating that we stop this disruptive behavior from preventing consensus formation. If there were a user posting the complete opposite opinions, but with the same attitudes and behaviors, I would hope they would be TBAN'd as well. If you know of such a user, I would be happy to support their being brought to AE. In general, AE and ArbCom do not adjudicate content disputes, but behavioral ones. So we should not get caught up in what "side" of a dispute someone is on.

Should we consider the content dispute as a motivation for their being brought here? yes, of course! But that doesn't mean we leave editors around who are engaging in such horrible behavior. That incentivizes everyone else to leave the discussion. I know that if Maneesh continues to behave this way, and nothing is done about it, you can expect me to stop commenting on this article talk page altogether. Which, I imagine, would make them rather happy. :P As a related thing, see: Wikipedia:Expert retention. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sesquivalent this is not the place for content disputes. Please stick to discussing the matter at hand: behavior. I don't believe Maneesh has provided any reason for us to believe he has content expertise, other than that he is interested in arguing with many users about the smallest details of these articles. [74] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more diffs:

1. Escalates many small disagreements to needing dispute resolution/straw polls/RfCs [75] [76] [77] [78] Many times this is done over obvious details not needing citations.
2. I honestly don't know what this is, but it appears to be taunting/trolling/griefing. [79] [80] [81] [82]
3. WP:IDHT and WP:WIN [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] A very combative edit summary

All around, I would say this editor's presence in these articles is detrimental to consensus-building. They are not interested in collaboration or working together: [91] [92] [93] [94]. They appear most of all interested in their preferred style being used throughout the articles they edit most frequently. Overall, I would characterize this as "not collaborative." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shooterwalker

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

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

Behaviors that raise massive red flags:

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sesquivalent

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by lmharding

While I will not be commenting on his personal beliefs, as he is entitled to them no matter how politically incorrect they may be, I will say that WP:BATTLEGROUND is an issue as noted by other users and all users who have tried to give him advice have been subject to Maneesh's bickering. The fact that his views offend is not the point. We are just here to focus on his edits. Kind reminder to everyone here that associating political beliefs with a user as a way of dismissing can be seen as a personal attack, not going off topic about how his attitudes make us feel. His edits are not encyclopedic and are distracting with him doing 3R violations as well^[1]. A topicban will hopefully suffice and if that fails, other solutions that may be more permanent may have to be utilized. Another user, another WP:DROPTHESTICK. Look at this interaction for even more proof that this may not be the last we hear of Maneesh here.^[2] 19:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maneesh

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

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

:* Seraphimblade Apparently first notified in January 2020 ([95]). Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• This and especially this suggests to me that this is an editor who may probably should not be editing in the gender area. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is extremely confusing. I read the entire discussion on Talk:Sex differences in medicine and came out of it thoroughly confused. On the one hand, it is true that Maneesh needs to understand that gender identity is a sensitive area and that a light touch, rather than a dismissive one, is the higher road to take. However, it is also true that Newimpartial occupies a rather large part of the discussion, perhaps to the point of bludgeoning. Perhaps, then, that high road is not as easy to take as it looks. I'm not too keen to issue warnings or bans in an area where the behavioral issues are muddy but it does seem to me that the editors participating in Sex differences in medicine (and I mean all of them) need to hash out a consensus on the terminology, shove it up there in the yellow area of the talk page, and then make everyone stick to it. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The second diff that Black Kite refers to is definitely problematic and @Maneesh: if you don't see why, then we do have a problem. I get what you're trying to say, but it is generally accepted today that gender identity is not a choice that an individual makes. The implication that it is, which is what your post is making, is unacceptable. If you don't see that, then I agree with Black Kite that you should probably not be editing in this area. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sideswipe9th: The usual way is to start an RfC, everyone gives their arguments, and an uninvolved editor closes it with a decision that is then binding, at least in the short term. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Maneesh is digging a deeper hole, I now think a topic ban is necessary. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: While it may be the case that gender identification issues in medical articles need additional thought, the reason why I think Maneesh needs a topic ban is because of their insistence that gender identity is a choice that a person makes (the comparison to basketball players and aliens). That is contrary to accepted practice (as Evergreen Fir cogently states). Gender identification issues in medical articles is a content issue that is best left to the talk page of those articles, and that was my initial reaction, but the doubling down on the choice issue is a problem and we can, and should, topic ban an editor for their inability to conform to acceptable norms. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dtobias: Maneesh is welcome to hold whatver views they like but they are in the process of being topic banned for repeatedly doubling down on an unacceptable on. Once is forgiveable. But repeatedly? Note that there was absolutely no need for Maneesh to make this "choice" argument in the first place and to keep on pushing it is either a deliberate action of some sort or they just don't know when to stop. In either case, a topic ban is the minimum required action.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• After reading everything, I would support a topic ban here for Maneesh --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crossroads: If you want to discuss Newimpartial's conduct, please open a new AE thread or request an ArbCom case. I suggest that you skip the evidence that is more than a month or two old since it is not actionable at AE -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader: Boomerangs work when there is much more limited content. This thread has passed that by -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am recusing from this. I will let other admins who will presumably be more immune from various insinuations deal with this. I will say that I don't believe that Wikipedia is currently dealing with the problems in the field of transgender issues very well at all, and we may probably need to go back to ArbCom at some point before it gets to the point that the Wikipedia environment gets too hostile for those with certain POVs. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Only in death raises some interesting points. And while Maneesh may lack some tact, we are talking about medical articles, not cultural articles, and they aren't the same, my friends. Gender related disputes (in general) have turned into a real shit show, and I worry we are overcompensating, when we should not be doing so (and potentially causing harm) in medical articles. Wikipedians in general sometimes worry more about feelings and less about facts. We need to find some common ground, based in science. That's all I have to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• RegentsPark, handling at each article talk page is why it is a shit show. Until policy sets firm guidance that applies equally to ALL medical articles, this is going to happen. I have zero faith in this happening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The bothsidesism on display here is pure distraction. It is abundantly clear from the initial diffs that we have an editor who a) has a strongly held, minority view on gender; b) has proved themselves incapable of putting that aside and editing in the topic area without causing disruption; and c) made several comments that disparage trans people (transwomen are male, transmen are female, mockingly comparing trans identity to claiming to be an alien, etc.) in a way that, as Bilorv notes, is contrary to our new UCOC as well as the good old civility policy. I support banning Maneesh from all GENSEX topics, as a minimum sanction. – Joe (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that User:Joe Roe has correctly distilled the situation and agree that at the very least a GENSEX ban is required. And I strongly support what Seraphimblade says about the problem with requiring yearly renewal for DS alerts. I wonder if a bot solution to this would be possible? Doug Weller talk 10:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about this since I posted above, it's my opinion that User:Dtobias should also at the minimum be topic banned. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not actionable --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Bringtar User who is submitting this request for enforcement Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Bringtar (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:ARBIP Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 11 December: Wants to apply WP:BLPCAT on a person who died centuries ago. 11 December: rejects his own edit summary by telling "it removed due to failed verification and not because of BLPCAT" but the added sources supported the information 11 December: Falsely claims other user is vandalizing. See WP:NOTVAND. 11 December: When presented evidence of his wrongdoing, he removes discussion with edit summary: "removing false claims and lies". 11 December: Edit warring to restore misrepresentation of sources and BLP violations. 11 December Files a disruptive SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgethedragonslayer in retaliation. 12 December: Adds a name on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism in violation of WP:BLPCAT; the article does not mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism". 12 December: Same as above. 13 December Edit wars when above additions are reverted in violation of WP:BLP and shows his lack of understanding of WP:LINKVIO. 13 December: Adds a quotation to establish a conversion but the quotation does not verify his claim. 13 December: Same as above; quotation does not verify conversion. 13 December Edit wars to restore another name by adding 2 sources, none of which mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism", thus violating WP:BLPCAT again. 13 December: Restores his another BLPCAT violation when neither sources confirm the subject's admission of conversion from Hinduism to Christianity. 13 December: Showing lack of WP:AGF by alleging me of "using WP:LINKVIO at your whim". 14 December: Edit warring to restore his misrepresentation, LINKVIO and BLP violations with edit summary: "undo disruption" 14 December: Engages in WP:IDHT by repeating himself and shows his failure to understand WP:LINKVIO. Claims that there is no LINKVIO violation because the "youtube video is not uploaded here" on Wikipedia. See WP:CIR. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) [96] Additional comments by editor filing complaint The above diffs are recent and they show that the user does not understand that who is alive and who isn't, what the sources say, what is a personal attack, what is a WP:LINKVIO and the importance of WP:SECONDARY sources. While the user shows a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLPCAT on the mentioned articles above, he happens to be strict about the policies when the article's main subject happens to be opposite.[97] This shows intended POV pushing. The user is an WP:SPA with whom, together with several other editors, I have already tried enough to guide on the basics of Wikipedia for months[98] but this user is unwilling to learn. Given the continued display of WP:CIR and battleground mentality, I have zero hopes with this user. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [99] Discussion concerning Bringtar Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Bringtar Statement by Vice regent I don't see how this is an India-Pakistan issue. There have been some problematic editing at List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, where all sides have made bad edits: some have added insufficiently sourced content while others have removed sufficiently sourced content. If you click on those histories, you'll see half a dozen additional parties to this dispute (besides OP and Bringtar).VR talk 19:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) Result concerning Bringtar This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is a religion not an India-Pakistan issue. I will close this in 24 hours if there are no objections from other AE admins --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] I haven't examined every diff, but this does look troubling. Should it be moved to ANI instead of closed? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] probably. I think all of the Conversion to X articles need some sort of look at them due to how they are used to further disputes -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Mmm. I had some involvement in this (as an admin) and I note that the person who is edit-warring with Bringtar is the filer, and I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area. I would simply decline this unless there's a socking issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barecode is now topic banned indefinitely from the area of post-1992 American politics--Doug Weller talk 17:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Barecode User who is submitting this request for enforcement Lmharding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User against whom enforcement is requested Barecode (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:ARBAP2 @Barecode: doesn't seem to know how to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop WP:FORUM. Source [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] There's a difference between civil, useful conversation and WP:CANVASSING with long rants. He also shifts blame when someone tells him to cool it[106] Lmharding (talk) (Replying to Ivan VA) I'm not a scorned editor as you are implying. In fact, I have been uninvolved in those conflicts until I saw that Barecode was spamming and making a mess of things. I'm just a fellow Wikipedia editor with valid concerns that Bare is spamming and canvassing fringe theories. I ask to to please not tie me into the group of editors he was feuding with. That has nothing to do with this request. Thank you. Lmharding (talk) That is a personal attack which is also not allowed. Maybe you aren't here to build an encyclopedia since you seem to keep being uncivil Barecode. Lmharding (talk) Replying to Neonate) A topicban might be a valid option, if the WP:CIR, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOPOV, and other issues hadn't been pointed out. Those would have to be addressed first. That only works if Barecode won't be back here in a couple weeks with other core issues. A WP:TOPICBAN would 100% be required either way. Lmharding (talk) Recinding due to possible meat and other questionable stuff User:Barecode did, pushing again for a site ban see this [107] may count as WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK Lmharding (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC) (Link fixed, per typo comment below. -- Valjean (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC))[reply] Apparently I made a typo in the link this proves that Ivan and Barecode are WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK User talk:Ivan VA#Wikipedia Neutrality. Lmharding (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment: *@Doug Weller: noting how Ivan also responded in first person to a comment made towards Barecode, will he also get banned as an obvious WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT account or is that insufficient evidence? Lmharding (talk)! 13:23, December 20, 2021 (UTC)‎ So Barecode just admitted that he and Ivan are a pair of socks of each other, permaban both. It's the right way forward. Lmharding (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hey everyone, I wanted to get an update. What are we waiting for? Can we give the ban to ivan and barecode, or do you need more info? What do we still need to do? Lmharding (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] I would still suggest an indef for both Barecode and Ivan, both seem to be WP:NOTHERE. Both seem to grasp understanding of rules and civility and WP:BEYOND. If you disagree, then your resolution is fine. Lmharding (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Discussion concerning Barecode Statement by Barecode Johnuniq - Of course it was a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. It is my error and I admit it. When I made the edit I knew that SPS can be used as sources in the articles about SPS when they describe themselves and their activity. But I did not know the exception about the third parties at that moment. It is a serious violation because: The WP:BLP says For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured - Therefore my violation of the Wikipedia is a serious one. It was also a violation of the WP:SPS (item 2 - "it does not involve claims about third parties;" - of which I was not aware at that moment). In the rest of my replies here I answered to the accusations against me, which in my view, most of them are baseless. The justification for opening this section/reporting incident was that I somehow "don't get it" after I declared that I understand the policy and I am willing to respect it - therefore an outlandish accusation. Also I exposed the origin of this incident to be somewhere else - the personal dislike certain editors have against me. I also exposed the reasons of that dislike (it started with my disagreement that Glenn Greenwald is a traitor working for Rusia and having no credibility at all). I edited this section to be more specific. Johnuniq - Please observe the fact that Alexbrn called for banning me and for opening this incident because the OP is just not getting it - which is a absolutely false and absurd, since I already left that conversation (at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability) saying that I understand and I am willing to respect the rule. Valjean stated that I claim to understand the policy and then deliberately violated it - which is false because I made the wrong edit before better knowing that policy and not after that. And Lmharding claims that I am doing forum shopping because I was asking clarifications at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (which I got and where I actually got the point) and based on a previous false and absurd accusation that I was forum shopping - at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on Glenn Greenwald the editors ignored my call for stopping the conversation there and for starting a RfC and they kept pouring messages there. Because I answered and kept calling for stopping that conversation, after that I was accused of extensive debate even though it was me asking for closing that debate. I honestly believe that piling on a previous false accusation should not count as a valid accusation. Because repeated lies should not count as the truth. -- Barecode (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC) -- Barecode (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Johnuniq - please also consider the later behavior of Lmharding - After opening this incident based on fabrications, he keeps fabricating stuff saying that I am a an obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Ivan VA, and he is rushing everyone to ban both of us, he claims that I support fringe theories without any trace of indication for such a thing. I did not repeat claims of QAnon or Alex Jones, I don't claim the Earth is flat, what is he talking about? It doesn't matter, his point is to throw as many accusations as possible, to make it look like there is a serious issue here and wants to burry all this garbage as quick as possible. He provided a link to an nonexisting section - this to "prove" that I am pushing for a site ban. After the reply to Ivan VA he said That is a personal attack which is also not allowed. Maybe you aren't here to build an encyclopedia since you seem to keep being uncivil Barecode. - so it's not even clear if he talks to Ivan VA or to me or maybe he thinks that by talking to Ivan VA he is talking to me. He said that I admitted that me and Ivan AV are a pair of socks of each other, which I never admitted. I knew that Ivan AV has the same point as me about Glenn Greenwald, he asked me before to call him if I talk about this topic therefore I asked him to come comment the discussion about blocking me so I won't be alone against editors who dislike me. Unfortunately Ivan VA's comments were not helpful at all. What is wrong to notify someone else that you actually feel harassed? Isn't this just another attempt to intimidate and to bully? If you feel harassed and you ask someone else for support then you are guilty of sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting - in the view of this distinguished editor. This horrible show based on fabrications makes me remember the phrase "Manufacturing consent". -- Barecode (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Johnuniq - Until now, the editors who accused me either came with false and absurd accusations or they just repeated a previous false accusation of forum shopping or they simply ask for banning me without actually bothering to mention any reason. Nobody called for blocking me for the only valid accusation about my reverted edit at Project Veritas - for which I already admitted that I was wrong. If that's a good reason for banning me - so be it. But they built a lot of noise on top of that in the hope of making it look like it's far worse just one error. I moved the rest of my answers to the accusations other editors made about me at User talk:Barecode/AE -- Barecode (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Hemiauchenia I first noticed Barecode when he posted a 7,000 byte unactionable diatribe to the RSP talkpage on the 5 December complaining that the liberal media were "biased", [108]. Since then, they have complained about Wikipedia's "biased" coverage of the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory (see Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory) and argued against the view of everyone else that Glenn Greenwald's self published work should be considered a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_361#RfC_on_Glenn_Greenwald. They were most recently involved in the thread Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_and_their_claims_about_third_parties which I understand involved Barecode adding BLP violating content to the Project Veritas article which was oversighted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Ivan_VA Barecode just rebelled against a quite clear violation of standard editing rules, where a group of editors decided to ban a credible article source just because the sources political views didn't match their owns'. It's a screaming injustice, violation and deterioration of editing standards. All the user did was trying to have a meaningful debate. Now the incriminated are trying to ban the messenger. This process here will be kafkaesque. --Ivan VA (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Ivan VA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] @Alexbrn: U dare to call me a POV warrior, having more in depth and extensive written articles than u have. My contributions to the project speak for themselves, if we wanna start from this. As i said b4 up there, this is going to be a kafkaesqe one. U obviously aspire the role of the inquisitor. --Ivan VA (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Alexbrn: The project isn't just the english version of it. It also includes other language versions, and meta. With identical, if not -same- editing rules and standards. The meter also doesnt count articles created by me translated onto this wiki by others. If u werent so absorbed into ignorance u would have found what u have not been looking for. Speaking from your wast reservoir of editorial experience in writing in depth articles. As for I'm willing to fight a crusade for that. u clearly dont understand metaphors, its quite simple to understand. Im into enlightenment enough to bother to explain u. As for the merit, i dont see ure bored at all, if u were u wouldnt bother. All i see is a shallow attempt to ad hominemize a clear and blatant violation of editorial standards coz of some higher purpose. --Ivan VA (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Doug Weller: Could u please, for the sake of ending this, explain me why Glenn Greenwald isn't a reliable source in the article about Hunter Biden? U would save all of us a lot of time. As for this pulling blocks outta thin air, u also have to explain how did the incriminated user deserve an indefinite block. --Ivan VA (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Doug Weller: Content issues are very much the issue here. I say so, and there is a proven record of putting the content issue of this case under the rug. I dont see how u, as an en.wiki admin, can, given that u have to be biased free in this, say this without checking. It puts a bias on your judgement here. If this question stays unanswered i dont see how u can be taken as an impartial arbitror here, given your role given to u by the community. --Ivan VA (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Barecode: Greenwald is a credible source, like Hilberg is for holocaust studies. An he is credible because of his credentials. No matter where he publishes. His take is encyclopedia stuff. B4 u can dismiss him as such, there needs to be a paper trail on this wiki, a process. And the guys who are banning his opinion from articles havent done that. Havent done their homework. Thats why its abuse. --Ivan VA (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Alexbrn I've only just realised Barecode is the same editor behind a recent Glenn Greenwald RfC[109] in which they didn't seem able to "get" the WP:PAGs, instead wielding a WP:STICK. That was pretty bad, but the edits at WT:V were worse, as the same kind of not getting-it and stick-wielding were accompanied by repeated serious BLP problems (now suppressed), ignoring what other editors in that thread were warning about. Smells like another AP2 POV-warrior on a mission to prove some kind of WP:POINT about Wikipedia. Don't know how the community usually handles such cases but maybe an AP2 TBAN might let us see if Barecode is truly WP:HERE? (Oh, and from the comments of Ivan VA above, it looks like there's a similar kind of problem there.) Alexbrn (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Barecode: with this you rather prove the point. The problem is not what you might "think" but what you're doing on Wikipedia, but it's true that may be because you lack competence. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Ivan VA: Admittedly, I only suggested you were a likely POV warrior on the basis of your contribution to this AE. But now I check out your slender contribution to the Project[110] I see you condemn yourself:[111] I'm willing to fight a crusade for that. And if i fail, there needs to be a battle on the record the way en.wiki seized to be an encyclopedia. So it seems what we may be seeing, from both these editors, is an attempt at WP:SBA so they can whine about their Wikipedia martyrdom in some other forum. But it's not martyrdom, it's just boredom for the rest of us, tired of predictable AP2 silliness. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by PaleoNeonate I first noticed Barecode when participating at an RFC on December 8th and although I didn't get up to date with all recent talk page discussions, some WP:FORUM-style posts at least going back to the 3rd were visible, like this. I then made sure that they were aware of the AP2 DS situation and reminded them of NOTFORUM. We had a bit of friendly user talk page chat that I didn't pursue. It however appears that the need to push questionable primary sources and to WP:SOAPBOX escalated to various noticeboards and policy talk pages. They were carefully explained policy with links multiple times during multiple discussions and warned of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. For some reason this persists. A recent incident involves promoting some claims of Project Veritas (a WP:BLPSPS issue with a terrible source) without recourse to reliable secondary sources (necessary for WP:WEIGHT evaluation and independent RS analysis that WP has to reflect per WP:NPOV). —PaleoNeonate – 03:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ivan_VA: Your statement would be more credible if you were not also arguing against policy here, if Wikipedia was a free speech platform for political opinions, a place to promote the claims of unreliable sources, or a democracy (WP:NOT). This cannot distract from the above-mentioned facts... —PaleoNeonate – 03:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Adding: Barecode can edit more successfully in other areas (example) suggesting that a topic ban may be a better idea than a siteban. —PaleoNeonate – 04:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Generalrelative Barecode isn't doing themselves any favors by referring to criticism as violent behavior and comparing Wikipedia's culture to the government of North Korea. Yes there are many who believe that left-leaning biases in the media and on Wikipedia exist, but it takes a special level of disconnection from reality to insist that Joe Biden commands some sort of cult-like following à la Kim Jong Un. Generalrelative (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Valjean Barecode, Johnuniq asked two questions ("Do you now think it was? Briefly, why or why not?"). You have answered the first one, but we'd like to see your answer to the second one: "Briefly, why or why not?" was your edit a "serious BLP violation". We need to know if you actually understand the BLP policy. -- Valjean (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Barecode, above, on 17:46, 20 December 2021, you replied to my comment immediately above. Good. You wrote: "I understand the policy..." Then why did you violate it? You wrote: "I think Wikipedia is the place where you are not expected to simply obey the rules without any question." Whether you question a rule or not (that can be done at the right place), you must obey the rule until it is changed. Period. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point or because you do not agree with a rule. Regardless of your motives, it's still blockable disruption. By this time, you've done this enough that it's become a bannable offense. Even a topic ban may not save you as it reveals serious CIR issues, and even worse, since you claim to understand the policy and then deliberately violated it, your actions are insurrection against our policies, and we cannot allow that to happen. Wikipedia must be protected from people like you. You wrote: "A media outlet is not allowed..." We have rules here, and we are not bound by the rules of other media; We just have other ways of reaching similar results. In fact, in some ways we are better than other media, and yet you deliberately violated BOTH our BLP and SPS policies AND the media rules you mentioned. In fact, you did even worse: You libeled a person by name in an article. You used Project Veritas as your only source. They are a horrible source. You didn't even bother to do a basic Google search to see if actual RS mentioned the issue. They do not. BLP requires that we use multiple high-quality sources for negative claims about a living or recently dead individual, yet you posted pedophilia claims based only on Project Veritas. Then, to make matters worse, you added content that wasn't even in the source. You editorialized a serious and libelous claim. If that CNN person sees what you did, they could sue you personally. Thankfully the very offensive content was revdeleted. BTW, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Self Published Sources and their claims about third parties, you should have provided an answer there, but you never did. -- Valjean (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Barecode, above, on 18:06, 20 December 2021, you replied to my comment immediately above. Good. You wrote: I think anyone can actually understand that I want to respect the Wikipedia rules. The context was the section at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Self Published Sources and their claims about third parties. It can still be read, but the really bad parts had to be revdeleted. No, we can't "understand" that you "want to respect the Wikipedia rules", because you had just violated the rules in about as bad a way as can be imagined. BLP violations are very serious matters. Then you proceeded to attack Alexbrn when he said you "don't get it". Nothing you had done indicated that you "got it", and we don't care what you say when your actions say otherwise. Alexbrn was right and didn't deserve for his comment to be labeled an "absurd and violent approach". CONCLUSION: Indef siteban is needed. This was not ignorance, but deliberate insurrection. -- -- Valjean (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'm not going to reply to all the claims I'm lying or bullying, because that's all a failure to AGF, itself a blockable offense, at least when it's on this scale. I'll just deal with a few points to save space here. That part where I assumed you hadn't performed "a basic Google search" was an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now you're implying that you did perform such a search. Okay, I'll AGF and believe you performed such a search, but that just makes things worse for you. When you did that search, you must have seen that no RS commented on the allegation from Project Veritas. So you knew that and yet persisted in calling out a CNN person for pedophilia, backed up with only that single terrible source. That's worse than I had imagined. If you were ignorant of the fact no RS had commented on it, well....ignorance could assuage a bit of your guilt, but since you knew....Wow! -- Valjean (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Moving on to another point. You wrote: "I was using the source in the very article about the source. If you only did that, there would be no problem, but you are now doing exactly what you falsely accused me of doing: ("removing the relevant context in order to frame your nothing-burger accusation...". You left out the part about how SPS must not be used "about third parties". You know about that part because you started a whole discussion with that in the header: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Self Published Sources and their claims about third parties. That you claim to previously have not understood that part is one thing (I'll AGF), but now you're arguing as if you were still ignorant of it, at least you left out the part you did wrong. No one has accused you of doing anything wrong by using a PV ref in the PV article. We have accused you of using an SPS about a third party. Focus on what we said you did wrong; don't try to divert attention to something no one found fault with. To quote you: "Embarrasing, isn't it?" -- Valjean (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Another point: I wrote that you added content that wasn't even in the source. Your defense is that "the content was correct because it was found in another source on a different day (The source was an article which continued an article published one day before.). That's not how it works. That's why Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is good to remember. The libel might well be found on other sources, but the source you use as a ref must back up what you write. You failed there. Unfortunately, I can't provide any diff because your BLP violation in two different locations was so serious it had to be revdeleted. In fact, revdeletion was used at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Self Published Sources and their claims about third parties and Project Veritas#Investigations. -- Valjean (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by ValarianB "You transform Wikipedia into a North-Korea-like place, in your woke fight for righteous justice." --Barecode. This was never about Wikipedia editing, this entire affair with this user has been theater, summed up by one sentence above. We're all going to be grist for an upcoming blog entry, most likely. ValarianB (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Dtobias I'm being proposed for topic-banning in another case up the hall, so I've got some experience in this regard... and if I were to offer some free advice (worth every penny!) it would be to say if you're accused of making long rants, the best way to defend yourself just might be something other than to make some more long rants about it. But what do I know? Can I even follow my own advice? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by WaltCip Never before have so many words been used to say so little.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username) Result concerning Barecode This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Barecode: I've had a quick look at most of the links above but have not formed an opinion about whether there is a sanctionable problem. I'm more interested in recent edits and noticed User talk:Barecode#BLP violation which concerns an edit on 18 December 2021 at Project Veritas that has now been suppressed. Without repeating whatever was in that edit, would you please outline how you would respond to the message on your talk. The claim is that your edit was a "serious BLP violation". Do you now think it was? Briefly, why or why not? Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] I am of the feeling that an indef NOTHERE block is the only way forward. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Looking at the above and their posts elsewhere, I agree that an indefinite block is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thinking about this since I posted above, it's my opinion that User:Dtobias should also at the minimum be topic banned. I see I've been asked about User:Ivan VA. I don't think they are a sock as they were asked for help by Barecode on their sr-wiki talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Oops, came here to reply to Ivan VA with the thought of also saying a tb for someone in another AE request and put both here. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Support an indef not here block for Barecode. I'm open to one for Ivan VA as well. @Doug Weller:, did you mean to comment about Dtobias in the Maneesh section? --RegentsPark (comment) 16:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Doug Weller: yes, go ahead and TB Barecode. And indef Ivan VA. I didn't want to say it, but parsing their comments was headache inducing. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] No, I've corrected that. @Ivan VA: please use your own section - content issues aren't relevant here. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Ivan VA: you're new to en-wiki and sr-wiki probably has different policies and procedures. At the top of this page it says "For all other problems, including content disagreements...". This page is to enforce WP:Arbitration Committee sanctions, and the Committees role is basically deal with conduct disputes. I'm not an Arbitrator (although I was for two terms) but am acting here as an Administrator, and it would be wrong for me to comment on whether something is a reliable source that isn't WP:UNDUE or whatever the content issue is. If you think someone is misusing sources there is WP:ANI, if you want to argue a source is unreliable or reliable there is WP:RSN, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Valjean, your statement is more than double the 500 word limit, and Barecode, yours is more than ten times over it. Please trim them down to the important points. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Barecode, thanks for trimming that down. Since they're the responding party, I granted an extension to 1000 words for Barecode. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ivan VA, different wikis absolutely do not have identical rules and standards. Each has its own, created by the editors of that wiki. Some have similarities, but do not assume that the rules at sr.wiki apply here. They do not. —valereee (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Now that things are at a more manageable size, I think Barecode has made some serious misjudgments, but is at least willing to hear and consider corrections regarding those mistakes. Given that, I would more favor a topic ban than an indefinite block, to see if they are willing and able to make constructive contributions in less fraught areas. On the other hand, Ivan_VA seems to have just doubled down, and their reply here being full of lulztxtspk ("u", "b4", etc.), certainly contributes to the impression that they do not take this issue seriously in the slightest. I would not object to a NOTHERE indef in that instance, unless they show some willingness to change course very quickly indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Any objections to this being closed shortly, TB for Barecode, NOTHERE for Ivan_VA? Doug Weller talk 13:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]