• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With previous consensus[1] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [2] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [3] [4] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [5] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [6] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [7]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.^[1]

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [8] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

• This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[9] - WP:POV violation.
• This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
• This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [10] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
• Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [11] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [12] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [13] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [14] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [15] and previous discussions which you have ignored [16] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[17]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [18] and previous discussions which you have ignored [19] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[20]

you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [21] and previous discussions which you have ignored [22] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user Freetrashbox has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes [27] [28] [29] even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this [30] he needs to understand that his opinions are not factsHawkers994 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: It would be more constructive to refute my explanation above. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is saying as if he is writing an article based on "presence (of country)", but I find it hard to believe. For example, the town of Bo'ame, which he mentions immediately above, is the town that Somaliland acquired in 2022, as noted in the current article. By his logic, that would mean that prior to 2022, it was not Somaliland. However, this user rewrote the town's country of ownership from Somalia to Somaliland prior to 2022.[31] In other words, he does not believe that "the country that occupies a town is the owner of that town." In his mind, he had concluded earlier that this town is a Somaliland territory, and he is just bringing logic to it. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

numerous times the sources on the article pages make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing ignores this and you reverts all sources and edit according to your opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: The article Bo'ame had 3,442 bytes in July 2021 before I started posting.[32] All that was written was the location with neighboring districts and the economic relationship with neighboring cities where there were no sources of information. I have added over 9000 bytes to this article. When we read the current article, we will see how this small town has dealt with its larger counterparts in Somaliland and Puntland. In short, I wrote most of this article. I am also the one who searched for sources of information. What exactly are you trying to say to me that I am ignoring the source? In contrast, what contribution have you made to the article in this town? You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland. You are just replacing the word Somalia with Somaliland. That Somaliland is a superior country is evidenced by the fact that the Puntland and Federal Republic of Somalia governments have adopted the system conceived by the country's leaders. If you want to tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland, I think you should tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland as it is in your articles, instead of doing nonsense like replacing one word with another. If you are not capable of doing so, then you should not be adding to Wikipedia. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your false claim that I have not added any articles to Wikipedia is untrue, [33] and many other contributions you chose to ignore in your emotional rant were created by myself, similar to how you choose to ignore the sources on article pages. As for the boame article the sources [34] [35] show that it’s under Somaliland government control and cannot be ignored and that info boxes should show that. As explained before there is already a dispute article which highlights this [36] which are linked to these articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

Comment Both users, Hawkers994 and Freetrashbox seem to be locked in de facto edit wars on pages I have reviewed. Even if they do appear to avoid 3RR. In general, the wall of text and back-and-forth arguing makes this difficult to follow. Hawkers994 is editing in a strongly partisan fashion on pages like Bo'ame as an example. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your third edit? You should comment with your main account. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, this is my main account however. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not. You don't get to pretend to be new and file an ANI complaint with your third edit. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell This is not respectful to IP editors who want to make an account. Why would IP editors want to register an account if they could not use their new account just like people with Wikipedia accounts who have been here the same amount of time as them? Maine 🦞 16:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkers994: Okay, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that you did not contribute at all in the Somaliland article. However, I checked your entire contribution history and found that, with the exception of the revert, you added more than 1,000 bytes only to the first edition of the 2,366 bytes article you listed immediately above. No doubt you have contributed little to Wikipedia. Also, as you can see from my explanation above, I am not talking about whether Bo'ame is in Somalia or Somaliland. Are you trying to deflect the conversation? I'm just asking you to write without arbitrarily choosing the sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you’re trying to change to the subject when i have debunked your lies, info boxes on these mentioned articles will relate to the sources [37] and changing the subject to a users contributions will not change the fact that these articles have previously been edited and also changed by many other previous uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: If you are saying that I told lies, please show the edited difference. The garoweonline article you showed exactly reveals that Somaliland has effective control over Tukaraq, however Puntland is objecting to it. I wrote about it in the article Tukaraq.[38] But you removed it.[39] Can you explain the reasons for your edits? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the source states there is no somalia presence this region, why did you ignore the source and change the info box [40] when there is already a dispute article as previously mentioned. [41] You also changed the source of the article to confuse readers [42] which i had to change back again. [WP:POV] states that opinions and not facts so you cannot just change them to your own accord.

Administrators and others: The conversation is going in circles. First, please give me your opinion on whether the copy-paste edit ("On the beginning of..."[43]) that Hawkers994 mentions immediately above is a violation of Wikipedia's rules or not. If this is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules, please your opinion on whether my rewrite ("Somaliland's Minister of Interior..."(the same link)) constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You lied about me of not adding adding any articles to wikipedia then when i debunked your lies [44] you said “Maybe its an exaggeration” and when confronted your changed the topic to Individual user contributions while trying to confuse users that info boxes should relate to sources. It seems you are the one going around in circles.Hawkers994 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I will talk about this one first. I have reviewed your history for the past 500 edits or so (about 2 years) and concluded that "You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland." But you had an edit in the past that was over 1000 bytes. You made the edit 5 years ago and it is only 1 of your 900 previous edits. Given this situation, can we say that I told a lie? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to quit making contested edits for a minute and read Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent Sennalen (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I was not cool with the editorial with Hawkers994. For this reason, I have now stopped editing the article disputed with him regarding the nationality of the town. I have called for dialogue with him on Talk:Tukaraq, Talk:Wadamago, Talk:Bo'ame, Talk:Yagori, Talk:Sool, and Talk:Hudun, but he has not responded. Currently, these articles are written to his liking (except for the articles that have been further edited by another person). Dialogue is effective only when the other party responds, and is meaningless if the other party does not respond. I think just editing without responding to dialogue is a sufficient violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a step forward. Now, isn't ownership of these areas part of the Puntland–Somaliland dispute? If so, the articles should just say that, instead of the two of you trying to fight the war on Wikipedia. Sennalen (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’ve mentioned that there is a dispute article [45] many times on here for this region which these towns come under, yet this user ignored this as well as the sources which show control of these towns. Its pretty straight forward that info boxes should relate to that. User Freetrashbox does not need to change and deflect the topic.Hawkers994 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you also pursued a campaign of assigning ownership of disputed territory to just one side? Sennalen (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, i mentioned that there is a dispute article for all these pages, and that the info boxes should relate to the sources that show control of the towns and are present on the ground since all these articles already mention that its disputed.Hawkers994 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please thread your comments.
2. If I'm reading the diffs right, Freetrashbox wants to claim things for Puntland, and Hawkers994 wants to claim things for Somaliland. You both recognize that there is a dispute when it comes to adding claims, but you both have also removed claims.

Add sourced claims, removed unsourced claims, and quit being partisans for a side. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Af420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [46] [47] [48] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [49], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA to me;

• Just because u are from Iran doesn’t mean everything belongs to Iran! (this was very their very first comment towards me)

• Dear HistoryofIran please use some sources before adding your personal opinion!

• what’s your problem, why do u think everything on Wikipedia should work the way you want it to work? Furthermore, instead of just writing your feelings, please add some good sources!

After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; BTW, not everybody has so much free time, so I’ll not be able to discuss this situation with you anymore, you can absolutely do as you wish

And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that No sources were provided!. May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STONEWALLING and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your WP:Stonewalling and not assuming good faith. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong indeed. The first diff [50], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [51]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @1AmNobody24:, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:))

Af420 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran I agree that User:Af420 has probably violated a few policies. But you called the UN a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request closure

As demonstrated in this report, Af420 is amongst many things blatantly WP:STONEWALLING the dispute, openly saying that he won't take part anymore and that I can do what I want, whilst contradictory still reverting me. And now he has just resorted to taunting me, not even bothering just address one bit of this report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Af420 does appear to be taunting HistoryofIran at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, @HandThatFeeds: the reason I didn’t bother to answer is because Mr. HistoryofIran basically thinks everything belongs to Persian history, and he puts Persian above everything, here are some of his logs:

• he thinks Backgammon a Persian game:
  • Just wanted to add what it's called in Persian, it is a Persian game.

————————————————————

• He took the the Azari language from the top and and then put it under Persian
  • here is the source

————————————————————

• He took away the text that says Azerbaijani people are Turkic people, instead he wrote that Azerbaijani people are Persian people.

• • I putted sources on, the Azerbaijanis people once spoke a Northwestern Iranian language called Old Azeri language. But the Turks forced the Azerbaijanis to speak Turkish. The genetics of the Azerbaijanis are very close to the Persians.

And much more!!! Af420 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is that evidence and have anything to do with this? This dispute still has nothing to do with Iran, unless you think Tajikistan is located there. Those are literally random diffs from 10 years ago (yes, I am not even kidding, he seriously went all the way back to 2013). And I also highly doubt you even knew of these diffs before now, which shouldn't justify your violation of multiple rules anyways. This is just more WP:ASPERSIONS by this user, if not also lack of WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran is a long-term user with a good record of edits. None of what you posted is egregious, and seems to reinforce that you're here to push an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UN and The New Yorker appear reliable to me. Either or both parties should seek input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard instead of edit warring. I see some low-grade incivility from Af420, but he seems prepared to follow NPOV recommendation of presenting all views found in RS. Sennalen (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need, as they're not reliable per WP:SPS as mentioned up above. I fail to see how constant insults and taunts is only "low-grade incivility" and demonstrates that he is ready to "NPOV recommendation", even though he was also removing sourced information as mentioned above. Can an admin please address this? This is frankly getting ridiculous, is this how we now treat fellow users and engage in disputes? Is instant WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, edit warring, WP:STONEWALLING, taunting, the way to go in a dispute? Since it seems to be working. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no clean hands here. One of the three sources was SPS. The appropriate resposne would have been to remove that one citation and WP:PRESERVE the claim and its other two citations. Sennalen (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly don't put me at his level, in no way did I behave even as remotely as him. Despite his persistent attacks and taunting (including in this very report), I have tried to maintain a calm and nice tone, only to get comments like "There are no clean hands here." This is what SPS says; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". In other words, two news articles written by non-academic, non-historians are not WP:RS. Either way, sitting here and discussing what is WP:RS and what isnt is pointless, since Af420 didn't even bother to do that himself, instead resorting to well.. I rather not keep repeating myself. The report here has more than enough evidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussing it here is pointless. Discuss it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're not helping. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indeffing user:Af420. Said "user" is displaying some serious WP:CIR-ish behavior. And I don't think any of it should be WP:AGF'd. The fact that he digged to HistoryofIran's edits dating back to 2013 (!), i.e. a decade ago, i.e. years prior to him even registering on Wikipedia, and tried to use it against him when confronted with a bunch of awful edits made by himself, is quite telling and reveals the intent of said "user". The fact that the says he doesn't want to take part in further discussion is the cherry on top of the cake. I don't think the community benefits in any way by having such a user. Much less so when taking an actual look at the edits he made that resulted him in being brought to ANI. Said user has barely made 600 edits over 6 years[52] and is now trying to convince us that his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Were the edits correct? Sennalen (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Editors who are here to "win" need to go. Maine 🦞 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you.

I'm not very "into" Wikipedia, but today I saw that the user Sennalen after being knocked back in a failed RfC on talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (they were directed to the Marxist cultural analysis article as an alternate place to edit) that they immediately created a merge for that page (Marxist cultural analysis with Culture studies) - in order to, I presume, get rid of the obstacle/argument by merging the article. This manipulation seems to be part of their ongoing project to revive 'Cultural Marxism' as having currency or modern political relevance.

I also noticed on their talk page, that this is part of a "plan" they have for framing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, and that those plans seem generally focused on substantiating the term as a specific "movement" rather than accepting "Marxist cultural analysis" as a less controversial (and already included) term for what they're trying to place emphasis on. I was just wondering whether this kind of maneuver, or article-gerrymandering is frowned upon at Wikipedia? I know there's WP:OWN, but I don't really know when that's applicable (persistence after multiple consensuses go against you?). I don't think this is stewardship, as they tend to overlook other POV's and distinctions in the subject matter. They themselves have a specific POV - that cultural Marxism is a set and well defined term, and should be substantiated on the page about the conspiracy theory usage. Multiple editors have pointed out the purpose of the conspiracy theory page, and have directed them to the Marxist cultural analysis article instead.

They have never had a consensus for their POV, but are very persistent. I believe last year they also tried to bring NewImpartial here [53] for reprimand, claiming the conspiracy theory represents an "actual movement" and that NewImpartial was the main reason they were unable to form a consensus, which is in no way true (NewImpartial is one of the few editors that negotiates with Sennalen, and I hope they're not over burdened by this).

Is there a solution, or does the attempted ownership/maneuvering by a SPA just eventually pay off with enough time and persistence? The articles/topic is a culture war topic, and the desire seems to be to get rid of the Marxist cultural analysis article in order to make sure the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory can be edited to be seen as a legitimate and modern movement currently persistent within academia/society (rather than a 50 year old mixed and divergent set of different ideas and theorists who haven't been mainstream since the 70s, or indeed, a term with little definition or definitive source).

P.S I have interacted with this user, and it's only ever felt highly adversarial. So I'm just looking for - answers I guess? Advice, direction, a warning, or a resolution to this POV backdoor culture warring. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I just found this, so I'm not sure whether the issue will be acknowledged here. But at least there are some guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing#Suggested_remedies 203.220.137.141 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I see related threads at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same IP that called me a racist troll and was blocked by Dennis Brown? If so, I do not believe that you are not very "into" Wikipedia - you are a long-term editor with a great deal of history in this topic area, including, bizarrely, drafting articles that are more or less in line with many of Sennalen's proposals. Also if so, calling your interactions with Sennalen highly adversarial is a bit rich to put it mildly, as your continuous inflammatory accusations did nothing but stir up trouble (you seem to have calmed down a bit, lately, again assuming this was you). I don't think Sennalen is a problematic editor, and many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged (some of them have been, resulting in their modification or omission, without any edit warring that I can remember). I think part of the problem is that the IP and others seem to fervently believe, without any evidence as far as I'm aware, that Sennalen believes in the conspiracy theory, and this is guiding their interactions with this editor. I suppose this is possible, but I think they just have a difference of opinion, based on a reasonable reading of the reliable sources. Perhaps I need to assume bad faith a little more often...  Tewdar  12:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I don't think Sennalen is a problematic editor, and many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged - I find this statement misleading, though perhaps unintentionally so. Sennalen's User account began with this edit to Marxist cultural analysis, arguing against the separation between that article and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory set out in the former article: The right-wing commentators ascribe more malice and more influence to those authors as matters of interpretation, but largely agree on the facts - the respectable scholars and the conspiracy theorists are supposedly talking about the same phenomenon. The article she began her account with BOLD impetus to change the lead is the same article she is now proposing to merge away into non-existence, while removing the material delineating a distinction between Marxist cultural analysis and the object of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. When the response to her original proposal was less than positive a process was begun to reach consensus on that article - but now Sennalen is attempting to achieve her original POV goal "by other means".

Similarly, Sennnalen began her participation on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory with the claim that conspiracy theorists and academic sources use the term "Cultural Marxism" to mean the same thing, which was once again the whole point of her recently opened[54], enthusiastically defended[55] and subsequently refined[56] RfC, which she decided to withdraw when it was clearly not going her way (it was then closed). Around the midpoint of the intervening year, Sennalen made another attempt to rewrite the article ("Objections to new content" in the Archive), which again was not well-received, although Tewdar aligned himself with some of her proposals. In all of this, Sennalen has rather doggedly pursued a POV that has been repeatedly rejected by the community (in the 2014 Cultural Marxism AfD, and as recently as this week), but that she believes to be true (check the edit summary), which apparently justifies a long march of different kinds of interventions (creeping edits, periodic discussions, and now RfCs and Merge/Move discussions) all in service of this "truth" that the community has rejected. For the record, I don't think the Sennalen account believes in the conspiracy theory, but she clearly believes that the conspiracy theory, and actual scholarship about Marxism and culture, are talking about the same thing. That view is "true" for her even though it is at best a minority current in the relevant literatures, and this "truth" must apparently be pursued by all techniques the community will allow. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should recognize that you yourself are the one who suggested holding an RfC, endorsed withdrawing it, and suggested redirecting attention to the disambiguation link. Sennalen (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of these things that is true, is that I suggested redirecting attention to the disambiguation link, and when I said what I did[57], I did not mean "wouldn't it be good to get rid of that article by means of a Merge discussion". Your interpretations of each of these aspects are deucedly peculiar; for example, to say that I suggested holding an RfC when I actually said "Without an RfC or other explicit instrument to change consensus, this just isn't on" seems - well, it seems pretty much on par with the belabored interpretations you offer for your scholarly citations, so I shouldn't be surprised at this point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...that she believes to be true (check the edit summary)" more than the edit summary, I hope someone checks the reference, Buchanan's Dictionary of Critical Theory (OUP), which states that [Western Marxism] also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as "cultural Marxism" - an assertion that Newimpartial has repeatedly rejected, claiming that "Cultural Marxism" cannot possibly be a synonym for "Western Marxism". We'd probably need a citation for that, since we have a source that (probably) says it is, although we'd need to discuss what 'also known as' means for hours and hours first of course...  Tewdar  12:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not well-received, although Tewdar aligned himself with some of her proposals - but in that discussion, the IP (who may or may not be the current complainant, I'd say 99% probable though) said It all just needs a clearer lead/framing. Other than that, it was quite good work! - must have been nicer weather or something that day! 😂  Tewdar  17:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find this statement misleading, though perhaps unintentionally so - either you think I am trying to be intentionally misleading, or you do not. Which do you think is most likely? This sort of insinuation is not exactly helpful.  Tewdar  15:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to insinuate that you intend to mislead. You almost certainly believe your statement, many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged, to be true. However, you also know that many other editors do not share that assessment, nor do we agree that Sennalen's editing is unproblematic, but you choose to make your simplistic assessment anyway. I find this choice misleading, no matter how much faith you have in the accuracy of your own assessment. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the content in that article was written by Sennalen, and you haven't reverted it, and wow are you quick to revert when you don't like something. I conclude that you believe those edits to be unproblematic. Which of Sennalen's currently extant edits do you disagree with?  Tewdar  16:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A lot of the content in that article was written by Sennalen - I don't believe this to be true, and would like to see some kind of evidence for your assertion.

Re: Which of Sennalen's currently extant edits do you disagree with? - virtually all of her Talk space edits and most of her gnoming in Sandbox, etc., which I believe accounts for most of her edits. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, lazybones... more than 10% of the total text, almost as much as my great edits, and even more than you. 😁  Tewdar  16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes much sense to parse "more than 10%" as A lot of the content, particularly when many of Sennalen's edits that actually survive in the article were arrived at in a BRD process where she did the post-D edit. This pattern will over- rather than under-state her contribution to the current article text. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so they follow BRD, take the time to reach consensus while you lot blather on and hurl wild insinuations and accusations, and then take the time to add the agreed content? Sounds real problematic...  Tewdar  16:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting over and over again to attain the same POV in article text, in Wikivoice, against repeated community consensus is inherently disruptive. It doesn't really matter how much CIVILity is used to push the POV. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I defy anyone to take a look at the stinking monstrosity that was the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article at, say the end of 2021, and compare it to its current state. Then take a look at who was editing that article last year.  Tewdar  18:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you want people looking into the history... They might notice that your top 10 talk pages are Talk:Sex and gender distinction (492 edits), Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (444 edits), Talk:Cornish language (161 edits), Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy (136 edits), Talk:Irreversible Damage (135 edits), Talk:Kathleen Stock (124 edits), Talk:Gender (122 edits), Talk:J. K. Rowling (113 edits), Talk:Western Hunter-Gatherer (98 edits), and Talk:Cornish phonology (96 edits). now what do all but three of those topics have in common? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Perhaps you could spell out exactly what you mean here, and what conclusions you think onlookers should draw. Don't be shy now.  Tewdar  19:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conversation about editors trying to OWN a topic area to have their way with multiple overlapping articles is it not? IMO all three of you need to a new core area to edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Fair enough. Some of my other comments are probably a bit over the top and based on a misunderstanding, then. Anyway, talk page comments aside, sociology type articles are really a side project that I (used to) dip into from time to time. Perhaps I'll stick to my core interests - articles that nobody else really edits.  Tewdar  18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can see why you would get from the impression you did from what I said. My comment is about the volume of edits, in case it isn't clear what they have in common is the same editors at the top of the edit list. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic insinuation, based entirely on talk page titles it seems, too lazy to even check the actual edits. Say what you mean, or retract this. (assume most of the rest are stricken too)  Tewdar  10:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would strongly advise you to take a look at the actual edits on say, the sex and gender distinction article and talk page. See those bits where I'm aligning with Newimpartial, Sideswipe9th, and Firefangledfeathers? Against Crossroads? To make the article more reflective of the preponderance of reliable sources? Might want to back off a bit here...  Tewdar  19:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or my vote in the 'RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?' discussion ob the Irreversible Damage page, whrre I said Yes It is in conflict with the existing scientific consensus, and there are no published articles supporting this hypothesis afaiaa. It is, therefore, by definition "fringe", which isn't necessarily an insult. It is not pseudoscience, however. Say what you mean, Horse Eye. Say exactly what you mean.  Tewdar  20:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial just thanked me for this comment, which means, of course, that you are talking complete and utter Horseshit's back... Tewdar  19:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdar, if I might point your attention to a flaw, you have once again jumped from being correct in a small claim (See those bits where I'm aligning with Newimpartial, Sideswipe9th, and Firefangledfeathers) to an unsupportable large claim (you are talking complete and utter Horseshit's back). This again is why you can't have nice things. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(a) What do you think Horse eye is trying to say? (b) Do you agree?  Tewdar  19:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I don't know; (b) I don't know. Three cheers for epistemological modesty. :p Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we should wait for their explanation. If they provide one.  Tewdar  19:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because guess what: I'm quite angry that an editor is making insinuations based on the fucking talk pages I edit.  Tewdar  19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From your edit history, you look more than anything like a trifurcafed WP:SPA. As opposed to Sennalen, who looks like an SPA tout court. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Languages, archaeology, genetics, with a bit of troublemaking for variety is how I'd describe it... Tewdar  20:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find that funny, because I saw your troublemaking as two topics and those three as just one. I think the Talk-space analysis would back me up on that... Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on article improvements in the Frankfurt School oeuvre for over a year, at the school's main page, Herbert Marcuse, György Lukács, and areas where it gets more controversial, like West German student movement and Degenerate art. No one ever cares, except when it comes to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory where the connection to Trump-era politics gets it on all the SPA's watch lists.

People would like to say that like the fruit of the poison tree, every single statement a conspiracy theorist ever said is false. The fact of the matter is, they read the historical scholarship too and sometimes just repeat what they read. Bringing those real authoritative sources to Wikipedia generates a lot of WP:STONEWALLING, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and general tantrum-throwing like this filing. Nothing else to see here. Sennalen (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one thing to see here: it is very tiresome to encounter an editor who believes Wikipedia is wrong about something and needs to be corrected, and who treats each and every expression of community consensus behind that thing - no matter how strongly based in sources - as STONEWALLING and IDONTLIKEIT, an obstacle to be worked around using a combinarion of patience and new tactics. Very. Tiresome. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, editors who edit on a variety of topics and who engage in this one if and when it shows up on their watchlists are, by definition, not SPAs. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more tiring to encounter an editor who believes all the sources are wrong about something. My interest is in bringing the scholarly consensus on the topic to Wikipedia. It's opposed by people with a culture war angle who want to prevent that at all costs. There is exactly one (1) source so far that support's Newimpartial's personal POV. Tewdar and I have together brought up easily 20 books and journal articles that give a more complete picture. It's always not enough sources, or the author is too young, or the author is a lawyer, the author is Belgian, and so on until finally NewImpartial declares the sources simply don't mean the plain English meaning of the text on the page. They mean something complicated and obscure that Newimpartial is never able or willing to describe. This is stonewalling.

Some people say I should be more cooperative. I have cooperated. When someone reverts my edits, I ask for an explanation. If they express their objections, I make a new edit that incorporates responds to that feedback. That's cooperation. No, when people say I should be more cooperative, they mean I should just stop talking about reliable sources that contradict the PoV they are pushing. Sennalen (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have perfectly good sources, starting with Martin Jay, who distinguish between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory and who neither confuse nor use common terminology for the two. If you believe for some reason that Jay is the only one who makes that distinction, I would be happy to explicate that on talk, but given the way you have repeatedly presented sources as saying things they do not say at all, I am not hopeful about WP:SATISFYing you on this matter. I am not the one here who believes all the sources are wrong, I am the one who believes that there is a clear consensus of scholarship - that Marxist cultural theory and the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory are two distinct topics - and that the vast majority of the sources that discuss that relationship are clear on this point. Most of the sources on Tewdar's list, that you point to, don't address the conspiracy theory at all, many of them don't describe anything in particular as "cultural Marxism", and the only ones that do both of those things distinguish clearly between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory. The idea that because a tiny minority of sources on Marxism and culture use the phrase "cultural Marxism" (to mean different things), therefore when the conspiracy theorists talk about "Cultural Marxism" they are engaged in selective interpretation of something that actually exists - well, you'll need something more than a single peer-reviewed source to back that up, since the mainstream view is clearly to the contrary.

As far as something complicated and obscure that Newimpartial is never able or willing to describe, that is an unfounded ASPERSION, as I am never anything but willing to describe complicated and obscure things. Alas, on this topic I am usually the one relying on the plain English meaning of the text on the page and you are typically the one insisting that the text means something it doesn't actually say. Discussion after discussion after discussion clearly demonstrate this. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what does Christian Fuchs (sociologist) mean by The Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism.[58] Sennalen (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In plain English he is using "cultural Marxism" as a synonym for the activity, Marxist cultural analysis, and making the obvious point that the Frankfurt School tradition engages in that activity. I'm not seeing anything there in common with the object of the conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism", which acts in the manner of other antisemitic conspiracy theories to subvert Western mores. One isn't "based on" the other. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The quote's not about the conspiracy theory, but that's the point isn't it? There is a thing, a real thing, at least sometimes called cultural Marxism, and it has to do with the Frankfurt school. If we can agree on that it's a major breakthrough. Sennalen (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't agree about a real thing - you are giving it a Dinglichkeit the sources don't, which is kind of the whole point. It matters whether writers refer to a domain, an activity, or a group (or none of the above). If a group, it matters what group. These are not all the same thing, nor do they have in common something to do with the Frankfurt School. There is no thing there (and if there were, I'm sure you would have a more muscular statement about this pre-conspiratorial usage than that it has something to do with the Frankfurt School). Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So we can't use a source that says "The Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism." to say the Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism, because it lacks Dinglichkeit. I rest my case. Sennalen (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the activity and domain "cultural Marxism" - Marxist cultural analysis (this domain is also known as Marxist cultural theory and Marxist cultural studies, and is not usually called "cultural Marxism").

We also have articles on Marxist Humanism, Critical Theory, Western Marxism and the Frankfurt School, each of which is a group of writers (only overlapping in places) that have been referred to as "cultural Marxism". Again, as a minority usage.

"Cultural Marxism", apart from the conspiracy theory, doesn't mean any one thing, and it is purest reification (Verdinglichung) to pretend that there is some singular "cultural Marxism" in which the Frankfurt School can be an important tradition. (Some of the sources you've pointed to define one as the other, which would make the cited statement tautological, but clearly that isn't what Fuchs actually means.)

We have to pay attention to what authors actually mean, not a convenient reification that we wish they had meant, or what is the point of using sources? Oh yeah, so you can pretend someone meant something they obviously didn't and immediately rest my case. I wonder whether ChatGPT can do that... Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several things called cultural Marxism. The conspiracy theory, the Frankfurt School, the Birmingham School, Western Marxism, and more besides. Why is it sometimes we can agree these things can be called cultural Marxism, and sometimes people act like its saying Elvis abducted JFK in a UFO? Sennalen (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I have always objected to the proposal that there is a unitary, identifiable topic identifiable as "cultural Marxism", apart from the object of the conspiracy theory. I object to this because the RS, with which I am familiar, do not support this claim. I also know from extensive experience that even when those making the claim are somewhat familiar with the relevant scholarship, the vast majority of the time they claim that such a topic exists in order to make a second claim - that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was constructed out of a flawed, or simply alternative, interpretation of this actually existing "cultural Marxism". This second claim is very popular in SPS and op-eds, is very poorly attested among scholarly sources, and arrives annually or more on enwiki in sinusoidal waves. Since the first claim (that there is a thing prior to the conspiracy theory that scholars agree to call "cultural Marxism") is false, there isn't much reason to discuss the second one. (And that doesnt mean the CT was invented out of thin air, just that it wasn't based on an already existing "cultural Marxism"). Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now scholars don't call something cultural Marxism? 30 minutes ago they apparently called so many things cultural Marxism we couldn't possibly tell which one they meant. Sennalen (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but could anyone explain the context behind the author is Belgian please? As that seems a rather odd way to object to a source. Too young, and lawyer also are odd objections, but being Belgian is the weirdest of the bunch. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP ludicrously objected to the Jamin source because he's Belgian. I cannot remember exactly what Newimpartial says about him.  Tewdar  18:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was you, was it not? Okay, changed out the reference. Jamin is a french academic, a bit silly to have them used for an American concept/social context. Braune is American and correctly summarizes the academic viewpoint on the conspiracy theory. Hope that's enough to please everyone. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Except you incorrectly described Jamin as French, and it was on the Talk:Marxist cultural analysis page that you made this statement.  Tewdar  09:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may regret it, but it is an off-colour joke I make about Jerome Jamin. He has been mistaken by editors as being French, but is actually Belgian, and unlike other peer-reviewed scholarship he likes to draw parallels as well as distinctions between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory. So when I want to pigeonhole his personal idiosyncrasy, I refer to "Belgians". In reality, I have nothing against Belgian scholarship ourside of the problems posed by Jamin's peculiar take (which editors have repeatedly decontextualised, tendentiously interpteted, and tried to incorporate in Wikivoice where he disagrees with mainstream scholarship). Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topics of Marxist cultural analysis and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory are pretty obviously different, so whoever is arguing that they are the same is simply wrong. I'm afraid my eyes glaze over when I read such reports, so I can't identify who that is. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Nobody's saying that, Phil, except drive-by kooks who occasionally show up at that article...  Tewdar  15:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's do something about the drive-by kooks if they refuse to accept consensus, as I have accepted many times even when it is against me. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The drive-by kooks are regularly reverted and sent on their merry way. The recent RfC was started by a regular editor, when it was suggested that a RfC from 2014(!) was still binding today, despite lots of sources available that nobody mentioned in 2014...  Tewdar  15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdar, you know perfectly well that the community has continued to re-affirm that "Cultural Marxism" is the name of the conspiracy theory's imagined object and not anything else, through formal processes up through 2021. You also know that selectively citing only sources that use words the way you would like to see them used is not evidence of anything beyond "this phrase exists" - treating it as though it shows something has changed in the literature since 2014 is - well, it's beneath you, frankly. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural Marxism" is the name of the conspiracy theory's imagined object and not anything else - rubbish. Even our cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article does not support this. There are dozens of excellent sources who use the term to mean something other than a conspiracy theory, including a SAGE Encyclopedia and the Oxford English dictionary.  Tewdar  16:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SAGE Encyclopedia doesn't say what you insist it does, and the OED isn't a good source for the claim that the minority view should be presented as the mainstream one. Re: There are dozens of excellent sources who use the term to mean something other than a conspiracy - your evaluation that they are "excellent" seems to mean "that agree with you", several of these sources do not support the idea that "Cultural Marxism" actually does "mean something other" than the CT, and the ones that do aren't all referring to the same thing.

Believing something, no matter how fervently, simply does not make that thing true. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so Kellner is talking about the conspiracy theory when he says 'cultural Marx(ism/ist), is he? Nonsense. The sources collected here are all pretty decent, and certainly at least on a par with anything by Joan Braune. A source does not have to agree with me, nor another source, to be 'excellent'.  Tewdar  16:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your linked list contains sources that use "cultural Marxism" strictly for an activity, ones that use "cultural Marxism" for a group of writers, and ones that use it for both or don't specify (Kellner is a great example of cultural Marxism as an activity). Your list also includes sources for whom "cultural Marxism" refers to the Birmingham School, ones for whom it refers to the Frandfurt School, and ones who are referring to Marxist humanism, as well as ones with no clear referent. There really is no there, there. You don't include sources there who talk about Western Marxism using its COMMONNAMES (which don't inclide "cultural Marxism"), nor do you include the corpus of sources that reserve "Cultural Marxism" for the object of the conspiracy theory. I'm afraid that, as I said before, you have no evidence of anything beyond "this phrase exists". But then again, we are now discussing a content issue which is outside the scope of ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I include such sources you describe on a page devoted to collecting non-conspiratorial usages of the term 'cultural Marxism'? Anyway, this is irrelevant here, as you say.  Tewdar  16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument, or Sennalen's, had simply been, "not everyone who puts the word cultural in front ot the word Marxist is a conspiracy theorist", we could all have agreed long since. But if one of you is going to argue that the source situation has changed significantly since 2014, and that RS now use "cultural Marxism" in a specified way that was unknown to the 2014 AfD, you need to provide more consistent evidence IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just have drive-by kooks in this subject area; we also have well-intentioned editors who believe that conspiracy theorists and scholars of Marxist cultural analysis are talking about "the same thing" from different perspectives. This is a small minority view in both literatures (the literature on the conspiracy and the literature on Marxist scholarship), but Sennalen is an editor who tries in protean ways to incorpoate that view in Wikivoice. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the dispute is actionable but I do think Sennalen should proceed with caution. The RFC was obviously flawed as there was no content proposal or substantive question. The idea that the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory," ie the theory that modern-day institutions are trying to promote Marxism subtly or secretly, is not a conspiracy theory but is in fact true, is problematic and tendentious. It's true that the Frankfurt School was a Western academic branch of Marxist critical theory and cultural analysis that was influential in the 1960s, but that doesn't mean "the conspiracy theory is actually true" and there also seems to be a bit of WP:OR spin happening here. Wikipedia is not going to acknowledge that "the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is actually somewhat true" because it isn't, but more importantly, WP:V is the issue: Verifiability. Conflating Marxist cultural analysis and a conspiracy theory is disruptive. The former is a legitimate discipline in academia that existed and still exists, but that does not mean there is a conspiracy to brainwash the masses and turn them commie. That is a right-wing conspiracy theory. Andre🚐 15:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have interacted with this user, and it's only ever felt highly adversarial. You are an IP with practically no history, and before today, all interactions between your IP and Sennalen have been one-way (from you; she has never responded to any posts by your IP before this report, and therefore could not have been "adversarial"). Would this constitute an admission of log-out socking by any chance? This is explicitly not allowed on project pages. DFlhb (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC); fixed pronouns DFlhb (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment here but IP addresses can change. This does not necessarily rule out socking but it also does not imply it, specifically, and that's why we assume good faith until evidence brings us to a different conclusion. --ARoseWolf 16:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(She has never responded, etc. Pronouns, people.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I usually use "they" when I don't know, but I guess I got confused here. DFlhb (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to get confused; I started to use "they" for Senanalen but had a nagging feeling so I checked her user page. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an accurate characterization of the content dispute. The question is essentially whether to describe the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as

1. Something invented out of thin air, and the only thing ever called "cultural Marxism"
2. A set of lies about the Frankfurt School, which is also legitimately called "cultural Marxism"

The second is the consensus of reliable sources, but upsetting to of a faction of editors. Sennalen (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we must await the forthcoming peer-reviewed article, Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of Cultural Marxism, and the following ARBCOM intervention, to decide between these two perspectives. 😁  Tewdar  18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Sennalen, many of the sources that you have advanced in support of your view that "Cultural Marxism was a real boy thing before it was an object of the conspiracy theory" are not about the Frankfurt School. Nobody disputes that the conspriacy theorists have made up lies about the Frankfurt School, but from this you cannot conclude that there was a pre-existing usage, "Cultural Marxism=Frankfurt School", that was seized upon by the conspiracy theorists. Once again, you are assuming precisely the thing you are supposed to be demonstrating, and are creating straw goats ("invented out of thin air") to make your case for you. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Schroyer A Critique of Domination (1973) used it that way, which you well know from your university studies, our recent talk page discussions, and the time you expunged it from Marxist cultural analysis.[59]

Then we also have sources that say things like One of the issues associated with the Cultural Marxist conspiracy is that Cultural Marxism is a distinct philosophical approach associated with some strands of the Frankfurt School[60] Sennalen (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how a diff wherein I remove a bad paraphrase about a tangent to the article's topic becomes some kind of "gotcha" in your eyes. Yes , Schroyer refers to "cultural Marxism" as a broad domain. No, he does not use it as a synonym for the Frankfurt School, or any other group of writers.

And if you're reading Busridge as saying anything like, "the conspiracy theory is based on a misreading of Cultural Marxism as a philosophical tendency" - well, I don't know what to make of that. It seems on the face of it like a terrible misreading. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist cultural analysis is not the same as cultural Marxism, although they have overlaps. You can see this in the writings of Raymond Williams that I used as a source recently on the Marxist cultural analysis page. Herbert Marcuse, whilst accused of being the main driving force of "Cultural Marxism" didn't use the term. So you claiming that his removal from the lede of Marxist cultural analysis is something wrong - well, I think that highlights some of what you're attempting. Fortifying the conservative views that you read in a way that aligns with Civil POV pushing. The reason I came here. You do a lot of edits, not because the page needs it - but because you want to rewrite it. You've said as much in various places (on the talk page, in RfCs, on your own talk page). Seeing you and Tewdar joke about cutting the heads of Hydras when you have these RfCs shows that you're not really here in Good Faith. The reasons you have been brought here are obvious for those who understand what's going on, and we are trying to explain it. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take me to ANI, if you think you can show that I'm not here in good faith, because I made a joke about a hydra? Perhaps you can point out my edits on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article that you consider problematic, for those who don't understand what's going on? And why don't you ever use your user account? Was it about to be blocked or something? The behaviour on that article talk page is appalling, and you are the worst offender there. This section is a travesty, can someone either decide on a suitable action or close it, before it turns even more nasty?  Tewdar  10:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it wasn't a joke about an RfC, it was a joke about Newimpartial being taken here.  Tewdar  10:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the diff for that, Tewdar? I would have thought I'd remember a joke about being taken here: usually when editors make comments like that about me, they aren't really joking. Newimpartial (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's on Sennalen's talk page. You even replied to her reply! 😁 And it certainly was intended as a joke - occasionally I find you reasonably tolerable, on your good days... for clarity, the joke was made after you were brought here.  Tewdar  10:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So (1) your exchange with Sennalen was actually about her bootless ARE filing against me, which I had pretty much forgotten, so it wasn't about ANI, and (2) I can see how your comment may have been meant as a joke, but hers seems quite earnest, albeit misguided. Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) ARE, ANI, you really want me to remember all these drama acronyms? (2) This was months ago and didn't seem to bother you very much at the time. People are always plotting to get rid of you, right? Waste of time if you ask me 😂.  Tewdar  11:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People even plot about people who might plot about getting rid of me in the future ... it can be very meta. Newimpartial (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, this diff is a great example of me pushing the conspiracy theory. Perhaps you could start with that one?  Tewdar  11:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be an accurate characterization of the content dispute? Thats not at all what appears to be on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most things labelled "conspiracy theories" aren't conspiracy theories. Usually they are just allegations, and the term "conspiracy theory" is a POV addition / mis-labelling to discredit the allegation. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you dispute the scholarly sources documenting a Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? If so, who should we follow: your opinion or the peer-reviewed scholarship? Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Most things"? What? First of all, even if for the sake of argument most things considered conspiracy theories aren't conspiracy theories, have you read the lead section of the article in question? If after reading that you still believe that the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is not a conspiracy theory, you're basically aligning yourself with a fringe right-wing POV. There's no culture war conspiracy of the leftist universities to brainwash people. The fact that some people might use the term "cultural Marxism" broadly in no way validates the conspiracy theory. It's a literal crackpot theory about a conspiracy that our institutions such as universities are brainwashing people en masse into leftism. A sizable portion of paranoid right wingers believe this. Andre🚐 20:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most things labelled "conspiracy theories" aren't conspiracy theories, what an irresponsible and ignorant comment. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved administrator please hat or delete North8000's comment and its replies? NOTFORUM. Sennalen (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As just one example of the peculiar behaviour over there, take a look at this RfC about the first sentence. Now, the conspiracy theory itself is given at least three names in the academic literature by various scholars; the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; the Frankfurt School conspiracy; and Cultural Marxism. Even noting that the conspiracy theory has at least three names is rejected! Just look at some of the stuff they're saying here! 😭  Tewdar  18:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdar, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by pointing to an RfC where Sennalen didn't participate, you retracted your !vote, and I commented briefly but didn't vote. It was also an RfC about the lead sentence only, and it is impossible to include everything RS say about the topic in a lead sentence. So what are you kvetching about, and why would it be relecant at ANI? You are giving me the impression of some kind of disintegration. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Sennalen did participate in that discussion... 😁 Anyway, that discussion is fairly representative of the nonsense that goes on over there. Quite relevant background material, I'd say, but of course people can decide for themselves.  Tewdar  20:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it is impossible to include everything RS say about the topic in a lead sentence what the fuck?! Two extra altnames?!  Tewdar  20:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should look at the RfC again, Tewdar. It doesn't present any choice that includes multiple "altnames". Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take a better look at the 'Neutral, mixed, or other section', as well as the rest of the discussion. Do you not remember it? We discussed it on my talk page for what felt like years...  Tewdar  21:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the best bit of that discussion is the claim that we shouldn't call it Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, because that might imply that it's a conspiracy theory about a real thing, even though the sources call it that, and it's the name of the article! 😂  Tewdar  21:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that you aren't inclined to respect community processes on that Talk page, citing as your key example the way a side issue, not raised in the formal RfC, was handled in a discussion section. If so, I submit that detecting, interpreting and evaluating peculiar behaviour (vs. legitimate consensus determination) may not be your strong suit.

Deciding for yourself what the article should say, and then evaluating the sources presented and the arguments of other editors based on whether or not they support what you believe the article should say - which is what your procedure appears to be - is not really how enwiki is supposed to work. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good job I don't do that, then. I say the sources give three different terms for the same conspiracy theory, and suggest we use all three. Respected community members say fuck the reliable sources, let's just use one of these, which happens to not be the title of the article.  Tewdar  22:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure I described is certainly what your consistent disparagement of Joan Braune's scholarly work, and of the contributions of many other editors, tend to imply.

You said something in a discussion section of an RfC about something else, other editors disagreed with you, and you now caricature that disagreement as Respected community members say fuck the reliable sources - voicing that caricature at ANI, of all places.

I understand that this is how you feel, and I have observed over the years just how full ANI can be of feelz. However, this disaparagement of unnamed editors is unCIVIL, unhelpful, and frankly just unwise. If you can't stop using this discussion as an opportunity to paint a target on your own back while distracting attention away from Sennalen, you just might want to disengage. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be replying to this part of the discussion again, I just wanted people to take a look at what community consensus looks like over there, so I'll let you have the last word.  Tewdar  22:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break and concluding(?) wall of text

Some people have cast aspersions because my first edit on this WP:CLEANSTART account was to Talk: Marxist cultural analysis. What's actually important about that edit is that I came to a talk page with a constructive suggestion, using RS, and asked for feedback. Newimpartial's response to that was to delete my talk page comment and accuse me of being a sock.[61] That set the tenor for our following interactions, but I would only later come to understand how it fit into an existing long term pattern of incivility and disruptive editing by Newimpartial. I documented the situation and sought relief at AE[62] to little effect. Happily, I can report that since that time Newimpartial has provided more satisfactory revert edit summaries.

What I did not know when I started looking at Marxist cultural analysis is that about a year prior, Newimpartial had specifically curated that page to push their ideocyncratic PoV about the conspiracy theory. Because the phrase "cultural Marxism" is used in academic research, Talk page consensus was moving towards adding a disambiguation link from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to Western Marxism or some similar page.[63] Newimpartial's priority has been to deny that link.[64] Sometime around October 2020, Newimpartial had discovered the abandoned stub of Marxist cultural analysis. Over a course of a couple of weeks they purged the little-watched page of content that confirmed scholarly use of "cultural Marxism".[65] Once the page matched their PoV, Newimpartial set it as the disambiguation link at the top of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.[66] I can't construe any way this explicitly violates a policy, but it certainly doesn't seem like fair play.

It's not the conspiracy theory page that provoked this paroxysm of opposition, but the suggestion to merge the semi-duplicate Marxist cultural analysis into cultural studies. The IP who made this filing is somewhat of an enigma. I've asked them to confirm what I believe to be their editing history[67] The recent entries are a near certainty based on geolocation and their pattern of interests. The older ones are a hunch - an IP with similar geolocation who was called before ANI at the same time as a discussion on Marxist cultural analysis. I'm reasonably satisfied they are not a sock, since in their early edits they were clearly still getting a feel for the topic. They do however seem to have particuarly restricted editing interests, even more restricted than just cultural Marxism. Several edit wars have gone by on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory without drawing their attention. In both timing and content their activity centers around my edits to Marxist cultural analysis. The only user talk pages they have graced are mine and Newimpartial'ss - and the latter to tell Newimpartial about the sandbox page where I was workshopping an edit to Marxist cultural analysis.[68] Is it wikistalking? Are they logging out to avoid scrutiny? Are there missing spans of edit history that would clear the air? Maybe the IP can fill us in.

I am being taken to task for periodically updating articles with reliably sourced encyclopedic content and due weight. Meanwhile the faction with their knives out for me have been engaged in a far longer campaign to prevent the addition of reliably sourced content and skirt the obligations of NPOV. Who should really be called to account for themselves? The IP speaks in ominous tones about my "plans" for the article, as if I shouldn't be collecting books and journal articles, writing outlines, and expanding articles. If the accusation is WP:OWNership, there's a numbered list of criteria at that guideline, and I match none of them.

I'm not a threat because I ramrod my versions over the objections of community consensus. I'm a threat because I'm all too ready to withdraw a rejected proposal, listen to feedback, track down the sources, and fine-tune the wording. That's why almost everything I wanted stands in some form on the live version of all the contested pages. I have found the consensus that people sometimes don't want to be found. As much as this filing was a cynical effort to drive away a productive editor, it has still furthered negotiation with those who are reticent to negotiate. In the vacillation about the meaning of a simple sentence from Christian Fuchs, reification has emerged as a cause for objection, and we can work on that. I just look forward to the day when obvious improvements don't require such disproprtionate angst. Sennalen (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the complainant.

I guess as far as I can tell there's never been anything close to a consensus to have The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on the same disambiguation page as Western Marxism, which to my mind would be like having The List of 20th Century American Presidents on the same disambiguation page as The JFK Assassination conspiracy theory (in that, one page is focusing on a conspiracy theory, the other, real life).

I also don't see NewImpartial "curating" the page to avoid this fate, or for that matter, for any other particular goal as Sennalen claims. NewImpartial in general has been a force (as mentioned in my complaint) for supporting and negotiating for the long term stability of the page, and the ongoing consensus around that.

I think most of Sennalen's claims shows that their goals for the page are - odd. Driven, self-motivated, internal, individualistic... and an anathema to what's come before.

Likewise when Sennalen talks about being unsuccessful at Arbitration Enforcement, that would be the same AE that they discuss on their talk page as "leaving a paper trail" against NewImpartial, a campaign of long term character assassination very much in line with the actions of a Civil POV pusher. A set up. The very fact that most of their replies here have been aimed at NewImpartial the individual (and voice of stability) rather than at my actual complaint also confirms that there's - some questionable moves and perhaps motivations going on here. Which is why I came here, because of the many attempted strategic moves being made.

Sennalen's above comments also confirm that these very civil claims of having had a consensus, or almost had a consensus, or disambiguating a page, or merging one that was getting in their way... well, this is the very stuff of trying to own a topic area.

More recently these sorts of behaviors have been suggested on the Marxist Cultural Analysis merge discussion (which as the complaints state, came on the heals of a failed RfC)...

So when you sit back, and take the actual statements and courses of events in - the claims of consensus that don't add up, the mischaracterizations, the desired page moves, it is all very Civil. But it's also fairly clearly aimed at achieving an outcome that only one editor really supports.

Sennalen has never backed down, never been caused to accept that others disagree with them (and have grounds to). Their one abiding answer always ends up being - that they'll try again later (and later is often sooner). As far as I can tell, the attempts against consensus, set ups, wrangling, POV pushing, whatever you wish to call it, will not cease unless they're made to listen by some outside force. It will always be one more editor in their way, an almost achieve consensus that was no where near, or a merger after a failed RfC to achieve their strategic goal of well... elevating the conspiracy theory to the level of being a legitimate, well defined, and relevant ideology, on par with other forms of Marxism in the west. Keep in mind, here, they've been told repeatedly- that consistency is lacking in the term, and that we've attributed a legitimate page for the topic at Marxist cultural analysis, and that there are others on the general topics of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and The Culture Industry... the beauty of these pages is that they're not about a conspiracy theory. They're about the real events.

Take that for what you will. Appraise the matter as the Administrators of Wikipedia that you are - because that's why I came here. I see something, wanted to know if you do too, and was looking for advice, a direction, or perhaps if it's warranted some causal outcome. Your 2 cents. Thank you. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

odd. Driven, self-motivated, internal, individualistic... and an anathema to what's come before.

Sounds metal. I like it. Sennalen (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious explanation for this odd exchange between IP and Sennalen remains that we are seeing GOODSOCK and BADSOCK accounts interact in an unholy, or at least inappropriate, dialogue. Newimpartial (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That possibility never occurred to me. Have you been reading those books again? Please, present your evidence at SPI and ping me to the discussion. I'll bring some popcorn.  Tewdar  08:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have little to add here, as I lost the plot of this thread quite a while ago. All I would like to say is that I salute the dedication and fortitude of any administrators who have been able to read this far and still have their sanity relatively intact. You all deserve a pay rise. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say 50%, at least. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive39 has been make disruptive actions on Wikipedia for months. They have frequently made unconstructive edits to articles. Their worst behavior though has been repeated recreation of material previously deleted through XFD process. This article is an example and they even went as far as using a slight variation on the title of the article to circumvent article creation protection imposed on it because of their actions among others. They have done the same with a least one template. A whole list of warnings about their behavior has been already posted on their talk page, but they just don't seem to be heeding these. I don't think their is anything more that editors can do to try to make them change their ways. Tvx1 20:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is no one going to take a look at this?Tvx1 03:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at some recent contributions by Radioactive39 (talk · contribs). There are a heap of warnings on user talk and perhaps I did not look hard enough but I did not see any clear issue that I could examine. The comments are often generic complaints without diffs. For example, one mentioned "unconstructive edits" at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix but I can't see anything that an outsider could tell was a problem. A point in their favor is that the four replies they have made on their talk are very reasonable. I can't see any other article or user talk page comments. Is there a discussion somewhere where claims of problems have been spelled out? Can you identify any of the many recent edits which are a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at anything I linked to in my post at all?? They’ve been recreating articles in defiance of XFD discussions’ outcomes for months, even going as far as trying to circumvent article creation protection. Contributions on deleted articles won’t show in their contributions log. Tvx1 13:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link shows that Radioactive39 is a typical confused user who has no idea that List of Formula One Grand Prix wins Max Verstappen was purposefully deleted and should not be recreated. The second two links are from 31 October 2022 and 31 December 2022 with similar but out-of-date confusion that does not rise to sanction level. User talk:Radioactive39 is full of mainly templated warnings and unfortunately the page is now incomprehensible. What I was getting at is that generally an unhelpful editor is unhelpful in more ways than simply recreating deleted articles. There are lots of recent edits and I wondered if they were generally good or bad. Knowing how to proceed would be difficult if recent edits are nearly all sort-of-ok but not really helpful. On the other hand, if there are clear problems that an outsider with no topic knowledge can understand, I could start a process to fix the issue. A clear problem would be one with a diff and an explanation of what is wrong with the edit. At any rate, it would help if there were a clear statement of the extent of the problem. One approach would be to archive their talk (a manual archive, not a bot) then add a new section with no templates in which a single problem is explained in some detail (not too long, but enough that we would expect a competent editor to follow). If there were an inappropriate response or if the problems were repeated, admin action could be taken. When I asked about "discussion somewhere" I meant that it can be useful to outline a problem at the relevant wikiproject then get other opinions on whether the edits are helpful or otherwise. A wikiproject should not discuss an editor but they should discuss particular actions. Even if there were no reply to a post at a wikiproject, the fact that it had been posted would provide confidence that there was no dissent. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe confused is a correct assessment here. My second link shows them already attempting to recreate the article back in last July. They tried again in late October. There and others' repeat recreations led to the article being salted. Then on 17 February they tried again by circumventing the creation protection through using a slightly different title. They also tried to have it recreated through the AFC process, but the draft was rejected and since deleted (I can't show Radioactive's diffs on it myself because of that deletion). They were explained that the article had been deleted through the AFD process on their talk page and in the deletion notices. I really don't know what they would still be confused about. Tvx1 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too had a cursory look. Special:DeletedContributions/Radioactive39 (admin only) does reflect an unusually high number of deleted edits; something on the order of 1000+ in the last 7 or 8 months. It looks like the editor works extensively on "List of Formula 1 Grand Prix wins by (Driver X)" type articles, and it looks like these lists fare quite poorly at AfD (although according to the editor's talk page it looks like one actually was promoted to a Featured List before being deleted). I do see some attempts at recreation. I have not compared timestamps enough to see how egregious this is. The editor might just need to commit to avoiding this behavior, or we could be looking at a WP:CIR situation. I'll try to look in more detail tomorrow. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been seing the same thing on Formula One articles on my watchlist over the last few months as well, and it doesn't seem like confusion at this point, it seems like stubbornness to create these articles despite them being repeatedly deleted. It would be helpful if Radioactive could respond to these complaints. TylerBurden (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add the fact that I had to add this: Special:Diff/1140815052 to his talk page to the list of concerns about this editors practices. I originally told them about MOS:ACCESS in this thread, but he keeps ignoring me.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I just wanted to bring to administrators' attention, the history of disruption and attacks coming from a user at this IP range:

42.190.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have noticed the disruption pretty much all at computer/tech-related articles like GeForce 40 series, High-Level Shader Language to name a few.

It starts with the user either removing excessive amount of content without explanation, removing refs for no reason, adding improperly/poorly sourced content, or adding content against WP:CRYSTAL rule.

When the edits are reverted, they then follow up with vigorously "undoing" (edit warring) other editors' edits and often writing vile personal attacks in the following edits' summaries.

After-note: As I typed all this and went through all the instances to list in the table below, I discovered that this persistent behaviour has actually been going on for several years now, with disruptive edits previously coming from a wide range of different IP addresses where even the first (leftmost) octets vary. Please read carefully through the table, there are instances where the atrocity has been extremely severe.

I did some closer looking into contributions from the latest 42.190.x.x IP range, and have come across at least one user 42.190.153.175 (talk · contribs) who looks to be totally different from the one disrupting the tech articles and strongly not related. So a long-term full rangeblock probably isn't going to be suitable here...

Blocking the individual IPs is of no use either, as the user clearly is able to evade the block and continue edit warring, by simply resetting their modem...

Given the vast history listed in the table above, and the persistence of it happening again over time, I feel like some serious action needs to be taken against the problematic editor here to maintain a safe, peaceful environment for other editors, as well as to minimise/reduce the disruption that other editors have to deal with over time. There's already one editor I know of (User:Rando717) who has quit editing regularly, partially due to abusive behaviour of this editor.

Maybe permanently ban these IP ranges long-term or completely from editing computer/tech related articles only (e.g. ban from editing certain categories), if that's possible?

AP 499D25 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This was discussed at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_142#Belligerent/edit_warring_IP and Drmies, Deepfriedokra and Widr were involved on the admin side, as well as Blaze Wolf (although Blaze Wolf seemed to defend this user for some reason when I raised the issue at User_talk:Blaze_Wolf/Archive_6#42.190.135.177). I'm not sure if it would be my responsibility to tag their talk pages with ani-notice. This anon user has some kind of severe problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No recollection, but that's an awful big range. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps those with special glasses can finetune some range blocks. Maybe some SP protections? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not defending them. I simply don't think it's a good idea to personally attack someone just cause they personally attacked you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no qualms about blocking the range for two years. It's been blocked for longer periods before, and I see really nothing useful coming from it--in other words, in theory the collateral damage can be big, but in practice it's not. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a start. They may get more creative about finding IP addresses to come from, considering this is a person who has exhibited at least some technical knowledge. Could be worth playing whack-a-mole including article protection given how abusive they are - the whole "retard" thing isn't cool. Given that the origin seems to be in a potentially repressive country, I'm not sure how I feel about contacting the ISP(s) - cuts both ways. Could be an option though. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The latest edits from the IP range now involve creating talk pages that further attack other editors. I've already CSD'd the pages, but posting this here to let admins know that their TPA may need to be disabled. AP 499D25 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yashsahuji123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is clearly only here to promote the website Movieholik. They continue adding inappropriate links or unnecessarily changing refs to Movieholik and other sites: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Additontally, they created the now deleted Draft:Movieholik.

This user has been warned before on their talk page, but has not listened. Courtesy ping to Callanecc, who left this user a {{subst:uw-agf-sock}} warning 2 weeks ago. Thank you. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it’s just me, but when I click on the movieholik links my security software blocks it as an unsafe site, making it even less acceptable for use here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clicking the links, but they're clearly just a promotional spammer possibly even their own site. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious spammer can be reported on WP:AIV. Lemonaka (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe their suspected sock-master needs to be blocked too : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashblogger/Archive. Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Editors who are here to spam need to go. Maine 🦞 16:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them 4 days ago. Canterbury Tail talk 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preceptor1008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Preceptor1008 on a content dispute repeatedly made personal attacks e.g [70] SutyaRashi is a malicious troll.

[71] You basement dweller are clearly acting out of agony. better learn to behave in social situations before using a keyboard.

[72] Sutyanashi is a troll account, and must be ip banned.

Inspite of my warning[73] the user continued their disruption. This is the message the user left on my talk page [74] Don't act out of your personal vendetta, because it shows you don't have any real respect in real life. If you think you can report, you can be reported as well. Better not cross other users' boundaries, dont act like a tyrant.

This all makes it clear that User:Preceptor1008 is not here for constructive purpose. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sutyarashi - I appreciate that you have been the target of repeated personal attacks by Preceptor1008, but please don't stoop to their level by calling them a vandal (as you did in this edit). I've blocked Preceptor1008 for 31 hours as a first step; if they make any further comments like that again, come back and I will increase it to an indef block. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, first if he's also name calling me why is he not being blocked? and second, what is wrong with factual information. You're the admin/higher up, you can verify my contributions. If Scandinavism and Nordism link to the same page, shouldn't they be grouped together? He's acting out of personal vendetta and you can verify it yourself. Preceptor1008 (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you were blocked for repeated personal attacks, and Sutyarashi only responded harshly after that.

In addition, you're going to need to provide evidence they are acting out of personal vendetta, or retract that accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with factual information - it's rather encouraged. You weren't blocked for the nature of the content changes you made, but for the unacceptable insults you levelled at another editor who disagreed with you. When you disagree with someone's contributions, if you want to discuss the matter with them, policy requires that you do so in a civil manner. Now, HandThatFeeds is correct - you, Preceptor1008, have accused another editor of acting in bad faith - you are going to need either to provide evidence for that assertion, or to retract it. I very nearly blocked your account indefinitely last time - I'm wondering whether it was a mistake to have made it a temporary block. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user hasn't provided his own reasoning for reverting my contributions or why they call those as disruptions. Without evidence, he claims they are not relevant, and keeps on reverting factual information.

Evidence for personal vendetta, Exihibit A: Reverting my recategorisation on the wikipedia template for Ethnic Nationalism. The links for Nordic and Scandinavism link to the same page therefore it is better to group them together.

Evidence for personal vendetta, Exhibit B: He removed my addition from the page, Abro, and all the sourced content (linked to archive.org) and what H.A. Rose a british officer wrote in his journal about the people group. However, there is some mesopotamian fringe stuff, which I haven't contributed to the page.

Evidence for personal vendetta, Exhibit C: He removed a map I added to the page Jat Muslim, which shows the population distribution within south asia, whose sources include 1931 British census, Joshuaproject website, etc.

What are his reasoning to lash out like that? I wasn't aware of proper protocol to report his acts which is why I noted his edits under trolling. I call it malicious since he does not provide evidence for why he removed it, we're just supposed to believe his word? Preceptor1008 (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit[75] in which you so insisted to add H.A Rose because as per past discussions, the Raj era sources are not considered reliable, especially regarding the ethnic origins. Also there was much of IP disruption in the page with implausible claims of Sumerian ancestry, so I restored the page. As for my other edit[76] the map was obviously misleading because article was about a specific subgroup. I noted that you were the creator of that map, can I ask you what was its exact source? It does not seem authentic.

I find it rich that you blamed me of not giving any explanation of reverting as I provided fair edit summaries. I requested you to use article's talk page[77] and change your behaviour but what you replied[78] was the claim that I was trolling you.

As Girth Summit and HandThatFeeds have already told you, the main problem was not your unreliable additions but your way of conduct and the kind of language you used inspite of warnings[79]; and even now you are repeatedly accusing me of having some sort of personal vendetta against you.

Sutyarashi (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're choosing not to address the Nordic Scandinavism edit, makes it pretty evident that you were in fact blindly reverting everything I ever did. I even wrote in the edit summary but you never saw it. This alone makes it pretty clear you're not acting in good faith. Tell us why did you disrupt that template page?

I have no idea about the IP disruptions he's talking about. It can be verified by a simple search. I only ever made two edits on that page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abro&oldid=1120085496

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abro&oldid=1140034746

The H.A. Rose part only mentions his findings from the 1883 and 1892 census reports for the Punjab. I don't think there's any window for subjective views there when it is a government documentation. There's a lot that he may have said, but I only included what was veritable. The cultural rhyme can be verified by any and all pakistanis from that region. What's your reason for objecting to it? Again why are you in the seat of judgements when you need to show proof of your doubt first.

And you are acting purposefully naive when you choose to ignore my talk about the Mesopotamian/sumerian bit. I already said I had nothing to do with it but you're still accusing me only proves my point, that you're acting in bad faith. Show me if you can find that I was the original editor to add that bit in the article.

How can the map be misleading? What is it misleading about? Be clear, and not vague. The people group it shows at large and it says its about "All religions". Theres, no misleading there. Wouldn't a Muslim Jat be interested in seeing the expanse of his people. Are we at Wikipedia supposed to promote ethnic/religious divisions?

As for the source, I have clearly mentioned them within the map itself. It's clearly in bad faith of you to feign naivete yet ask such blatantly wrong questions. But for the sake of argument, I can list some of them. Note: All these sources are post Independence era:

[1]

[2]

[3]

Add those up and you'll get the map I made. Now don't go claiming, boohoo the colors don't match.

I still haven't received any explanations from you regarding the same, just more cursory strawman arguments like "it does not seem authentic". Can you tell me where's the mistake so that it can be rectified? And for the sake of god, stop crying like it hurt your soul too much, you've actively been doing the same (noted by others here) as well as mud slinging by calling my edits as disruptions.

Aren't you over generalising everything to "win" this argument? Why are you acting so vague? And what kind of language, you're behaving as if I cussed at your mother? I hope I didn't.

@Girth Summit I take heed of the guidelines you told me. Consider it done, whenever it happens again. However, Sutyarashi's behaviour is pretty malevolent even here. I don't think it should be given we are discussing. Here's what I want to call your attention to. He continues to act in the same aggressively toxic manner. He's making false accusations such as, He's claiming that someone else's edits are mine, without proof. He never discussed before reverting, but brushed it off. I find out about it when I visited that page, meaning he didn't even bother to notify me why he did that. No He did it in his fit of anger. How are his edits "restorations" while anything someone else did are "disruptions"? Is he the son of god?

Again, this guy is bringing up unneccessary accusations when I was putting forth my point as to why I called him a troll. He's modifying it into seem as if I am making further accusations. Preceptor1008 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you never addressed why you reverted the Nordic/Scandinavism edit, I feel its correct if I revert your disruption. What do you say @HandThatFeeds Preceptor1008 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my reply at all? Haven't I made it clear that British era sources aren't considered reliable for ethnicity? Also, your main concern revolves around that i removed a map created by you, which does not give its sources at all in description. Make one for that particular article, and feel free to add it. As for template, they still are two different ideologies and require separate mention.

And I can't believe that inspite of coming from a block, you yet again made these remarks on administrator's noticeboard:

you're behaving as if I cussed at your mother?

stop crying like it hurt your soul too much, you've actively been doing the same

He continues to act in the same aggressively toxic manner.

Sutyarashi's behaviour is pretty malevolent even here.

you're barely cloaking your hatred under all the formalities.

Have some Ghairat!

Sorry, but you haven't understand at all that you were blocked previously for the same kind of thing. I have nothing against you personally. I guess your comments ask for a longer block.

Sutyarashi (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also please don't present yourself as a victim of misinformation, you had been fairly warned to refrain from making personal remarks against others, as well as guided to what to do in case of any dispute, on your talk page. You made accusations that I name-called you; I'm very interested to know that when did it occur?

Sutyarashi (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't act so smart, you're barely cloaking your hatred under all the formalities. Of course, you could have discussed in a civil manner, I dont think we would have a problem at all. Who gave you the right to continuously revert someone else's edits?

Very interested are we? What did you call me in this edit? Don't you ignore this like the rest of arguments. You've done it in bad faith/fit of anger so dont lie. Have some Ghairat! Preceptor1008 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, When was it proven that my edits were in bad faith. Why were you calling them disruptions? Isn't that Personal attack? @HandThatFeeds Preceptor1008 (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One only has to visit your talk page to see that i guided you to what to do in case of any dispute. Your edits were clearly disruption due to the personal remarks in them, which again, prove that they were indeed in bad faith. Now, as you don't want to acknowledge that actually it was your conduct that was a real problem, I don't think that the previous block was even useful.

Sutyarashi (talk)

@Preceptor1008:

We are all encouraged to assume good faith on behalf of other contributors here. I see nothing about the reverts above that would lead me to suspect that the person who made them was not acting in good faith, or that they had any kind of vendetta against you. You could have reached out to them in a civil manner on the talk page of the relevant articles/templates and asked them why they reverted your changes. Do that next time someone reverts you. If you do suspect someone of acting in bad faith, you should still approach them in a civil manner; if they continue being disruptive, do not insult them, simply report them here. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I did make a mistake the first time around. Preceptor1008 indef blocked for continuing with their personal attacks immediately after the temporary block expired. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Editors who make personal attacks for no good reason need to go. Maine 🦞 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have become increasingly concerned about the editing of TheTranarchist since I first noticed a report about an article on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. That article is about Chloe Cole, a young woman who has detransitioned. The report expressed concerns about impartially. One editor stated that it "reads like an attack page". It is excessively detailed and relies mainly on sources which are antagonistic to Cole. Although discussions on the talk page don't seem to be getting very far, the content problems with this one article could, theoretically, be worked out, but this is only one of several problematic articles created by TheTranarchist.

By their own admission, TheTranarchist is using Wikipedia as a platform to attack people and groups with whom they disagree. They link to their Mastadon account on their user page. There, they have said about Genspect (bolding mine):

These fuckers hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy.

@healthliberationnow and @tsn have done some of the best reporting on them hands down. I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer. Their main strategy is appearing in right wing and far right publications often enough that liberal news organizations start uncritically treating them as merely concerned experts (don't we love the New York Times...).

All hope is not lost though, as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one. The truth of their positions and actions is on prominent display and they can't lie their way out of it.

Other comments on Mastadon have already been noted on the talk page of another article created by TheTranarchist. Reading through The Tranarchist's Mastadon posts, it is clear that she views Wikipedia as a battleground and other editors as "transphobes" or "TERFS" if they disagree with her. TheTranarchist seems to be a tendentious editor and has does not seem to have heeded the advice about neutral editing that she has already been given.

Although I suspect TheTranarchist and I share similar views, Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy and attack pages. If she is unable to show that she can edit in a neutral way, TheTranarchist should be topic banned from gender and politics topics. Round and rounder (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round and rounder, you seem to have a history of trying to bring in information about other people from outside Wikipedia, including trying to directly out them, as you rather flippantly responded to here. It's somewhat strange, coming from an account that started editing a month ago right away on the COI noticeboard and has been actively involved in noticeboard discussions since then. Silverseren^C 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren Loksmythe brought up TheTranarchist's Mastadon account in this talk page discussion. That's where I saw it for the first time, today. My "flippant" response to that other user came after a bizarre and completely false claim that I had asked them to create an account. I think I was being nice, considering.

Any thoughts on TheTranarchist's editing? Round and rounder (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on their editing? They seem to actively focus on using proper reliable sourcing and call out sources with biased claims, especially claims that conflict with medical and scientific sources and therefore shouldn't be used as a source. There a lot of MEDRS violations in this topic area and TheTranarchist is good at calling that out and other reference problems.

As for Loksmythe, they should also have to respond to bringing up outside Wikipedia info in that discussion over there in order to attack TheTranarchist's editing. Silverseren^C 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren What did Loksmythe and I do that was wrong? If TheTranarchist has her Mastadon account on her user page aren't we allowed to read her postings? Are we not allowed to quote them here? Round and rounder (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loksmythe failed to actually discuss any specific concerns or improvements on the page and used my post about the article (published after the article itself) as evidence the page should be deleted. If your argument that the page is not neutral doesn't address any specifics and relies solely on linking to criticisms off the organization off wikipedia, that's not a productive comment at all. In short, they did not actually point out any NPOV concerns, they just claimed my own opinion on FAIR made the article inherently POV. Notably, the contents of that post heavily differed from the content of the article - as while I see no need to restrain my criticism of an organization off Wikipedia, on Wikipedia I stick to reliable sources, even if I feel they aren't explicit enough. If anything my posts show beyond a shadow of a doubt that I stick to reliable sources when writing articles instead of my own opinion. I called FAIR "racist" and "transphobic" on Mastodon. On Wikipedia, I objectively referred to the specific things they are known for campaigning against and not once in the article called them "racist" or "transphobic" as sources failed to specifically use those descriptors. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@round and rounder: Got a bit confused about the sequence of events there, so for clarity's sake: I did some digging and you appear to be misremembering. You asked that user if they were the same person as/were related to a small time tennis player whose article they created. The conversation you linked to only happened afterwards. Licks-rocks (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Licks-rocks That's correct. I asked them if they were that person and advised them to read WP:COI if they were. Later, they made their strange claim after an IP editor accused us both of being sock puppets. That's when I wrote them off and deleted their message. Round and rounder (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no comments yet, but @Round and rounder: are you sure that you've linked the correct discussion and diffs here? The "in this talk page discussion" is a circular link back to this discussion, to which Loksmythe hasn't contributed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. This is the right link. Round and rounder (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich.

In regards to Chloe Cole's article, your claim relies mainly on sources which are antagonistic to Cole is patently untrue, as most sources simply mention her notable actions. The fact that reliable sources that provide WP:SIRS coverage of her tend to be critical is not my fault.

Genspect is widely known for publishing misinformation and supporting forced detransition and conversion therapy, and multiple reliable sources have said so. I have no ethical qualms about being glad that when you search them you get a well-balanced article detailing what they're known for instead of their PR campaign. Notice I never used the word "attack", just "expose". Their is a very large difference between an attack and an objective and neutral accounting of their actions and reception in the medical community. Per WP:FRINGE, an organization with fringe viewpoints is objectively described by noting their fringe positions and how it deviates from the norm. If you can find problems with the article, go ahead and discuss them on the talk page, claiming the article or my editing is a problem because I wanted to accurately cover them is laughable.

Your linked post to support me calling editors as "TERFs" for disagreeing is ridiculous. For a start, Keen has repeatedly referred to herself as a TERF, and even then it is a neutral term not a perjorative. The bout of edits the screenshot is from came directly after Keen publicly complained about her article and it was met with a wave of vandalism, which resulted in the page being protected due to multiple editors having to try and stop it. For the first comment in that screenshot, they were arguing that her activities did not constitute harassment, a POV that only makes sense if you disregard how it's covered in reliable sources and consider activities such as 1) telling trans women they should not be allowed in women's spaces, 2) deadnaming a trans woman and accusing them of hating lesbians, and 3) publicly deadnaming and misgendering a trans child, as not constituting harassment. Ie, their position was very clearly in defense of harassing trans people.

The accusation of "tendentious editing" was viewed by other editors as a personal attack that had nothing to do with the page's content, as it boiled down to just claiming my political position inherently makes the page unobjective. The editor who made that comment has made no effort whatsoever to productively discuss things on talk. The one who echoed the claim of "tendentious editing" has a huge undisclosed COI and a demonstrated pattern of tendentious editing on that article and others, which I have already notified arb-com about.

In short, you have failed to bring up any issues with my actual editing and are just attacking my political positions without evidence they have made articles non-NPOV or that I have failed to seek consensus and work with others to improve articles when serious POV concerns are brought up in good faith.

Echoing @Silver seren's note, at a first glance your account history had seemed woefully suspicious, but I tried to assume good faith. Given the large amount of key-presses you've seemed to devote solely to attacking my editing, I think a check-user should look into your account and activity. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTranarchist Just for the record, I haven't attacked your political positions at all. I don't have a problem with them. Round and rounder (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Round and rounder You have raised no evidence that my editing is problematic, just linked to people attacking me for my political positions.

A recap of your argument

• The concerns raised about Chloe Cole on the BLPN were not actually related to edits I'd made, and were criticizing edit's I'd also spoken out against. You said this is only one of several problematic articles created by TheTranarchist, but the problems raised had literally nothing to do with my edits. As I noted there, the person who filed that seemed to do so in retaliation for my work on the FAIR article. A quick look at that section and Cole's talk page will show I have worked to productively discuss any concerns there.
• You claimed I create the article on Genspect to "attack" them. Per WP:FRINGE, neutrally describing what they've done and how fringe their positions are isn't an issue. I take pride in making sure FRINGE ideas and organizations are presented as such, entirely in line with WP policy. Notably, you didn't bother to provide any examples of issues with the article, merely criticized me for describing them as fringe off-wikipedia and saying I wanted to make sure people got an accurate history of their actions and advocacy.
• You cited people calling me a "tendentious editor". The person in question raised no issues with the actual content, refused to discuss anything on the talk page, and and called for the articles deletion solely on the basis of me being critical of FAIR off-wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, the only one to echo that claim has a large COI and their edits are truly tendentious. @CaptainEek, you're the only arbitrator I can remember off the top of my head, can you check the arb-com email and confirm that statement?
• You used a post about laughing about vandals as a supposed gotcha, when the screen-shotted comment in question had questioned whether harassment of trans people really counts as harassment. It is undeniably funny when vandals attempting to edit a page en-masse results in it being locked down. Poetic justice and all that. Keen's far-right ties have been commented on by numerous reliable sources, and per lead-follows-body they should probably be in the lead already.

If she is unable to show that she can edit in a neutral way, TheTranarchist should be topic banned from gender and politics topics - You have given absolutely no evidence that my edits aren't neutral and your main argument seems to be because I've criticized transphobia and transphobic organizations off wikipedia my edits are inherently not neutral. My largest good-faith criticism I've received, which I'm trying to work on, is that my articles contain too many details and should be trimmed. Not that they're not neutral, but that I may be overly thorough. That's hardly worthy of ANI. Your recommendation reads less like a good faith recommendation based on substantive arguments and more a blatant attempt to try and stop me editing because you disagree with my political positions based on spurious grounds. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a boomerang per @Silver seren's mention of Round and rounder's tendencies with outing and general uncivil behavior. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of boomerang, GeneralNotability just blocked Round and rounder for being a sock of World's Lamest Critic. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @TheTranarchist: I haven't read through everything above, so apologies if this is already discussed, but there are a couple of things I'd like clarity on. 1: Your userpage appears to acknowledge that the linked Mastadon account is yours. Can you confirm that? 2: Were the quotes mentioned above genuinely written by you? I don't really know how Mastadon works, so it would be helpful if you were to either stand by them, or refute that they were yours. I think that clarifying these points would help us move forwards. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 23:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Girth Summit I can confirm that's my account - I just object to the notion my posts there should be used instead of clear evidence of problematic editing. Like I mentioned above, while I don't hold back on criticisms there, my wikipedia edits have a very different tone and are based solely on reliable sources. Even when I want to say something about an organization, I have never inserted my own opinions into an article. Just what reliable sources say in language supported by them. Hope that clarifies things! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for confirming that. Just for the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that these words are yours: I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer? Girth Summit _(blether) 00:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can confirm that. Genspect is a fringe organization known in multiple reliable sources for publishing misinformation and presenting as impartial doctors while working with religious conversion therapy organizations. Is it problematic to desire to use Wikipedia to make sure WP:FRINGE organizations and positions are accurately represented?

  Preceding that quoted comment, I'd said they hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy. This is factually supported in reliable sources on every count. Nobody writes a WP article they don't want people to read or without reasons for doing so. If their are problems in the article, please note them, but otherwise I don't see how saying I tried to accurately represent a FRINGE organization as such is particularly noteworthy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We are writing an encyclopedia, we aren't investigative journalists. If a subject has already been exposed as a crock of shit, then it's fair enough to describe it as such (with appropriate attribution to the people who did the work of exposing it). Your goal here should not be to expose anything, it should be to summarise what authoratitive sources already say about it. Don't crow online about exposing stuff, that isn't what we do. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am very well aware. There's a bunch of data on Genspect I have not included in the article as they are not reliably sourced or would be OR. I have only used RS in articles, and this seems to be a linguistic miscommunication since to my ear "exposing" does include the act of compiling what disparate reliable sources have said to create a full picture. One could say that while disparate sources may expose certain activities of an organization, exposing said organization includes the act of compiling them.

  Your goal here should not be to expose anything, it should be to summarise what authoratitive sources already say about it. - a summary of what reliable sources say about them still "exposes" them, as the definitions of "expose" include "To reveal the guilt or wrongdoing of", "To make known", and "To make visible". I fully agree with your take on what wikipedia is and is not, and as I said this seems to be a miscommunication. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would suggest, however, that you, in your social media posts, make it clear that they have "been exposed", and you're going to make sure Wikipedia readers know that, rather than saying you're the one doing the exposing. The difference is that you're not engaging in original research: your Mastodon quote implies that you are, and casts doubt (incorrectly) on your contributions here, thus, indirectly, harming Wikipedia's reputation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rsjaffe Fair enough, I shall! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this should play out. On one hand, it's a problem when we find information off Wikipedia and then use it for discussions about editors on wikipedia. We should largely judge editors by what they do here, not elsewhere (absent things like doxing etc off site). On the other hand, TheTranarchist has shown poor judgement when creating new articles and several editors have tried to raise awareness on their talk page and on article talk pages[80] and they were given a formal warning recently [81]. The originally published versions of Chloe Cole and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism showed clear bias in source choice, failure to use IMPARTIAL phrasing etc. The off wiki comments strongly suggest the intent was to make these, in effect, attack articles to warn others and that reflected their POV. The on wikipedia product supports that view. Honestly, this is one of the few times I've observed an editor and felt CIR applies. That said, I don't have time to dig up all the diffs needed at this time. I would oppose any boomerang since that ignores the issues with the original works. If the pattern of poor editing continues or a longer history is shown (I haven't interacted with this editor that much) then I would suggest a topic ban so they can prove competency in other areas. Springee (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fully digging out of the bottom of the barrel here - it's funny your first two sources are in regards to other editors with a COI.

Your first link is to a comment made by an editor with a large COI. Them saying "tendentious editing" is not proof I have done so. Others have pointed out how that whole section was a personal attack by an editor who thought that rather than raising any concerns about the content itself, they should say my description of FAIR off-wikipedia (which was very notably not mirrored en-wiki as sources did not consistently use that language) invalidates the whole thing.

Your second link was to an honest mistake on my part. An editor at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull had said another editor had a COI. Since that's a heavy accusation, I double checked to confirm whether it was true, and found it indeed was. I posted a link corroborating the statement as a comment. Wrong venue to do so, and very pointedly I reported the FAIR COI via the appropriate channels. @AmandaNP, was that incident in question proof I have shown poor judgement when creating new articles or merely poor judgement reporting COIs?

If we look at the initial version of the Chloe Cole article and compare it to the current version, where is the clear bias in source choice and failure to use impartial phrasing? Besides, there have been productive discussions on improving the content at the talk page. The only notable changes made have been 1) moving "far-right media" to "right-wing media", which I did myself in accordance with sources, and 2) removing the statement about how medical and human rights organizations have opposed legislation she's supported from the lead, which I did not contest. I initially included that per WP:FRINGE, and have not said should go back into the lead but worked into the body, since it's factually verifiable and true that trans-healthcare bans she's supported have been protested by such groups.

At FAIR, I have attempted to work to discuss and improve the article in the talk page, including in terms of the NPOV concerns. Nobody can seriously claim I haven't. Notably, the first criticism was from an account with an undeclared COI and the second was from a SPA. The questionable sources were 3/41, which I discussed there then took to RSN, which has proved one generally reliable, one questionably reliable (I gave examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS since that was concern raised but have not heard back), and one unreliable (which, given a clear policy reason, I accepted was true). Currently, the article reads like an advert (thanks to the COI editor) - not featuring any of the well sourced statements about their general activities in favor of thinking the lead should just have their mission statement...

WP:CIR is particularly rich coming from someone who spent about a dozen comments on the FAIR article trying to argue that the right to not be misgendered in schools does not actually count as "transgender rights"... Per CIR: It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop and It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor

We should largely judge editors why what they do here, not elsewhere - Then do so. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really having the time nor energy to read this whole thing, I've only read the paragraph I've been mentioned in, and haven't reviewed any contribs other than what I have already commented on. I feel that the oversighted content issue was an oversight in judgement, and from my discussions, I doubt it will reoccur from TheTranarchist. I don't think this rises to "poor judgement" as that would require reckless disregard (aka an intent to disregard), where as I see this as being unaware of the rules in a sensitive topic area. That is why I issued the formal warning and direction to be clearly aware of policies, and didn't go direct to block, AE sanction or similar action. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Springee appears to have been specifically called here by Round and rounder after starting this ANI section and Springee also appears to be currently arguing on Talk:Chloe Cole that LGBT news sources like LGBTQ Nation are "clearly biased sources" for defining whether someone is anti-trans or not. Silverseren^C 00:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand the concerns about TheTranarchist having somewhat of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I do not believe it is in any way severe enough to warrant a topic ban. Also, it is very suspicious that Round and rounder's editing history is dedicated almost entirely to opposing this user. If someone else wants to raise issue with TheTranarchist's edits in good faith then I do not object. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is coverage of TheTranarchist and other editors in The Culture Wars Look Different on Wikipedia (Noam Cohen, The Atlantic, January 22, 2023) e.g. "The main advocate for moving the page from Gregory to Gloria was an editor named TheTranarchist, and the main opponent was an editor named StAnselm, a self-described Calvinist who has created more than 50 articles about biblical characters and scenes. Yet the discussion on the Talk page was about facts and Wikipedia policies and guidance, not politics. “It didn’t seem culture warrior–ish,” [Joseph Reagle, a Wikipedia expert at Northeastern University] said." Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in as an un-involved non-admin: this really doesn't look good for anyone involved. Round and rounder seems to be approaching WP:BOOMERANG, while TheTranarchist is likewise approaching WP:NOTHERE. To Loksmythe, I don't know if there are any rules against citing someone's off-wiki activity, but I think conventionally there's a very high bar for it to be considered relevant. There may be merit to the suggestion that Round and rounder is a sock unless they have a good explanation for why their edit history begins with fairly involved challenging of user conduct. And I suppose only time will tell if TheTranarchist can beat the odds and become a rare WP:SPA that's a net positive for the project. For what it's worth, I don't support sanctions against anyone at this time beyond perhaps a warning about WP:CANVASSING, but would invite closer scrutiny on these editors and the application of WP:CTOP restrictions as necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Even ignoring the issues with the actual articles TheTranarchist has created for a second, can anyone explain to me how admitting to writing articles on organisations in order to "expose... these fuckers", or adding polemic diatribes to her user page calling a living person which she created the Wikipedia article of a "nazi", "liar", and "bigot", is not admission of WP:ADVOCACY editing? The last time I remember an instance of an editor admitting they created articles to disparage subjects they have a disagreement with, they received a topic ban from BLP articles. Can someone explain to me how this is different? Endwise (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that's a proper use of a userpage and that sort of addition should be removed completely. But, outside of that, the main difference is that TheTransarchist does write good articles following what the sources say. You bring up Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull which, if you compare your initial edit link to the current article, has not had much of the original text changed or removed at all, just added to. Because the original article was written perfectly fine (if needing proper sectioning and organizing), following what the news coverage said about the BLP subject. So you can't separate the actual articles from the discussion here. The other editor you're comparing to did actually make blatant attack articles against what the sources said or misusing the sources. That isn't comparable here. Silverseren^C 01:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comments on the finer linguistic points of the word "expose". The "polemic" is a funny example. She publicly attacked the article and called me an "incel" and "trancel" and I listed that as an honorable mention. I amended "AKA Nazi barbie" after concerns were raised, but it should be heavily noted that the phrase linked to evidence of her literally using a nazi barbie as a profile pic, which was later covered in reliable sources, and as your profile picture is on online representation of how you want to be known, "AKA" fits. It's purely factual that she has said called the article full of lies, I didn't call her a "liar", I noted the irony that she called the article full of lies, while verifiably "lying" about her past comments. Which brings me to the next point, is "you can't call someone who's said all trans men should be sterilized, worked with the far-right on multiple occasions, and has no notability outside of her bigoted campaigning a 'bigot'" really a hill you want to die on? Bigotry includes transphobia, a transphobe is by definition a bigot towards trans people, so unless you want to argue that Keen isn't known solely for her transphobia I don't see how bigot is not a neutral description.

Per WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Is their evidence I have compromised verifiability or neutrality? I make no secret of who I am - a trans person. I make no secret of the fact I usually write articles documenting the anti-trans movement. Every editor has a niche, but there is no evidence that my articles are not neutral or verifiable solely because of the topic I tend to edit on. As I have provided ample evidence above, I have not promoted "personal beliefs", I have stuck to the sources even when my personal beliefs are far more critical. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I agree with Silverseren here: Tranarchist's articles about anti-trans organizations are pretty good actually. Wikipedia policy doesn't prohibit having a POV or nobody would be allowed to edit Wikipedia. It prohibits letting that POV interfere with your editing, and I don't really see that here. Loki (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel at a minimum, TheTranarchist should be banned from editing the GenSpect article directly. Even if we can't identify specific problems with their editing, their acknowledged comments say that the are editing the article for the wrong reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it difficult to believe that there's really any editor in such a topic area that isn't editing for POV reasons. Which is why we only care about actual editing and not personal POVs, unless their POV is actively making them edit non-neutrally. Editor Animalparty just below being another example of that. Silverseren^C 03:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Editors are allowed to think an organisation is a disgusting piece of shit. I think that of Genspect myself. However I do not edit "to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer". That's an completely unacceptable reason to edit per WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. You are supposed to be here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles. In cases where you feel you cannot do so, you need to refrain from editing yourself or you will be forced out of the area. It may be that you believe that a well balanced encyclopaedia article is likely to reveal that they are a terrible organisation. I believe that on Genspect. However they key thing is I do not edit to 'expose them and help undermine that thin veneer'. I edit to ensure we have a well balance encyclopaedia article. If the sources disagree with my view, then I accept that and help get that into the article. This is impossible when by your own admission you are editing to "expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" since by your own admission you aren't here to ensure a well balanced encyclopaedia article but instead a different reason that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. We have always blocked and banned editors who have admitted they are not here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles but instead for other reasons no matter if anyone can identify specific problems with their editing. Frankly my suggestion we only block them from directly editing that specific article is being generous especially given some of the other things they have said. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to be here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles. Have you considered that a well balanced and sourced article on organisations like Genspect will by its very nature expose them and help undermine that thin veneer?

Genspect, like many related anti-trans organisations, are well known for promoting fringe ideas and misinformation about trans and non-binary healthcare. Because our articles are based on the reliable sources that those organisations either ignore or try to discredit, any well sourced and balanced article about will have the effect of exposing and undermining them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing you're not acknowledging. The articles that TheTransarchist has written are well balanced and following what the reliable sources say. There are tons of long-standing editors who purposefully created articles on notable topics precisely because it would showcase the negative aspects of them, all while following what the reliable sources say and being neutral even when "exposing" their negative aspects in the process. I wrote Mugged to "expose" the insane far right conspiracy claims pushed by Coulter. And I did so by just accurately writing what the reliable sources said about her book, including ones that praised it. I wrote Questioning Collapse specifically to have coverage on Wikipedia covering the pseudoscience nonsense made by Jared Diamond and his negative actions as an editor of the journal Nature. I also wrote GPS Air to ensure we had ongoing coverage of the company that had harmed so many with their fake products and defrauded schools and businesses in the process. I still covered it neutrally, including info on their origins, products, and awards. So, yes, you can purposefully create articles on subjects whereby their very existence will have a POV outcome on the world, while still covering notable subjects and writing the articles neutrally and completely by what the reliable sourcing says on the subjects. Silverseren^C 03:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren and Sideswipe9th: I feel I already explained this but I guess it wasn't understood. It's one thing to try and write an unbiased encyclopaedic article on a subject which you believe because of the subject will reflect negatively on the subject. If you have the right mindset then it's generally fine if that ends up being the case since you will recognise when it turns out you're wrong. But perhaps more importantly are significantly less likely to go further than you should. It's another to write an article which the express purpose of "expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" because you're unlikely to recognise when you're wrong and very likely to go further than you should. It's somewhat similar to an editor with a CoI, they may be great editors but once the CoI comes into play human nature means they often will not recognise when they're wrong, they'll downplay negative material and overplay positive material. The difference between wrong motivations and right motivations with an existing PoV, may be subtle but it's something all editors here need to understand. Their purpose here always needs to be to write balanced encyclopaedic articles. They may suspect that the end result will be an exposé on a terrible subject but they should never set out with the purpose of exposing something. They should always set out with the purpose of writing balanced encyclopaedic articles. Repeating since it's important, no editor should ever set out with the purpose of exposing anything, especially not a living person. The moment exposing something becomes an editor's purpose they need to stop editing in that area or be forced to stop. I already mentioned that I believe that balanced articles on GenSpect, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and the largely unrelated Sanctioned Suicide and especially its founders will reflect extremely negatively on these subjects. While this is something that I probably won't be able to completely put out of my mind when editing, I hope I'll never edit with the express purpose of exposing them and especially not where we mention living persons. The moment I do so, I hope I have the fortitude of stopping myself. If I don't, I hope the community stops me since my behaviour has crossed way beyond the lines of acceptable behaviour here. It does not matter what editors can and cannot find with my edits, I'm editing for unacceptable reasons. P.S. I actually think Wikipedia would be a better place if editors with such strong PoVs on a subject that frankly motivations fall by the wayside refrain from editing especially directly. But for various reasons it's never likely to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) BTW, while Genspect itself is not a BLP (albeit it is likely an article will name several living persons), TheTranarchist frequent editing in BLPs is an added reason why we should not tolerate any nonsense.

To give an unrelated example (albeit one which the sock seems to have involved themselves in) on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sanctioned Suicide we have a discussion about naming living persons. I first saw this thread IIRC with only 2 comments. I looked into it, and my first thought was "holy hell, those 2 people are absolutely disgusting individuals (from my PoV) and I'd really like to name them". However when I looked into it more my conclusion (which I didn't post since I was waiting to see what others had to say) was as much as I feel that way, I'm not convinced we should be naming them. Since removing their names does not seem to significantly reduce context etc. I was able to do so because I recognised I was not and should not be editing to "expose" anyone or help undermine anything.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is a related example currently on BLPN as well. It's not the first time it came up, the first time I saw it my thoughts were as Black Kite, she seems to be an individual who's views are so out of mainstream that even people who share some of her views on trans issues often don't want anything to do with her. So it's likely that an article on her will be fairly critical. However again I was able to recognise we still have to ensure the article is fair with proper sourcing and wording, and without violating WP:UNDUE etc etc.

IIRC I never got involved in that article in any significant way. And I admit part of the reason is because of my personal views of the subject. Not because I felt I couldn't be sufficiently unbiased but because of how bad her views are I couldn't convince myself to spend the effort. That isn't ideal, but editors aren't required to edit so it's something we accept will happen even with BLPs.

However at a minimum all editors need to be able to try and put aside their PoV be here to help write balanced encyclopaedic articles when they are editing. They should never be editing "to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" since when they are doing so they're not doing that. And so will want to name people even when we potentially should not. And won't care about getting the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull right if it reflects their PoV. Etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all editors need to be able to try and put aside their PoV be here to help write balanced encyclopaedic articles is there any actual evidence I haven't apart from speculation that I might have or might do in future? As others have commented, to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer is encyclopedic when that organization is solely known for advancing WP:FRINGE medical theories and practices under the guise of impartial science. Are there any flaws with the article itself or evidence that I did not write it from a NPOV? won't care about getting the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull right if it reflects their PoV - as other's pointed out, the article was well-written and sourced from the start - is there evidence I did not get it right to reflect my own POV? The linked BLPN discussion was started by the sockpuppet who filed this complaint, other editors did not support their claim it was an "attack page" and merely commented it was overly detailed, and a 5 second look will show that I endeavored to work with other editors to work on that.

Take the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism for example: I included the Mendoza case even though I personally agree with their position on it, and it makes the article reflect better on them (marginally, considering most of their activities are in other fields, but still). I am not in the habit of disregarding what reliable sources have to say on a topic, even when it is flattering.

Sidenote though, thank you for striking Round and Rounder's comments from various talk pages and noticeboards. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good? By what metric? I'm not here to comment on behavior, but I (and other editors) see excessively intricate detail, WP:PROSELINE, WP:RECENTISM, and subtle introduction of of POV by framing and placement, in multiple articles. Facts and citations are dumped in by the truckload, making it hard to discern the appropriate weight and relevance of any given aspect, contra WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:PROPORTION, WP:VNOTSUFF, etc. A laundry list of virtually everything done or said by or about a subject is neither encyclopedic nor good writing. My eyes glaze over just trying to find the relevant aspects to trim or emphasize. I will say the articles are thoroughly researched, and articles are always a work in progress. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The various uppercase shortcuts you've linked are not generally issues that we block or TBAN editors over. If anything I'd say that they're a sign of perhaps an overeager but inexperienced article creator, which is a skill that can be developed over time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, those are criticisms valid for pretty much all articles in this topic domain. Their comments off-wiki aside, it seems this editor is being held to standards for the content of articles that is higher than the standard of articles written by other editors here who are eagerly seeking their topic ban. Their mistake on wiki would seem to be to write articles, you know, growing the encyclopaedia, and editors here thinking that on a "collaborative editing project" that the output of one editor's initial draft has to be perfect. A better approach would be to see if they work collaboratively with other editors towards a consensus. There are plenty editors here calling for a topic ban who are incapable of doing that. But they haven't made the mistake of creating articles and writing pages of article text. -- Colin°^Talk 20:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it would be one thing if the editor was hostile to discussion or criticism, but that is obviously not the case here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: If shoddy BLP-violating sourcing, undue weight and tendentious editing is a persistent problem for the entire topic area, then that's probably a larger area that needs to be looked at and cleaned up. First by the community, and maybe eventually by Arbcom. It isn't an excuse to do nothing about an especially clear example that's been brought here, we can begin cleanup after that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Em, I haven't seen anyone demonstrate with diffs any "tendentious editing". Someone said those words at some point, that's all. This is the problem I have. They've written a fair bit of content for a newish editor and it isn't perfect but it is frankly no worse than any other article in this topic domain. That includes articles that have been argued over and edit warred over by editors on this page. All the "OMG BAN THEM NOW" reaction seems to be a mix of genuinely naive shock at how bad this topic area is, or feigned shock by activists on the other side. What they wrote on mastodon was stupid and I get how editors struggle to see how expressing those views isn't just an admission of being an WP:ACTIVIST. But as that essay says "Editors operating in good faith, not seeking to promote specific views, will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors" What that sentence doesn't require is that such editors make 100% perfect edits and have encyclopaedic knowledge of SYNTH.

Why are you being ask to look at this one editor to remove them from the project (which is what a topic ban will do)? You aren't being asked to look at all those articles and all the editors. You are being asked by a banned sock. That should give you some concern. Go read some of the other articles in this topic area. I think you'll be surprised. I don't think they will be improved simply by banning an editor who said foolish things on mastodon. Indeed, a topic ban here will likely embolden the idea that we can push editors off the chess board. -- Colin°^Talk 21:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's time to close this discussion. Most of the accusation is based on out-of wiki material that is only not WP:OUTING because the accused linked to their social media on their userpage, and having gone through their edits for a bit, I don't see many edits to article main-space that are actually objectionable, a conclusion that is reinforced by the fact that anyone has yet to actually link to an objectionable edit in this discussion. There's about four or five of links to edits from other editors accusing TheTranarchist of things, but none that link to the actual supposed problem behaviour. As a case study, several of those accusations are about TheTranarchist creating an article about a WP:FRINGE organisation to make them look bad. As several editors here have pointed out, you can't always avoid making an organisation look bad if you want to be FRINGE compliant. Having looked at that article, I did not get the impression any material there was noncompliant or excessive. More importantly, every claim made was well sourced even in the first version of the article in question. The only example of someone linking directly to an edit by TheTranarchist is the now blocked Round an Rounder/World's Lamest Critic, who just links to a fairly short example of... What looks a lot like TheTranarchist complying perfectly to WP:BRD and taking a challenged edit to the talk page for discussion. I do not think there is anything here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was under the impression that the link to the off site material was not something TheTranarchist posted themselves. If they provided the link themselves and the link was/is on their user page then I think it's is completely acceptable to consider it when reviewing this topic. It's only one step removed form posting it to their user page. Combine that with the use of SYNTH to apply contentious labels to BLP subjects (see many of the proposed sources here "Anti-transgender_activism"? and I think it would be best if they voluntarily step away from this subject area for a bit and edit unrelated topics to show they understand Wikipedia's standards for IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure where you see the WP:SYNTH there, considering the first source contains the phrase "anti-trans activism" to describe the BLP verbatim. _{I also think it's a bit nauseating that every phrase in this topic space has to be fought over tooth and nail even when it's as blatantly obvious as it is here, but hey, that's probably just me.} Licks-rocks (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per your earlier comments about how WP:CIR, you have spent an inordinate amount of time in the past few days arguing that 1) transgender students do not have a right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools and it's just "trans advocates" who say otherwise, completely ignoring the heaps of linked evidence in favor of pushing your own POV at FAIR and 2) arguing that Chloe Cole, who reliable sources call an "anti-trans activist", who is noted in reliable sources to support "anti-trans legislation" (including banning transition even for adults), is not an "anti-trans activist"...

  Also, for context for all those watching, the largest reason I listed my Mastodon on my user page was I saw (off-wikipedia) people accusing others with the same username of being me, and directing harassment towards them. I originally put a disclaimer on my page that I do not use the username anywhere else - I felt it would be dishonest once I created my Mastodon account to not explicitly say it was mine. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not WP:OUTING when a person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Arguing that linking to the posts from the very same social media account that they posted on their user page is constitutes a violation of the outing policy is incoherent. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please re-read my comment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it doesn't get lost in the middle: Round and rounder was blocked for being a sock of World's Lamest Critic. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...welp. I guess that explains a fair bit. Silverseren^C 03:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban, support restriction on creating BLPs in mainspace without AfC or an EC in good-standing moving it from draft for them. I intially came here to outright oppose any sanction because they have been open to criticism and collaboration on-wiki. However, there off-wiki comments do raise concerns that their motivation and source selection is biased and that protection of BLPs is needed until they show they can operate within our guardrails. Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is probably a good compromise. I would suggest extending it to any GENSEX or BLP topic but otherwise it would seem to address the biggest issues. Springee (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The expanded universe makes sense given previous community issues and sanctions, support additional restriction. Slywriter (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There has yet to be any evidence given that there's anything wrong with the articles they've been making. The sockpuppet OP was the one who brought the articles to BLPN and other editors there didn't agree that there was anything wrong with them. So your restriction here of "until they show they can operate within our guardrails" is meaningless, as you haven't shown they aren't already doing that. Silverseren^C 17:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Edits like this illustrate part of the issue.[82] The section heading "Undoing the whitewashing and advertification" totally fails to be impartial (a requirement even for talk page headings). The long list has good sources and questionable ones. How it is meant to be used isn't clear but the simple implication that editors are whitewashing is a problem given the contentious topic. That they would do that while this ANI is open is hard to understand. Springee (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be the one with biased editing in general on these talk pages. Having just the group's mission statement in the lede and not a proper summary of the article is an example of advertification and seemingly whitewashing of the descriptive content. The section title is accurate and the discussion given by TheTransarchist in that section also seems like a good editor trying to make a proper neutral lede summary based on available sources. Some of the sources in their list are certainly stronger and more relevant than others, but those stronger sources still say the same thing as the others, which is criticism of the group. Silverseren^C 22:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which edit of mine are you referencing? I've made 3 edits total to the article. Which one was the issue? Conversely, are you saying it's OK to accuse editors of whitewashing on an article talk page? Are you suggesting that is a neutral topic heading? Springee (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to have a major issue with LGBT news sources across various articles on topics in the LGBT topic area. And whitewashing can also be an issue of omission than explicit addition of improper information. Not having a proper lede for a group that sources refer to negatively is whitewashing those referenced facts from the opening of the article. Which can appear deliberate and quite possibly is on someone in the editing history's part, but could also just be a long-term editing issue with the article that TheTransarchist is trying to now rectify. Silverseren^C 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any action re: Tranarchist Yes, Tranarchist has very strong feelings about a subject that would inevitably color her contributions no matter how hard she tries to follow WP:NPOV. However, so do many other contributors. It's always an issue with Wikipedia, and you can find subtle biases in even the best contributions. That's why we have multiple editors. This mechanism works well in highly-viewed articles and not so well in rarely-viewed articles, since the scrutiny by other editors is less. Wikipedia is not perfect, and putting restrictions on Tranarchist and other editors with strong opinions (as long as they edit reasonably close to a neutral view) in an attempt to perfect Wikipedia is a fool's errand, as we'll just harm Wikipedia by banning some of its best contributors. The best we can do is recognize that many editors have strong opinions, and, as editors, always think about WP:NPOV when we're editing an article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All I can say is, it's a good job my Mastodon account isn't linked from my talk page.  Tewdar  18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see an all Cornwall topics ban in your future. ^{[just kidding]} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean an 'all topics ban', surely...  Tewdar  18:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any action against TheTranarchist. The person who started this topic has been banned as a sockpuppet, so hopefully WP:Assume good faith doesn't apply when I say this was a gross attempt at intimidating a trans editor. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some kind of sanction for creating non-NPOV pages intended to discredit their subjects. I do not edit in this topic area, but came across the discussion as an uninvolved editor. The Tranarchist clearly has a problem creating NPOV articles on subjects related to gender. Their original published versions of Chloe Cole, Genspect, and Foundation against Intolerance and Racism are written from a clearly non-neutral perspective. Given The Tranarchist's honesty about their goals and actions, I believe they are here in good faith, but I believe they should either voluntarily agree to stop creating articles in this topic area or be appropriately sanctioned/warned. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811 Thank you for the assumption of good faith! Rare these days lol. I do want to make a notes however. The Cole article has barely changed from that original version and there is no evidence of being non-NPOV. The only notable change is far-right media to right-wing media, which I myself corrected upon reviewing the sources and realizing I'd improperly summarized them. The Genspect article doesn't prove a non-neutral perspective, and the majority of the edits there have been mine and made it more succinct and neutral. That diff version says how they describe themselves, how others have described them, and their notable actions, all cited to reliable sources. I'll also note that was one of my first articles, made while I was still getting the hang of formatting properly from the get-go (explaining the appearance as a chunk rather than a lead and well-sectioned body). The FAIR article has also barely changed, and other editors have agreed the article was whitewashed and advertified. The only notably differences are 1) the removal of attributed statements to Idavox, which I supported when presented with clear policy, and 2) the "right" of students to misgender their schoolmates in the lead, which was based off reliable sources and my inability to come up with a more neutral description at the time (coupled with the fact FAIR frequently uses the language of rights to free speech and religious expression to justify those policies), which I myself changed on reflection to the more neutral opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply incorrect to say that the "only notable change is far-right media to right-wing media" when half the lead has been removed and large chunks of content have been added/removed to the body, as well as many adjustments to word choice and sourcing (here's the diff for your version to the current version). Many instances of non-neutral language have been removed by other editors. Frankly, it actually makes me feel worse about your level of good faith when you say it has "barely changed"; that is a seriously misleading statement. The same applies to FAIR (diff between your original and the current version). I agree with others who argue you have the potential to be an excellent editor, but I remain concerned that you lack the ability to be neutral in this topic area. Support topic ban until the editor has proven their abilities in other areas of the encyclopedia. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not referencing the half removed, however, I'd already referenced it earlier in a response to another editor, the repetition has made it hard to keep up and make sure all points are noted in each reply. Please don't let that effect your perception of my good faith, I'm not trying to omit or distort anything I'm just getting exhausted from having to repeatedly respond to points already raised. The text apart from the removed half has indeed barely changed, and the part removed was verifiable and I included it for WP:FRINGE reasons, the question is more if it's due in the lead or just in reception. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have very different definitions of "barely changed". You have been involved in repeated discussions of the neutrality of the article on Chloe Cole's talk page (and in edit summaries) since soon after you created it, so this is obviously no surprise to you. I think you really need to step back and take a moment to honestly reflect on whether you can be neutral in this subject area. It's clearly an issue which you care about a great deal (and that's good!), but perhaps you should take a break and edit in other areas for a few months. Wikipedia is not a good place for a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Even though this issue is currently a cultural battleground, it's better for everyone if we can turn down the heat on Wiki. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is spiraling out of control below. I urge everyone to drop the stick and back away. Let newcomers contribute to the discussion without bludgeoning them, give it some time, and let an uninvolved admin close this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot follow my own advice, so striking for hypocrisy. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811, I'll try to give more thorough breakdown of the articles and associated discussions so you can see what I mean. Please read with an open mind and feel free to verify and check what I've said.

• For Chloe Cole, the text of the original lead and article as a whole has not changed much. I said "barely changed", not mentioning the paragraph removed since I'd mentioned it before and am getting exhausted by this. That paragraph was removed as a question of WP:DUE, not WP:OR or WP:VERIFIABILITY, and I'd included it since I'd seen it be standard practice with WP:PROFRINGE to, if someone is known for their fringe position on a medical issues, highlighting what WP:MEDRS have to say about it instead. Below are the initial and current versions of the page if not focusing on that second paragraph, which I agreed wasn't due in the lead and discussed integrating into Reception/Activities, which I can hope you realize, has actually barely changed, the biggest things being far-right -> right-wing, which I switched, and the term "American", which is not WP:NPOV related.

Original Text: Chloe Cole is an anti-transgender activist and detransitioner known for appearing on far-right media and with politicians before state legislatures to oppose gender-affirming care for minors and support bans on such care. After telling her parents she was a trans boy at 12, she started puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, and received a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16. At 17, she detransitioned.

Current Version: Chloe Cole is an American anti-transgender activist and detransitioner known for appearing on right-wing media and with politicians before state legislatures to oppose gender-affirming care for minors and support bans on such care. According to her testimony, after telling her parents she was a trans boy at 12, she started puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, received a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16, and detransitioned at 17.

Additionally, at the talk page, you see me putting my personal feelings aside to make sure we stick to sources and not introduce skepticism of her story into wikivoice. Another discussion is whether the attendance of proud boys at one of her events should be covered, which I argued with sources and context it was. Another is whether "anti-trans activist" applies, which was proposed by the sock who started this and taken up by Springee, which I defended with reliable sources and other editors do not find overly objectionable. The final discussion on that page is from a SPA that has been trying to remove WP:RS content.

For Genspect, which was one of my first articles, it has changed a great deal. But the initial sourcing was not based on WP:OR and wholly on WP:RS. If you look at the current version, you can see that 1) I have been the largest contributor to the article and 2) sources have been added and the formatting cleaned up so as much as possible is more detailed and specific. The article has been stable and well-regarded for a while now. If we look at the talk page, we see extensive discussion on improving the article, and me sticking to what WP:RS have to say about them. (I will note, the second editor on the page Swannieriv, had an undisclosed COI that I discovered only after they dropped the stick and stopped editing after rage-quitting because their OR didn't fly here). If you can see problems with the article as-is, please point them out, but otherwise I maintain that it's a well-written article formed by productive collaboration.

Finally, for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, the article body itself has barely changed (with the exception of some removal of RS by a COI editor). But looking at the lead, which was the most heavily disputed, here are the original and new versions.

• Initial version The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a conservative national nonprofit organization in the United States. FAIR is known for campaigning what they call Critical Race Theory (CRT), though critics have said they use it as a catch-all term for mentions of white privilege, and for the "right" of students to misgender their schoolmates. / FAIR describes itself as a nonpartisan group dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all, but critics have noted the board is made up of conservatives who've variously been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia. Notable members include former Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Christopher Rufo, Abigail Shrier, Steven Pinker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ian Rowe, and Bari Weiss. FAIR was launched in March 2021 by Bion Bartning, after learning Riverdale Country School, where his children attended, has developed anti-racist initiatives. / The Guardian describes it as having "sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide." The Colorado Times Recorder listed it as a "conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group". Media Matters for America described the group as "deceptively named" and the San Antonio Current described it as "horribly misnamed".
• Please note, for the line about the "right" to misgender students, that was based on a source and on my own reflection I updated it to the more neutral opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students.
• There was a brief intermediary period where the lead contained only their mission statement, and a look at JWeiss11's contributions to the page, talk, and the COI I've raised to arb-com showed blatant targeted advertification.
• Current version The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is an American nonprofit organization, founded in 2021, that campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls Critical Race Theory (CRT); it also opposes policies that would prevent schoolmates and faculty from misgendering or deadnaming transgender students. / FAIR describes itself as a "nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding, and humanity." FAIR's board of advisers has included human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, musician and activist Daryl Davis, conservative activist Christopher Rufo, former Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly, journalist Bari Weiss, and academics Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, and Steven Pinker.

The SACurrent and Media Matters for America parts were recognizably undue, I'd initially felt it important to highlight that multiple RS had specifically pointed out how deceptive it's name was, but realized that was best saved for reception. The Colorado Times Recorder is recognized as WP:GREL, provided WP:SIRS coverage, and it was used for noting the board is made up of conservatives who've variously been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia., along with other sources who specifically pointed out how stacked it's board is with conservatives. Generally, there is current discussion on the talk page about how to properly include their criticisms in the lead.

If we look at the Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, I have done everything I can to stick to reliable sources. I was wrong about Idavox, and recognized that was so when given a better reason it was not up-to-snuff than "it's left-wing". Various aspects are under discussion, but as you can see I took disputed sources to RSN, and more recently compiled what every RS had to say about them to propose a lead (which the current version is mostly based off of) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse things that haven't changed because they are good with things that haven't changed because editors are getting consensus, being cautious or are only beginning aware of the issues. Springee (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed response, but I am unconvinced. It is more than possible to write an article made up of completely factual statements, sourced to reliable sources, and still demonstrate bias. For instance, I could write: "Joe Biden, whose election as President was highly controversial, visited Kyiv recently, even though he has never visited Americans who suffered from a disaster on his watch in East Palestine, Ohio. Some Republicans say he has been "absent on the job" and "the worst President in US history." Biden, long known for his gaffes and controversial statements, said more money taken from American taxpayers would be sent to foreigners to fight a war that is thousands of miles from US shores." Every part of this is true, but due to cherry-picking, lack of context, and snide asides, it is entirely non-neutral.

In a similar way, you added little asides and pieces of "context" to the Chloe Cole article that have since been removed, such as (among others): "reportedly being unable to answer some questions coherently but responding with apparently rehearsed answers to questions posed by Republican lawmakers", "none of whom were from Florida", "leading a transgender nonbinary person who signed up to testify but wasn't able to do so to state the event was 'obviously staged' ", "Many have speculated that her travel has been paid for anti-LGBTQ activists. Cole denied that and said her trips are self-funded with crowdfunding via Twitter tips. Others have questioned if she is being coached," etc etc.

Similar issues crop up in the other articles you have started. To be clear, incidentally (and I think we're already on the same page here), I was not referring to the lead only but to the entirety of the articles you began. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! If there's one thing I'm known for, for better or for worse, it's detailed responses lol.

I just want to say, I recognize that the articles had some bias, but the cores remained unchanged. No editor can write a truly unbiased article, I just want to highlight that my articles are mostly unbiased.

For example, with the Cole pieces mentioned, which I haven't contested, those are details explicitly noted in relevant sources that I thought relevant and due. Many were from the Blade interview, which was one of the most WP:SIRS sources there that went in depth into her actions, story, and reception. The fact all people speaking against the bill were flown in was commented on by multiple sources and seemed noteworthy, but I may have been wrong. Same goes for the comment about the event being obviously staged, since that was a clear attributed comment noted from a RS saying a hearing she participated in was "staged", I thought it seemed due and noteworthy. But I was wrong. (A side note, I recently saw a reliable source confirming an anti-LGBT group paid for travel in one case that I've been meaning to add)

Am I always right and unbiased? Of course not, as a general rule I distrust anyone who says they are. But my articles are written with an intention of sticking to WP:RS and WP:NPOV, even when I don't like an organization/person (as evidenced by me arguing that skepticism of her name and story in wikivoice was wholly uncalled for on talk) I endeavor to improve articles and their NPOV collaboratively, for example see discussions on my talk page on Gays Against Groomers and the talk page for GAG itself, where @Ppt91 has been supportively critical of my work and we've been working together to improve the article.

Should I put my articles through a stricter review process before publishing? If there's one take-away from this whole thing it's that I absolutely should, to improve it and help ensure my unconscious biases don't make it in despite my best efforts. I have no issue with a sanction to that effect. A full on topic ban disregards just how much good work I do in this area and just how much of it is regarded as good and uncontroversial, when a more tailored sanction would be much more apt and deal with the specific issues raised. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from biographies of living persons who are related to the topic area of WP:GENSEX, broadly construed. Much of this discussion has been ill-informed attempts by a sock of a prolific sockmaster to troll all of us. That being said, the user's behavior in this area has been a source of significant disruption and BLP issues, and I was extremely close to bringing them to AE relating to this behavior anyway, so here we are. They were given a logged warning in this area by AmandaNP no less than ten days ago, and the user has, even since then, continued to engage in disruptive editing that pertains to living persons whom they find to be unsympathetic.
  I will remind us of BLP issues on British politics articles, where a user has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute with a particular BLP, and then while simultaneously making significant content edits to that same article over an extended period of time. This sort of behavior is not acceptable, and can potentially demonstrate a conflict of interest with respect to particular topics. The writings of TheTranarchist, as posted on the very mastodon voluntarily linked on the user's talk page, reveals a great deal of the same sort of mentality that led to the problems that got Philip Cross the British Politics TBAN. And some of these edits include an absolute, premeditated, and egregious attempt to use Wikipedia for black-hat SEO gaming to attack particular organizations and people or to otherwise engage in activism rather than trying to build a neutral encyclopedia. These include:
  1. Nov 30, 2022, 22:13 (archive) Indicates an intent not to edit neutrally, but to instead specifically spite people. With respect to comments on Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, TheTranarchist wrote TERFs are crying again, do you think they'll cry more when I mention Posie Parker's far right ties in the lead?. TheTranarchist then proceeded to sysstematically edit the article of Posie Parker (an alternative name of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull), including adding Wikivoice statements to the lead of the BLP that was dubiously sourced to Unicorn Riot and Media Matters for America (see: WP:RSP#Media Matters for America, which notes that it is marginally reliable and attribution should be used). This was not the last of their editing to the BLP using dubious sources that portray them negatively, however; they would add material to the article sourced to a podcast from anarchist group blog It's going down and Trotskyist blog Worker's Liberty to portray Keen-Minshull in a negative light, despite neither of these having the sort of strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that is demanded of BLP sources. The user then continued to use fringy political websites to add contentious materials to the BLP, adding contentious material sourced to libertarian communist blog libcom. The user then moved to add the poorly sourced contentious materials to the lead, and later added contentious factual material about the BLP that is extremely clearly an opinion piece from anarchosocialist blog Freedom News, the blog of a different anarchist group called "Anarchist Federation", and the self-published blog Trans Safety Network. (With respect to the lattermost source, they had already brought it to RSN and were told by multiple editors that it was not a good source to use in BLPs as it's self-published, but they decided to use it here anyway, so it's particularly egregious that they've decided to willfully ignore that.)
  2. Dec 01, 2022, 16:15 (archive) Reveals an absolute and premeditated attempt to create articles with the intent of covering organizations negatively, using Wikipedia as a tool to simply rank negative coverage of them high on Google. With respect to Genspect and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, TheTranarchist wrote that I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and that as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one.
  3. Dec 01, 2022, 16:39 (archive) describes TheTranarchist's belief they are in the group that uses Wikipedia as a tool for combatting the anti-trans movement.
  4. Dec 01, 2022, 18:01 (archive) appears to be a post in which TheTranarchist is seeking to have some newspaper publish screenshots of discord messages that they took from Genspect's discord. check these out and try and get them viral as possible, TheTranarchist wrote. extra kudos if they get picked up by a newspaper or something.
  5. Dec 18, 2022, 23:48 (archive) is a self-description of their methodology to write articles, which is to say that systematically search through every source mentioning the topic and take extensive notes then draft and publish an article. That's fine, but absent competent understanding of reliability of sources, this methodology leads to the exact sorts of issues with fringe blogs being included for contentious BLP content, and the user's compilation of fringe blogs to add to articles in order to make them more negative contributes to the problem of the user's repeated creating non-neutral articles in the WP:GENSEX area. A more recent example of this includes attempts to use an obviously self-published activist blog run by a single dude for factual claims about the political contributions of a living person, even when the source itself declared itself to be purely speculating and even when Jweiss11 had reverted their insertions. (Frankly, if one cannot tell that this wesite is not the source we should be citing for BLP info, I would have strong competence concerns.)
  6. Jan 19, 2023, 15:55 (archive) TheTranarchist seems to be openly taunting the BLP whose article they are editing, saying, I can't stop fucking cackling at the moment when describing the BLP complaining about the article.
  7. Jan 31, 2023, 14:44 (archive) TheTranarchist describing the article they have written about the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism as being an article about the "enemy" and indicating a battleground mentality that proceeds from the belief in sort of real battle existing the editor and this group, writing that Either way, the details don't lie and people need to know their enemy to fight them. Same people, same tactics, same fight.

Taken together, yes, there is a battleground mentality here, and there's plenty of evidence here that we're approaching the level of having an editor who has personalized a conflict with Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull being the same editor who is adding poorly sourced contentious statements to her article. The warning received for general conduct in the area given by AmandaNP seems insufficient given that the above is clearly able to demonstrate an unabashed battleground mentality that has included repeated and intentional violations of the biographies of living persons policy in this area that continue through the present. I would kindly ask AmandaNP to apply this topic ban as a simple arbitration enforcement action, as the warning has not worked, and a topic ban is the only way to prevent future damage in this area from this editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any sanctions there is no evidence that @TheTranarchist has been editing in a disruptive way or using anything but RS, or letting their beliefs actually impact the factual content of articles. This, coupled with the fact that OP was a sockpuppet, makes it ridiculous to actually consider sanctioning this user. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you've only raised two actual pieces of evidence of me editing even semi-impartially.

• First, the KJK article, where I exercised some poor judgement in sources while mostly sticking to undeniably reliable ones, and even then their inclusion did not especially depart from what reliable sources had covered and were attributed. Had anyone raised concerns at the talk page about the sources in question, I would have responded and weighed the merits - I have no issue with being proven wrong about the reliability of a source. We all have biases, and I welcome editors to in good faith point out where they may have slipped into an article despite my attempts for them not to. There have been numerous occasions where, while compiling sources, I did not include some despite my personal support of them or the opinion on the quality of their reporting and I have strived to only use reliable sources on every occasion.
• Second, the FAIR article, where only one source raised was actually objectionable, and once given clear policy reasoning I realized you were right and concurred. If someone had raised actual policy concerns earlier, I would have concurred then, but the previous objections were solely its political position. Absent from that is the context that the article has been advertified and whitewashed (particularly by a COI editor) and editors there were trying to cast multiple sources as inherently unreliable due to their political position. Idavox had not been discussed at RSN, so I brought it there, as Daryl Lamont Jenkins is a Subject Matter Expert on far-right and right-wing organizing.

I will exercise even greater caution in my sourcing in future, but there's no evidence my editing is a particularly large problem. A topic ban is the only way to prevent future damage in this area from this editor is extreme and damage is unsubstantiated. I have written 14 articles and edited countless dozen more. Cherry-picking poor sourcing judgement (even with the fact those sources were clearly attributed and no means the basis of the article or substantially effecting it) on only 2 is hardly evidence of a persistent problem. Particularly given that on most articles I edit I tend to ensure WP:MEDRS sources are used instead of unreliable ones. I freely admit I did use poor judgement in those situations, sincerely apologize, and will do better (which you should by all means hold me to and consider in future sanctions should I slip), but a topic ban is an extreme over-reaction on many levels. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's deeply concerning that you would ever consider an anarchist blog/press site reliable for any contentious claim about a BLP subject. Here [83] you added "he Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation described Keen as a "known transphobe, islamaphobe, and all round bigot"." citing the Anarchist Federation itself. Can you offer any reasonable explanation why you would consider that to be a BLP compatible edit? If not, why did you use that source? Springee (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The press site being anarchist does not inherently mean "can't be used", as you seem to think it does.

The Anarchist Federation (Britain), which you linked to, is located at http://afed.org.uk/. The Online Anarchist Federation, which the content was sourced to, is independent of them and republished a statement from them, which was not used for any factual claims. The content added is an attributed statement to them. Did they not factually and verifiably protest her and describe Keen as a "known transphobe, islamaphobe, and all round bigot"? An attributed statement as to why a group protested her seemed due, though I now recognize it wasn't.

Regardless, since RTH objected, as you can see above I concurred and realized that was poor sourcing. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of controversial sources for BLPs is the issue being called out here, but doubly so when they're used in a highly targeted manner, as you've already admitted. While I firmly believe in your right to edit on Wikipedia, I suspect you may have too strong of a COI to continue editing in this space. I'd encourage you to continue editing on Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this discussion, regardless. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I admitted I use sources in a highly targeted manner? Where is the COI? Trust me, I'm not notable outside of Wikipedia, I take great pains to stay out of public attention to keep me and my family safe, given how fucking scary it is to be publicly trans. I'd be happy to verify who I am, outside of countering misinformation on Wikipedia and occasional trans history (ex: Angela Lynn Douglas), I mainly focus on work, finishing my under-grad, helping out my local community, and spending time with loved ones and I've had no interactions with any of the organizations or people I write about - the only connection to them is that I'm trans and I write about anti-trans organizations and activists. I only have a COI if gay editors have a COI about NARTH and Black editors have a COI about the KKK.

In terms of continue editing on Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this discussion - a topic ban would for all intents and purposes bar me from editing wikipedia. It is no secret that my editing focus and educational experience are in the GENSEX area. As others have noted, this usually takes the form of 1) ensuring misinformation doesn't spread and that WP:MEDRS are used and 2) writing articles about notable anti-trans organizations (which I must note, the majority of which have raised no objection and been praised). See my user and talk page and even the above discussion for evidence that my contributions in the area have generally been regarded well and level-headed, regardless of sourcing slip-ups in two sources, which I've freely admitted were mistakes on my part (and in one case, had recognized and concurred before this discussion was even started). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase a previous statement of mine, we don't cite She's A Homerecker for the information it says and then slap on attribution (according to a post on "She's a Homewrecker"...) as if it's some sort of band-aid. The same goes for other deeply unreliable or self-published sources. You're fully aware of this, and you participated in this June 2022 RSN thread where multiple editors told you not to use a different self-published source in a BLP. As I told you then, and as I repeat now, Source X is always reliable for the claim "Source X says Y", where Y is a direct quote. But WP:SPS says to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.". You were told about this exact sort of situation before, and that this sort of "attribution-as-a-band-aid" was not compliant with our sourcing policies, yet have chosen to ignore this advice thus far. And so we are here, because you have intentionally continued to add negative and contentious statements to BLPs that were sourced to SPS and low-quality sources, even after being told not to do so by multiple editors. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not chosen to ignore this advice, I know the consequences and don't want to get banned, I can assure you I have no intention of deliberately shooting myself in the foot. There is ample evidence I am almost entirely by book and a collaborative productive editor - I have made statistically very rare errors in judgement and memory and ask you to assume good faith, give me WP:ENOUGHROPE, and sanction me so I need to get my articles reviewed before publishing to mainspace to fully ensure that the content is neutral. I have never been opposed to good faith reviews of articles I write or when people point I've made an error in judgement. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support either ban authoring new GENSEX articles or outright Tban. This is based in part on the evidence presented by Red-tailed hawk as well as my comment above and the general lack of awareness when it comes to IMPARTIAL writing and the standards of sourcing needed to make value laden claims about subjects, especially BLP subjects. Springee (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Topic Ban. The editor in question has accused other editors of "cherry-picking" their edits, despite that's the entire reason why Red-tailed hawk went to the trouble to aggregate several examples. Why this is surprising or controversial is probably a good indication that this editor is doing precisely what they're accused of, which is advocacy editing. There is no shortage of evidence to support this claim, and while the sock puppet is concerning, it doesn't make this issue any less relevant. I understand that we're all human and we have bias, but there is a clear pattern of abuse here which is why I support the ban as to all the reasons pointed out above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to defend myself and plead my case. RTH did not aggregate several examples of my edits, they primarily aggregated comments I've made off-wikipedia without evidence they impacted the articles themselves. There is a shortage of evidence to support this claim, as all serious complaints have boiled down to the inclusion of sources in only 2 articles out of the 14 I've written and the dozens more I've edited. While they have indeed proven unreliable, they were attributed even then, and I have not contested their reliability given evidence they aren't. A proper audit should take my general conduct into consideration, not just take two slip-ups as representative of my editing as a whole and evidence of a clear pattern of abuse TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the first bullet shows a good number of examples with that very same BLP article where you have chosen to use self-published and other WP:QUESTIONABLE sources to assert contentious facts and introduce negative statements about a living person into an article. The sixth bullet is a "appreciation post" written to that very same BLP, where you described yourself as fucking cackling at the moment when you saw that the BLP was upset with Wikipedia's coverage of her. These are related, and say a lot about your BLP editing in this topic area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the 1st: those were from a while ago, and please keep in mind that content is a quote from an organization that protested her as to why, which seemed relevant and contextually justified but I now realize should have been more strictly sourced. I have stayed off the KJK article for a over two weeks because I wanted to step away from the page and let others editors improve it and see/fix what I couldn't, even though multiple RS have been published with details I could include and feel I should, since even I'd realized it's gotten to personal and I have better things to do. And to the 6th, let's please keep in mind the context that someone who is known solely for campaigning against the rights of trans people got mad about an article about her, calling it full of lies when it wasn't and she could provide no evidence it was, and personally insulting me. I only learned about the tweet because because @Paddykumar tried to insert it into the article and it preceded a huge wave of vandalism, which resulted in the page being protected, there having seemed to be a consensus among editors that the article contained no lies and everything was verifiable.

I don't want to WP:OWN any articles, though I want them to be well written and containing all relevant information to date from the start. I've written 2/14 articles that were not fully properly sourced, and even then only marginally when keeping in mind how little weight they had and how the article was overwhelming reliably sourced. Not to mention the dozens of other articles I've edited wholly uncontroversially to ensure WP:RS and WP:MEDRS were used.

Please, I'm asking you to assume good faith, to give me the opportunity to be even more exacting with my sources, and to hold me accountable if I fuck up again - enough rope to hang myself and all that. I even thing it's a good idea for me to have to put BLPs through the AFC process to make sure I didn't screw up and to help fix up my articles and ensure they're as good as they could be, since that's what collaborative editing is all about and I have a history of, even when disagreeing, collaboratively discussing based on RS and wiki-policy (to such an extent even the Atlantic, who are among the last people I expect for unbiased reporting on trans issues speaking to my personal opinion, noted that). These may have been these major SNAFUs on my part, but can you at least acknowledge that I provide a lot to the encyclopedia and the GENSEX area and a topic ban would be extreme given the circumstances and a waste of valuable contributions? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban, per Red-tailed hawk's list and replies above. DoubleCross (‡) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any action, this was started by a banned sock and many of the editors supporting it are only doing so because they are on the other side of the debate. The last thing we want to do is to remove one of the few editors from this area who are opposed to the worrying influx of "gender critical" editors. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: Aside from baseless ad hominem attacks, do you have any substantial comment as to the issues I've brought up? Anything at all? I'm not a banned sock, and these are real issues that the user has previously been told to correct multiple times in the past. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As a clarification, I believe Black Kite's comment about only doing so because they are on the other side of the debate was not directed at you but rather editors such as Springee, who has in the last few day

  On Talk:Chloe Cole, compared LGBT magazines to car magazines and said they're too biased to use as a source to label someone an "anti-trans" activist, the person in question having no notability outside of mostly campaigning to criminalize transgender healthcare for minors, and also for adults under 21 or adults on Medicaid as well, which they ignored to repeatedly insist that Cole only campaigns against transition for minors, and therefor it's supposedly therefor not "anti-trans"

  On Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism repeatedly insisted that trans students don't have a right to not be misgendered in schools, that campaigning against that right doesn't make an organization opposed to transgender rights, said only "trans advocates" thought so, and continued to deny denied there was evidence otherwise when presented with US Laws, and UN / human rights organizations statements

  Who has, as shown below, mainly not brought up any actual reasons I should be banned apart from disagreeing with their WP:FRINGE positions on trans topics, until referencing their own disagreements with me once again but saying they were in addition to your note, which has been practically the only one to bring up any real wrong-doing. Not to mention that they were blatantly canvassed beforehand, apparently the only one to have been summoned like that.

  Reviewing their reasons for why I should be banned in chronological order}}

  1. tries to prove tendentious editing by linking to an editor with a COI affecting the article saying I did so, who didn't provide any evidence.
  2. Links to a warning about improperly giving evidence of a COI as evidence of a problem with my editing, which the editor who left the warning stated it wasn't
  3. Provide the initial versions of Chloe Cole and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism as evidence they were biased, despite the text remaining mostly unchanged after consensus has found they weren't, Springee notably being one of the most vocal opponents in those places.
  4. Notably, argued against an investigation/boomerang for the highly suspicious account who started the discussion and notified them immediately after, who's now been banned as a sockpuppet
  5. Supports a restriction on publishing articles directly to mainspace
  6. Using a section compiling all reliable sources titled "Undoing the whitewashing and advertification", which other editors have noted was an apt and neutral description, as evidence of my misconduct
  7. Rehashes your point about the anarchistfederation source at KJK, their own politics clearly coloring how they view source reliability by notably asking how an "anarchist" source can be reliable.
  8. Supports a full topic ban or the article publishing restriction, referencing they're earlier unsubstantial points but also citing your argument

  TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to put my thoughts into a !vote, which seems to be the direction the discussion is taking: Oppose any sanctions. I should again stress that the only reason we're here is because some bad looking informal posts were dug up in bad faith by a repeat WP:OUTING violator that has been banned since 2018. I think that's called poisoning the well, and I don't think we should be rewarding that. Regarding on-wiki behaviour: I've seen worse behaviour in this topic area from much more experienced editors, and this is not a very experienced editor. Because I felt like I was going a little bit insane with how some of the editors in this thread talk about her behaviour, I've decided to put some effort into quantifying it: She has a total edit count of roughly a 1200. of which only about 4% have had to be reverted or otherwise deleted, a number that is lower than red tailed hawk's at 5.5% for example, who has had an order of magnitude more edits to learn the craft at over twenty one thousand edits total. considering she's operating in a topic area where getting reverted is almost the norm these days, I think that's actually a quite decent score. Another point I want to adres is that even in the main mastadon post at isssue here, (the one where the "these fuckers"quote comes from), TheTranarchist shows a clear understanding and awareness of wikipolicy regarding these matters, stating explicitly that reliable sources are needed to get anything included on wikipedia, which is correct. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban I don't edit in this area, but as an admin I used to patrol some gender-related topic areas that experienced significant disruption. The diffs shared above by Red-tailed hawk and others, especially the use of a highly inappropriate source to support contentious negative statements and the fact that this editor's userpage openly calls the subject of a BLP they've edited a liar and bigot, are extremely troubling. Collectively they have convinced me that TheTranarchist is fundamentally unable to edit this topic area (especially BLPs) in a manner consistent with our policies. I'll also note that this topic area is under WP:CTOP for multiple areas, WP:ARBGENDER and WP:NEWBLPBAN so any uninvolved administrator may take appropriate action, or a consensus at this noticeboard also has the option of a community ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The raised questionable sources have been 3/4 out of the 100's I've cited in 2 of the 14 articles I've written and dozens more edited. With Idavox I took it through the appropriate channels and I'd recognized it as unreliable after being a clear policy reason before this whole thing even began. The BLP subject in question publicly insulted me and accused me of lying, has no notability outside of their bigoted actions and campaigning against the rights of people like me, and I didn't call them a liar, I said they were lying, which I provided a source to verify. That context matters. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do understand what you're saying. Granted I'm somewhat of a BLP hardliner and have been for over a decade, but 3-4 out of hundreds on 2 out of 14 articles, when they're that egregious and especially when coupled with an open declaration of a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, is simple not good enough. The attempt to manipulate search engine rankings is also something that has been noted as "an extremely serious abuse of Wikipedia" according to the Arbitration Committee. Editors with strong feelings about a BLP subject, especially negative ones, need to be extremely careful about editing those articles and should often choose not to edit them at all. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can respect being a BLP hardliner, but I think a full topic ban is disproportionate given the circumstances. I've already stated I think WP:ENOUGHROPE and a sanction on publishing BLP's to mainspace would be a good solution that would prevent this sort of problem arising again without throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

  In terms of my choices for BLP subjects, I want to note that people whose only notability is campaigning against transgender rights will most likely have their article written by either 1) someone who supports such views, and is likely to embellish sources, whitewash them, and use the article as an advert, or 2) someone who is trans and is directly effected by such policies, which we can't really help.

  In terms of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, on my user page, I have a subsection Choosing an article topic where I state, Difficult at the best of times, and up to you. I find my time on Wikipedia is best suited to 1) documenting anti-trans groups and activists and 2) documenting trans rights groups and activists. Generally, Wikipedia can be a wonderful tool for shedding light on both those who fight to make the world better and those who fight to make it worse. We need to know about both. This is not contrary to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as both tend to be covered in reliable sources. WP:RGW states If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. - the policy applies to WP:OR, not summarizing reliable sources as I overwhelmingly do and revealing well-sourced/documented wrongdoings.

  Regarding the edits, I'd like to say in my defense in context they are not especially egregious:

  Idavox was used for a attributed statement to them. I initially thought them reliable as recognized experts and gave sources to support that belief, but I recognized I was wrong about their reliability and concurred before this discussion started when RTH raised wiki-policy to answer the question.

  The Anarchist Federation (Britain) protested one of Keen's rally, the content removed was an attributed statement to them. Other editors at the talk page considered it possibly due. I realized it wasn't when RTH brought up concerns here and did not contest it.

  The Freedom News source would be reliable generally, and I wouldn't mind supporting that at RSN. The issue was it was a commentary, which I'd missed since it was in small print and read like a news article, and even then it was attributed. I still accept I fucked up there (for the fact it was a commentary I'd thought was a news piece, not for the source itself)

  The Trans Safety Network source is a fully admitted fuck-up on my part and the most egregious of the bunch, as I'd previously discussed it at RSN but misremembered the caveat about BLPs. The content in question was an attributed statement to them on the overlap between Keen and Tommy Robinson, which they provided evidence of and links to her videos supporting the claim, and as I showed earlier (somewhere in this novel of a discussion lol) that article had been used in a reliable source to cite the overlap between the far-right and transphobes. Even then, when I RTH pointed out I'd fucked up by including it, I didn't contest it and realized I had.

  None of these sources have been used majorly in the articles, they showcase errors in judgement which I addressed through the appropriate channels and in one case had already realized was wrong before this whole thing started. The articles themselves are primarily compromised of WP:RS and fully in line with wiki-policy apart from these minor SNAFU's. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. I see this as similar to the Stuartyeates case from last year; intent matters, particularily for BLP's, and editors are expected to edit with the intent of improving the coverage of the topic and the articles compliance with policy. Sometimes, improved coverage and compliance with policy will expose wrongdoing by an individual or group, but exposing that wrongdoing should be the side effect of the goal to improve coverage not the goal itself. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:FRINGE, setting out to right a good article on the group will necessarily expose their wrong-doing. Is there any rule that explicitly or approximately says exposing that wrongdoing should be the side effect of the goal to improve coverage not the goal itself? They aren't mutually exclusive. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  setting out to right a good article on the group will necessarily expose their wrong-doing It will, but your intent was to expose them, not to write a good article. This is likely to result in articles that violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and did here as proven by Red-tailed hawk, as well as violate the policies underpinning WP:NOTHERE and WP:TE. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BilledMammal Are exposing them and writing a good article mutually exclusive though? My intent was to expose them, or more accurately summarize how they've already been exposed by WP:RS by writing a good article. Is there evidence that at Genspect or Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine I've violated WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, engaged in WP:OR, excluded WP:RS or otherwise improperly weighed them, or that they are not good articles? Why should the intent matter if the article content itself does not have issues? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The intent to expose an individual or group is incompatable with writing a good article, because this is likely to result in articles that violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Evidence for such violations, including at specific articles, has been provided by Red-tailed hawk. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  RTH provided evidence of this at only one article, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull notably not either of the ones my "exposed" comment were referring to. The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article had only one questionable source, Idavox, which I argued was due based on it's use by others via wiki-policy and the appropriate channels, which I'd already realized and concurred was an incorrect position before this whole thing started. Reviewing KJK: one source was an attributed official statement from a group who'd protested one of her events, one was included since "commentary" was in small print, but I maintain the source is otherwise reliable for its news pieces, and even then it was attributed, and one was the only actually clear sourcing fuck-up, since I should've remembered the BLP caveat from a previous discussion, which is a mistake I freely admit I made.

  In short, only one source in one article was used in an especially problematic way (Trans Safety Network at KJK) - that is hardly evidence that the my articles as a whole generally violate WP:NPOV. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with that simplification of Red-tailed hawks evidence but I don't think we are going to agree here.

  However, I would support the topic ban even if Red-tailed hawk had not provided that evidence; I fully agree with Nil Einne's comments on motive being a significant issue. I sympathize with your motive, but unfortunately your motive is not compatable with editing in this topic area; an editor who sets out to expose an individual or group is no longer capable of writing a neutral article on the topic, even when a neutral article would expose them, because they no longer have the intent of writing a neutral article. They are leaning into their bias, not attempting to control their bias. BilledMammal (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakly oppose TBANs at this time, support warning. I realize that there's already a recent logged warning, and I don't like back-to-back warnings in general, but also most or all of this conduct predates that warning, so a community warning here would really just be driving the point home. For all of the concerns about off-wiki comments, I do not see compelling evidence that there are systemic issues with TheTranarchist's articles. I'm open to being convinced otherwise there, but everything people have pointed to fails to sway me. At Special:Permalink/1136773071 (Chloe Cole), for instance, there's some content that seems a bit anti-Cole, but also content that seems pro-Cole (At 12, Cole began seeing a therapist, who warned her parents against discouraging her from transitioning. ... Cole says a year after the surgery she realized for the first time she may want to breastfeed someday, which she now couldn't.). That is, to an extent, a failure in article-writing—neutrality does not mean simply presenting both sides' narratives uncritically—but it's not a hit piece like some are characterizing it. Maybe I'm missing something? Some egregious pervasive bias in their articles? I welcome responses spelling it out. But what I see right now is someone who needs some advice on good article-writing, and who as a practical matter should probably step away from more controversial articles for a bit—and who, it should go without saying, should stop fucking making Mastodon posts that make themself and the project look bad. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not opposed to greater scrutiny/sanctions of my Mastodon posts. I can't help but fully agree that I should stop fucking making Mastodon posts that make [myself] and the project look bad, which is a wonderfully direct and honest way of putting it. While I'd prefer to be given WP:ENOUGHROPE to post more tactfully in the future, as most of my posts there are a meta-commentary on Wikipedia and my edits here, if I have to stop posting totally so be it. While I'll be more a helluva lot more tactful regardless of how this goes, if consensus finds sanctions on my posting there are to be applied, I'd appreciate clear lines on what I can and can't post about to ensure I stick to them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe that anyone is calling for banning you from making Mastodon toots about Wikipedia without oversight. We don't have that kind of authority. The general idea is that if you're going to be editing material about living people on Wikipedia, using social media (especially that is publicly linked to your Wikipedia username) to engage with and talk about the people you're writing about in anything but a polite or neutral manner isn't good. It can definitely lead to increased scrutiny and sanctions, even if you're right about them. You're a newer editor so you may not realize, but there have been many cases before where editors, even highly respected content contributors and administrators, have been sanctioned for combinations of BLP-violating edits and off-wiki engagements with the BLP subject. The first one I can think of off the top of my head is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Additionally, if there is consensus then it could be possible to tailor a topic ban in a more precise manner other than all articles containing gender-related controversies/activism or all BLPs. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a tighter restriction, or a broad one that was limited in duration. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. Their off-wiki conduct absolutely can be used against them when they themselves are linking it to themselves, and beyond that it's clear there's a tendentious editing pattern here as discussed above. I don't know Tranarchist for their non-GENSEX contributions, but I'm willing to see they can be a productive editor outside of this topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 6 month TBAN on GENSEX - In the last few months the user has been using unreliable sources to propagate her publicly disclosed agenda to combat the "anti-trans movement." They appear to be an advocate. However, I would like it to be acknowledged that they are a new-ish user (been here about a year). I think once they get some more experience in other areas they could possibly garner a greater appreciation for Wikipedia's neutrality policies and guidelines and could successfully drop their advocacy problem. I see potential for TheTranarchist, but she needs to understand that this behavior is not acceptable. This temporary topic ban will facilitate that growth. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to note, as I've done somewhere in this novel above, my precise quote on that was the "misinformation" of the anti-trans movement. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban This is honestly a topic area I try to stay out of. I don't want to deal with the blatant anti-trans editors and their attempts to prop up pseudoscience about the topic of being transgender, such as editors who try to spread FRINGE nonsense like Blanchard's transsexualism typology as legitimate through that and many other articles. Many of the editors in this topic area directly try to push just outright bigoted claims about LGBT people. Meanwhile, TheTransarchist actually follows what the sources say about these topics, which is frequently not complimentary and not surprising in being as such. You wouldn't expect editors working on articles about notable neo-nazis to not follow what the sources say about them being neo-nazis and their beliefs, would you? And having a personal view outside Wikipedia that bigots are...bigots is not an exceptional stance either. The articles presented, including the biographies, are written properly following what the reliable sources say about them. The sources are not complimentary, therefore the articles will not be complimentary either. If anything, TheTransarchist tries to focus instead directly on what the BLP subjects say and what their beliefs are according to said sources. The simple fact that those beliefs reflect negatively on the subjects is down to them themselves. I don't think removing an editor from a topic area who has been directly using the sources properly is appropriate, particularly not when pushed by a sockpuppet actively trying to go after said editor. Silverseren^C 00:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Advocacy editing is advocacy editing even when the cause is righteous. RTH's evidence shows TheTranarchist targets certain subjects with the foremost intent of damaging their reputation, and predictably the articles on these subjects often suffer from problematic sourcing choices and excessive negative detail. That's what happens when you write on a topic you have strong feelings about: you unconsciously rely on the same biased sources you used to form your opinion in the first place because you're already familiar with them, while you're much less likely to be aware of RS with more neutral or opposite perspectives. You can be editing in good faith with the greatest intention of reporting content "neutrally", but when you have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic then of course you're going to believe the preponderance of all RS support that side. We naturally avoid cognitive dissonance and seek confirmation of our biases, and that makes it very difficult to even identify which aspects of the opposing views are DUE let alone write a thoughtful summary of them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ADVOCACY states Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view.

  TheTranarchist targets certain subjects with the foremost intent of damaging their reputation is completely false. RTH's evidence, as broken down in my comment to The Wordsmith, amounts to problematic sourcing choices in 1 article, the other had already been resolved and I myself recognized it wasn't a RS when presented when a clear policy reason why before this whole thing started. To cherry pick at maximum 4 sources used for minor details and attributed statements out of the over-a-dozen articles I've written, hundreds of reliable sources they are based off, and general history of editing dozens more articles to make sure they are in line with WP:MEDRS and WP:RS, is not evidence that predictably the articles on these subjects often suffer from problematic sourcing choices and excessive negative detail. Excessive detail is not a topic-ban worthy offense on any level - if nearly all RS are critical of an organization or person then it being intricately detailed is not non-WP:NPOV, but a question of style and content editing.

  when you have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic then of course you're going to believe the preponderance of all RS support that side is ridiculous, you're hypothesizing that I have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic with no evidence, and no evidence that the WP:RS do not overwhelmingly support that side. There is no evidence I have ommited, ignored, contested, or otherwise not properly incorporated all WP:RS on any subject. I challenge anyone an article I wrote that is not comprised of RS and accurately reflective of them or even a single due RS I did not include. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In what possible way is your avowed goal of promoting negative information on a subject--"a little SEO trick"--not an intent to damage the subject's reputation?

  From NPOV: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail.

  you're hypothesizing that I have extensive prior engagement with literature on one side of a controversial topic with no evidence Are you claiming you formed your strong opinion on Keen etc. after you started writing articles on them? Forgive me for thinking the advocacy you announce on your linked Mastodon account reflects an informed opinion or relevant background on the subject!

  My comment was merely to explain why it is so incredibly difficult for anyone to edit neutrally--even when actively trying--on topics they have strong feelings on; the "you" in all those cases should be interpreted as the "royal you" not you specifically. JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Their whole MO is hijacking SEO to push misinformation about trans people, that is commented on by numerous reliable sources. as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one. - BLUESKY, that's just true. A well-written article on an organization known for pushing misinformation will refer to how reliable sources have described them, no matter their marketing.

  My opinions on Keen were formed by not especially partisan sources commenting on comments she's made and things she's advocated for. That includes trans publishers, left-wing publishers, centrist publishers, right-wing publishers, and even anti-trans publishers. Anti-trans publishers often give the best view of them, once you cut out the puffery. Your insinuation was my opinion was formed by literature on one side of a controversial topic. Compiling all the reliable sources merely strengthened how right criticisms of her are.

  While your comment may have been about the royal you, it was in support of a topic ban against me, so unless it was a royal topic ban responding to your points raised seemed relevant. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being an advocate cannot be grounds for a ban. If that were the case, most sports editors here would be bannable, as most seem to be supporting specific teams or players. A ban has to be based upon continued disruptive behavior such as described in WP:ADVOCACY or other bannable behavior. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If I wasn't clear enough with my previous comment here, I am currently opposed to a topic ban from WP:CT/GENSEX. Topic bans are generally reserved for cases when it is very obvious that a user is incapable of editing constructively in a given area, and this isn't one of those cases. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Whatever side of the argument is advocated, Wikipedia cannot be allowed to become a battleground for POV wars. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• Do you feel that way about editors dedicated to upholding FRINGE and fighting against pseudoscience in every form? Since that's a "POV" stance. The issue here is that there isn't a "side of the argument" going on here, there is just what the sources cover, which is negatively about the topic area of bigoted people and groups. There's no way around that coverage, because that's what those notable subjects are about. Silverseren^C 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. Reading through all of this, I'm not at all convinced this user is being objective, and it does seem to come across as slanted against the gender critical movement in the way they frame information. I don't think they should be banned, but a topic ban seems valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCanDoBetter (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban - this section was opened by a (now-blocked) sock. Most of the !votes in favor of a topic ban come from editors who have disagreed with TheTranarchist about GENSEX topics in various fora, including some editors who hold perspectives hostile to the community consensus around MOS:GENDERID and the professional consensus around Gender identity. Editors hoping to remove an opponent from a topic area should not be rewarded for their efforts - a warning about the value the community places on high standards for BLP content is the most that this discussion calls for, in case some Admins feel that this message has not yet been received. Newimpartial (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the value the community places on high standards for BLP content and Newimpartial's rather unorthodox take on the subject, people might like to take a look at this discussion on WP:RSN. [84] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An attributed comment by a notable group about a relevant event to the subject? The only thing that needs to be changed is "reported" to "claimed" in the sentence, since it is a claim by the group in question about what occurred. But so long as attribution is properly given to this being a statement by the group, that seems like fine commentary to include. Silverseren^C 03:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that gives a bit too much credence to the preceding comment. AndyTheGrump is just about some Whataboutism here, and saying something quite tangential to my !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  True, it's basically Andy attempting some whataboutism obfuscation with those who disagree with them in this section. And I would know, I'm the one that made the whataboutism article. :) Silverseren^C 03:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How could I be attempting some whataboutism obfuscation with those who disagree with them in this section? I hadn't commented in this section at all prior to the above post. Nothing to disagree with. For what it's worth, I've yet to make my mind up on whether I think a topic ban for TheTranarchist is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notating here that the editor had a second anarchist blog, a highly questionable source with no attribution inserted into one of these BLPs, and it ended up being referenced 3 times in the article. [85] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You're referring to anarchist news site It's Going Down? Looks like the article in question is a Featured one done by the actual staff. You can use a primary source from Salem News if you want instead, though that isn't usually advised. Silverseren^C 04:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And another one.[86] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is People's World, one of the longest running Marxist news publications in the world. Do...do you just have an issue with someone using far-left news sources? Silverseren^C 04:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was referring to Unicorn Riot. I took a quick look at People's World and it at least seemed to have a history and reputation for editorial oversight. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally...get it. I personally would be...staggered, if Unicorn Riot had any sort of...reputation for editorial oversight. However, as despicable as they (or far-right blog reciprocals) may be...if they have editorial oversight...they get...to be included.YouCanDoBetter (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Riot does seem to have a reputation for being a reliable source. Both The Guardian and The New Yorker have favourable articles on them, and their reporting. The Verge amplified The New Yorker's profile of the publication. Snopes has cited their content in a fact check, and used some of their other content in their reporting of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Wired extensively used their content in an article about Charlottesville. The Columbia Journalism Review states plainly that They are clear about their methods and their goals; they eschew traditional ideas of objectivity while striving for factual accuracy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's...not much better. While Unicorn Riot is certainly not as high profile of an RS as People's World, it is still a news source. And the article in question used as a source was written by journalist Dan Feidt, one of the founding members. So it wasn't one of the random contributor articles they have in a different section. Silverseren^C 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I responded more in-depth there, but 1 claim was corroborated by an undeniably WP:RS, one is supported by Workers' Liberty and evidence (a link to a video), and 1 was her appearance on Salem News. The article was written by IGD staff and details of how IGD is used by other RS and their editorial policies are there as well. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In case it wasn't clear from my previous comment, I oppose any sanctions against TheTranarchist. This whole debate was started by a blocked sock who fairly clearly was trying to harass Tranarchist. I don't see any problems with Tranarchist's actual output. So this whole case rides on what she said on an off-wiki site, which shouldn't even be WP:ANI's business at all, for one. For two, I don't find having a motivation to edit the wiki problematic at all. There's plenty of articles I've edited because I thought they were biased, and in several cases specifically because I thought they were biased against trans people. That's not a violation of WP:NPOV because WP:NPOV doesn't prevent editors from personally having opinions, even opinions about Wikipedia. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to say you think a topic area is biased, or that editors with a certain bias have taken over a topic area, or that you think the bias resulting from biased editors taking over a topic area needs to be fixed. Heck, we currently have an ArbCom case about to open because an academic said in public that a bunch of Wikipedia editors are biased regarding Polish culpability for the Holocaust. I don't think anyone would advocate for banning the authors of that article because of their opinions off-wiki, right? Loki (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctions, warning at most The onwiki conduct, not offwiki, forms the grounds for the ban and in my opinion it has not reached that point. The onwiki evidence presented thus far can be boiled down to a content dispute on one article, and many voting here are involved in that dispute. Pinguinn 🐧 04:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban; TheTranarchist is a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY. From her mission statement on her user page, to her pattern of edits, to her painfully lengthy defenses when challenged, she seem constitutionally unable to decouple her own polar political perspectives from a true honoring of WP:NPOV. While in her own mind I'm sure she thinks she's doing the lord's work, she's subverting the integrity of this project. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This editor above is the perfect example of the conspiracy and pseudoscience nonsense being dealt with on the right wing groups and anti-trans subject articles in question. Here's a talk page comment of theirs on FAIR after TheTransarchist suggested a lede change that actually summarized the body of the article, rather than just having the mission statement of the group as the lede:

While the lead in current state less then ideal, I certainly object to this proposal. FAIR is not a conservative group. It's an alliance of conservatives, centrists, and liberals. And the part about CRT is loaded POV pushing that advances a word game to whitewash far-left ideological excesses in education and academia and attempt to delegitimize anyone who complains about it.

Several above have stated that having a POV off-wiki from TheTransarchist is reason enough to topic ban them from this subject area. What about this sort of POV pushing done on-wiki? Silverseren^C 05:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, stepping back for a moment to offer some clarify and reset from a politically centrist perspective is surely harmful to Wikipedia! The spurious suggestions of "conspiracy and pseudoscience" are evidence that our WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY problems run deeper than TheTranarchist. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be candid, the most aggressive POV-pushing and ADVOCACY I have seen on Wikipedia has generally come from editors who see themselves as occupying an Archimedean politically centrist perspective. These editors frequently fail to recognize that they are acting out of a POV, even as they ignore the community's expectations around sourcing and neutrality in service of their own (unacknowledged) POV. Newimpartial (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I just want to stress here, lest it go missed: Wikipedia articles are not written from a centrist perspective, any more than they're written from a leftist or rightist perspective. They're written from a perspective that is neutral with respect to the views of reliable sources. Often that coincides with centrist views. Often it doesn't. Perhaps you misspoke and conflated "centrist" with "neutral", but if you really are saying that you were trying to bring the article to a politically centrist perspective, that would POV-pushing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} :::(she|they|xe) 16:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I agree that a centrist perspective does not always align with a neutral POV. Imagine an article about a political election between three candidates, one right-wing, one left-wing, one centrist. If we wrote an article that cherry-picked positive coverage of the centrist candidate and negative coverage of the other two, we would have a pro-centrist and very biased article that violated the principle of NPOV. But when we have an article that has a strong left-wing or right-wing bias on a topic that tracks fairly well on a left/right spectrum, as was the case when the FAIR article was first published to the mainspace, efforts to make the article more neutral by removing the most politically biased content and/or adding more neutral content will axiomatically also it make the article more politically centrist, at least until a point where things change so much that the article tips toward bias in another direction. Any decent Wikipedia article will reflect what the reliable sources say on a topic. But the set of reliable sources on a topic will say a lot of different things, often things that are in conflict with one another. They will typically contain a mix of clear facts and opinions of the authors. When you're contributing to an article, how do you go about evaluating the relevance and relative reliability of the various sources in a way that you're sure is free of political bias? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeahhh, you have been engaged in blatant whitewashing of the FAIR article and have a massive undisclosed COI so... glass houses, stones. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheTranarchist, would you care to expand on my alleged COI? I think everyone knows I was interviewed by John Stossel last year about Wikipedia bias. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get in trouble with WP:OUTING, but don't worry, I already disclosed it arb-com and they're discussing it! Thank you for your lead suggestion which is so blatantly whitewashing it will probably cinch the case. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And your past edits, particularly talk page discussions, have been generally regarded as extreme POV-pushing. If we look at Race and Intelligence we see bludgeoning, pushing WP:FRINGE, trying to defend a source that consensus was incredibly obiously against, and general tendentious editing.

Frankly, I think polar political perspectives is so laughable considering you've made comments like No one is saying is "black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence". I do, however, believe that the mean and distribution of genetic drivers for intelligence is not identical for each every and ethnic group of humans. Basic logic demands me to believe that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you have a problem with basic logic. Your favorite psychologist, Steven Pinker, has plenty to say about "the fear of inequality" non-sequitur you're operating with, cf. The Blank Slate. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how right or wrong you are on these issues (I can see you're right on some based on the talk page), but this is an unwinnable argument. Just hope the consensus here goes your way, otherwise stay involved with these pages and fight for balance. But we've gone past the point of productiveness here.YouCanDoBetter (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to stop engaging with Jweiss at this point. Further interaction won't be productive. Silverseren^C 06:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

_{how many more users will have been WP:BOOMERANG'd before this discussion is over, I wonder.} --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think TheTranarchist's cause is a worthwhile one, and it is one that she should continue to pursue. Attempting to pursue it here discredits both the cause and the encyclopedia, and I have very little patience for WP:ADVOCACY on Wikipedia in any form. While I previously expressed my reservation about sanctions, I have since seen continued WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior in several discussions related to this issue, I have learned that there was already an official warning in place from earlier this month, and (most concerningly in my opinion and not getting enough attention) I have seen an inability to discern reliable from unreliable sources in areas relating to GENSEX and anarchism. Finally, the collection of statements compiled by Red-tailed hawk brings it beyond a shadow of a doubt that TheTranarchist is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. As such:
  • I support a WP:GENSEX topic ban for TheTranarchist until she can demonstrate improvement in battleground behavior, an understanding of reliable vs unreliable sources, and the accurate use of sources without WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:CHERRYPICKING.
  • I support a warning for Jweiss11 for battleground behavior. Why they chose to come in here swinging and then leaned into the race issue is beyond me, but I also reccomend closer scrutiny of their conduct based on the comments above. If it is representative of how they discuss race on Wikipedia, then I will support anything ranging from a topic ban on race and ethnicity to a full indef for disruptive hate.
  • I support a warning for Newimpartial for the same battleground behavior and sourcing issues as TheTranarchist, as demonstrated in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard.
  • I reccomend looking more closely at how we address articles relating to transgender people and surrounding political issues. This situation is just a symptom of an underlying issue: we are clearly not doing enough to combat transphobia on Wikipedia, creating a vaccuum that encourages WP:SPAs.
  • I invite all involved editors to read WP:INSCRUTABLE. It's very short.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, I leaned into the race thing? First, I was pinged here. Second, TheTranarchist, not I, introduced a comment of mine from two and years ago on another topic. I didn't bring that up. And describing a banal comment about the statistical complexity of our universe as "disruptive hate" is outrageous and Kafkaesque. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, why go two and a half years ago when I could have just linked to your more recent clear POV pushing on trans topics and what you see as "left-wing activism" as examples of disruptive behavior. Like describing policies that prevent the misgendering of students as aggressive ideological authoritarianism and saying that stating an organization campaigning against such protections opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists. Or how on a discussion at RSN you deadnamed Brianna Ghey without any need, then continued to claim you were being censored because your public deadnaming/BLPPRIVACY violation was oversighted, as multiple editors explained on a human level and policy level why that was the wrong thing to do. Notably, you didn't apologize at all, you said How is it a privacy violation if it's public information as it was published by mainstream news sources, linking to an archived version of the Times article where it deadnamed her. You also led the charge against Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Recorder, the latter two of which you stated were non-notable left-wing opinion/essay sites. None of them should be cited as they are in the article. The trip to RSN concluded CRT was blatantly obviously GREL, and Passage is MREL/GREL and still in discussion.

Frankly, context for all, my own defense of Idavox was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to people on the page opposing it and the other two solely based on it's politics and not solid wiki-policy, lumping them all together. Had anyone at any point cited the relevant wiki-policy and in good faith shown it was unreliable, I would have realized I made a mistake much sooner. But instead I got stuck trying to defend the page from advertification from an editor with a COI who tried to cast as many sources as they could as left-wing and therefore overly biased, despite 2/3 in question being very reliable and WP:SIRS coverage... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My "cause" is, if anything, combating misinformation on and through Wikipedia. I have done that almost entirely with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, apart from the few instances noted above, which are not representative of my editing as a whole.

Could you please provide examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT? Especially in regards to the latter, if a source is resolved as unreliable I don't use it (except for that one slip-up with TSN). For the former, others have noted that even when defending me, so I'd like to see some examples so I can do better.

In regards to the warning, which multiple people have brought up, please note that it was wholly unrelated to my editing, it was improperly reporting a COI, as AmandaNP, who left me the warning, testified above when asked for comment.

In regards to an inability to discern reliable from unreliable sources in areas relating to GENSEX and anarchism, other editors have commented on how I ensure RS are used in such areas. The only anarchist-related questionable sources have been 1) an attributed statement from the Anarchist Federation (Britain), who had directly protested an event of Keen's and 2) an attributed statement from Idavox, which I thought due given their WP:USEBYOTHERS. For the latter, I realized I was wrong when RTH brought up policy concerns before this whole case started. For the former, I realized my mistake and freely admitted to it.

RTH's compiled comments aren't evidence I'm WP:NOTHERE, but merely corroborate what I have always been open about, I strive to create encylopedic content on anti-trans groups/people, trans groups/people, and ensure that misinformation on either doesn't proliferate on WP.

I also strongly object to claims that I have engaged in WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:CHERRYPICKING. If I'm wrong, please provide diffs or example of any cases where I've done so. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I owe you at least a reply to this, but I have to say that this really doesn't inspire confidence. At its core, the issue is that throughout this discussion, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of why your approach isn't tenable. You've said multiple times that you consider Wikipedia to be a means to combat specific individuals and groups, potentially doing legitimate harm to them. But you now describe that as "combating misinformation". There is a huge difference between distributing free knowledge and using Wikipedia to gain some advantage over people you disagree with. I will not comment on whether these individuals and groups deserve to have attacks against them, but that's not relevant because either way it's damaging to Wikipedia. There's likely a WP:BLPCOI concern at this point. My advice right now would be to ask yourself why your edits are seen as problematic more so than other editors that edit in GENSEX topics. Are some of the editors opposing you just transphobic? I'd bet life's savings on it. But several well-respected editors have expressed legitimate concerns about issues related to advocacy, BLP, sourcing, and off-wiki activity that "brings the project into disrepute". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I led the charge against Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Recorder. Challenging questionable sources is supposed to be some sort of misbehavior on my part? It did not occur to me that stating Brianna Ghey's birth name on a discussion page, since it had been published publicly by a mainstream source, would be a policy violation of any sort, much less one that would that require oversighting, much less an act that could endanger anyone, like Ghey's surviving kin. My modus operandi here is always to assemble the clear-cut facts. In the mainspace, our articles for Elliot Page and Caitlyn Jenner, state each individuals birth name, in bold letters in the lead. If we have have rules in place here that prevent us from discussing verifiable facts about notable subjects, that's a subversion of the project's central mission. Brianna Ghey's killing was an atrocity. But discussing her name at birth is not going hurt someone like uttering Voldemort's name. I understand that this apparent murder is upsetting. But when we come here to build an encyclopedia, our feelings are less important than the quality of the documents we produce. Redacting or oversighting an editor's comment is indeed censorship. We do censor here on Wikipedia, most commonly when an IP or vandal posts something of no value to the advancement of the project. We indeed censor, and my comment was indeed censored, justifiably in the opinion of some. It was certainly a learning experience for me. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a consensus, based on many, many discussions on-wiki, about how we do and do not include the former names of trans people, in article and Talk space. BLP rules apply to Talk as well as article space, BLP-based protections still apply to the recently deceased, and deadnames by which people were never notable are not included anywhere (and are typically oversighted when introduced). And what is your reaction when you add the deadname to a Talk page, and all this is pointed out to you? You pretend it hasn't been, and whinge about censorship. And then you have the audacity to pursue your "opponents" to ANI. That must take a good deal of, err, self-confidence... Newimpartial (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien, thank you for the reply! A few notes to clarify things

• In the quote that people are using to attribute attacking organizations/people to me, in full context, I explicitly do say their misinformation. It's like saying "combating the misinformation of the anti-vax movement on WP", they are a WP:FRINGE position that have been introduced to numerous articles. For example, I cleaned up the Detransition article to not repeat the misinformation that most trans kids desist, as such misinformation is incredibly damaging.
• In terms of why your edits are seen as problematic more so than other editors that edit in GENSEX topics., I have fully admitted my Mastodon posts were tactless and I'll do better or if it's best just avoid them in future. Also that I fucked up on sourcing and should've been a lot more strict. But, quoting Licks-rocks: I have a total edit count of roughly a 1200. of which only about 4% have had to be reverted or otherwise deleted, a number that is lower than red tailed hawk's at 5.5% for example, who has had an order of magnitude more edits to learn the craft at over twenty one thousand edits total. considering she's operating in a topic area where getting reverted is almost the norm these days, I think that's actually a quite decent score.

Most comments have been on the basis of my political positions, and how they influence who I choose to write about, without evidence it has effected how I choose to write about them. For example, while numerous have referenced my (admittedly tactless) comments on Genspect and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, nobody has raised evidence they are unencylopedic, rely on WP:OR, or don't accurately reflect what WP:RS have to say about them.

In total, the most objectionable edits referenced have 4 instances of improper sourcing for minor details, which I've broken down before, but which constitute less than a percent of the sources I've ever used and are in regards to only 1 article I've written (given I realized how wrong I was about Idavox before all this started when RTH gave me a policy based reason for why). I've even said I think it would be best to step away from that article given how personal it's gotten after the subject called me a liar and an "incel"/"trancel" (for writing the article) despite nearly everything in that article being impeccably sourced and verified. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic ban from GENSEX preferably indefinite but I'm fine with a time limit if others feel that is better. I don't feel any minimum appeal period is needed.

  Although as often with these things, I think the community would probably reject anything coming sooner than 3-6 months. It's a pity it came to this. It's even more of a pity that this came from a thread started by an LTA. I hate this sort of thing and would much rather it was clean, but unfortunately when socking is only expose late in the day stopping discussion just to get someone clean to start can be even more unhelpful.

  I was hoping that we could settle this either with a lesser sanction. Or if we were lucky TheTranarchist would demonstrate an understanding that is is completely unacceptable for them to edit with the express purpose of exposing stuff especially living persons, rather than writing balanced encyclopaedic articles; and perhaps voluntarily refrain from directly editing in such areas until they better learn why they are here. But I haven't seen that in their replies. It may not help that other editors also seem confused about the difference between editing with the intention of writing balanced encyclopaedia articles which you believe will probably reflect negatively/expose/whatever a subject; and editing with the express purpose of exposing stuff. But TheTranarchist is ultimately responsible for their editing so it's on them an no one else.

  Note that while I rarely edit in this area, my views of the issues themselves are likely fairly close to TheTranarchist which you can probably find from stuff I've said well before TheTranarchist started editing. So any suggesting I'm trying to get rid of an opponent is highly flawed. It would be good to have editors like TheTranarchist but only if they're able to understand how and why they should be editing here. Some have mentioned that they're still relatively new and inexperienced. While there are understandable reasons why it happens, it's always risky when someone with very strong views starts their editing in a highly contentious area. Sometimes it goes okay. Often it does not, as here. If TheTranarchist is not willing to edit other areas that is unfortunate but by this stage it's looking like it's best way for them to learn why they're here and why it matters. And sanctions ultimately need to work for the community and Wikipedia, not the editor they're imposed upon.

  Note while this is clearly my preferred option, I'd support any lesser sanction e.g. an AFC/draft requirements for new BLPs or GENSEX.

  Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I explained why I felt their incorrect motivations for editing where enough for a tban and I didn't look much into their editing. I then visited their talk page and found a discussion over this notification/comment [87]. If you haven't seen that before, try and guess now what the basic dispute is about. There's a big clue in the wikilink to the discussion it's about whether Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism should be in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights. The fact it's not an RfC lessons canvassing concerns but it's still just a terrible notification or comment given most readers will probably have zero idea what the basic dispute is. When challenged over it their response was [88]. While I agree with them on the location point, there's no way thay is a neutral notification. Even the title cannot be considered neutral considering it doesn't reflect what the dispute is about. (To be clear, the issues they mentioned are only one aspect of whether FAIR should be in that category probably small ones at that.) I'm not surprised, this is why I didn't feel the need to explore their editing in great details. As I said, when you've here with the wrong motivations, we have good reason to expect poor editing Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nil Einne, for context, it should be noted that in order of objection raised on the initial talk page discussion at FAIR, the arguments were:

  JWeiss11: Compelling the speech of people who are not transgender is not protecting rights of those who are transgender. It's aggressive ideological authoritarianism. The idea that FAIR opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists.

  AnimalParty: you need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people, not that it is simply advocating for measurers that activists think might lead to rights erosion, or that you think are opposing rights

  Springee: Certainly saying the use of a deadname is a violation of a right is a claim that would need some strong evidence, evidence which you haven't provided.

  I provided numerous sources detailing their activities, and proving the fact that the right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in school is considered a right. Notably, Springee kept shifting the goalposts as I provided the evidence they asked proving it is generally indeed regarded as a right. To quote myself from that conversation if multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to [categorize them as opposing] LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right The opposition was clearly based off the POV that it isn't a right, rather than whether it is recognized as such by the US, UN, and various human rights groups. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GENSEX topic ban or similar - Red Tail Hawks' evidence is rather telling; Trananarchist is clearly editing in these areas for the wrong reasons. Yes, I understand everyone has their own private POV, but let's just say if User:FamilyValuesRepublican started using blogs to portray negative information about drag queen BLPs and then bragged about "exposing" them I don't think we'd take this long to come to the conclusion that their motives were testing WP:NOTHERE and that they were a liability to our BLP coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban (with conditions) for TheTranarchist and others: I know there are certain areas on Wikipedia I should not edit; LGBT+ issues are at the top of the list. I think if I was working with other neutral and knowledgeable editors I could make a contribution, but the reality of Wikipedia is very different. Some editors need help defining these limits.

This brings me to what I think is the most important issue here: there are editors that have enabled and encouraged conflict in this situation rather than consensus building and collegial behavior. If Transanarchist is sanctioned with a t-ban, those that fanned the flames need a t-ban as well. If this is not possible, I reverse my !vote to oppose. Admins need to examine everyone's behavior in this situation. The fewer combat editors are involved in an area, the easier it is for others to work together.

I would also ask the t-ban not include talk pages, so that the editors have a chance to show they can productively contribute to discussions in this area, then when after a period of time (I think 1 year) they can appeal and have evidence to show they are able to productively edit in this area.

 // Timothy :: talk  10:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know this editor well enough to have an opinion on their edits. I think they recognise they posted some foolish stuff on Mastodon. But I'm not seeing editors post convincing links of behavioural issues on Wikipedia. The editor has posted opinions on talk pages about some organisations (e.g. Genspect) but that's not a whole lot different to medical editors moaning about Wakefield and autism or the Daily Mail and cancer and so on. Has their opinion reached a level where they are just using talk pages as a forum, or are they within the tolerance we all permit to talk about our subjects with more freedom on talk pages than we can on the article? Mostly though I'm very concerned that a sock account, now blocked, has created an AN/I section, which involved some degree of OUTING behaviour and focused mostly on what the user has written elsewhere, and which is now being voted on by editors with clear anti-trans editing history with arguments basically that they should be topic banned for being pro-trans and anti-gender-critical, and admiting such. I think for a topic ban, we'd need clearly demonstrated evidence that the editor is causing problems on Wikipedia. Like edit warring and consistently pushing unreliable sources, not listening to warnings on their talk page, etc, etc. I do recommend an admin consider some sort of procedural close. This is a dreadful way to go about reviewing a Wikipedian, and if a topic ban is enacted on the basis of sock puppets outing editors, well, that's a sorry situation to get ourselves into. -- Colin°^Talk 13:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the procedural issues here are genuinely problematic, but I wonder if you looked at my conversation with TheTranarchist above. Their initial published versions of at least three articles in this topic area were highly problematic. Even more egregiously, TheTranarchist misleadingly downplayed the changes made to the pages since to improve their NPOV, saying that the articles have "barely changed". I don't know if it's because she genuinely cannot grasp the degree of improvement needed (in which case a topic ban might give them time to gain perspective), or because she is not acting in as much good faith as I'd hope, but it convinced me that they are not capable of editing neutrally in this topic area right now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN - Good, sourced editing CAN be advocacy or POV. This is certainly a contentious issue here on WP but ultimately I have to agree that this user's editing is at odds with our policies. Tranarchist has openly admitted and owned their stances and editing intent in this topic area and it's pretty refreshing to see, but it is ultimately advocacy as many users above have pointed out, and Tranarchist doesn't seem to see how it isn't a fit for Wikipedia. Its regrettable in many ways that this thread has come to this but in the interest of keeping WP a NPOV, balanced, encyclopedia, I think Tranarchist needs to put the pen down in these topic areas and reflect on their editing style. Regardless of outcome, I hope Tranarchist continues to fairly and productively contribute to WP and fight the good fight off-wiki, but not fight the good fight on-wiki. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

• Oppose TBAN, Support Warning - Just another comment from a non-admin here. I guess this boils down to a fundamental philosophical difference with many of the people here. For me, being WP:HERE and WP:ADVOCACY are not binary propositions. Indeed. the latter policy nods to this when it says Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies (emphasis mine). The logical follow-on from that is advocacy is perfectly fine when it conforms to goals and policies. Indeed, who among us does not have political beliefs that influence their editing in both conscious and unconscious ways? Though I have great respect for Czello, I do not agree with WP:INSCRUTABLE. Wikipedia's neutrality is not a feature which inheres in individual editors, but is rather an emergent characteristic which results from editors of various backgrounds and beliefs engaging in a civil but sometimes adversarial process. I do not like the stance of "pretend you have no strong stances." To that end, I find the posts linked above not great, but nothing so bad that on their own they strike me as a big problem. The sourcing issues do strike me as a problem, but one that many people have gone through, and at first glance, it seems Tranarchist is willing to adapt to the community's expectations here. So for me, the question becomes: what sort of response do the on-wiki acts demand? And for me, it's a warning. I don't see a TBAN as necessary to prevent disruption unless the posts elsewhere are taken in the least charitable light. Combine that with the idea that WP:ROPE is cheap, and this one strikes me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot. That said, reasonable minds can certainly differ, and I may well be in the minority here. Cheers to everyone whatever the outcome. Dumuzid (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN - User has made it clear they cannot edit the topic from a neutral point of view. By their own words, they are here to right great wrongs.Lulfas (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN per many others above. I am sad to say it, but where it concerns gender politics there are certain number of "usual suspects" who are clearly not editing neutrally and are here to push a PoV. Disappointingly, it's often ideologically motivated. I do find it both funny and frustrating that when a discussion is taking place regarding these topics it's almost predictable who will show up, almost on cue, and it's even very easy to guess what they'll say, regardless of policy or context (indeed, this very discussion has demonstrated this). I believe TheTranarchist has been more overt with their tendentious editing, and I do believe their edits fail WP:NOTADVOCACY. As Lulfas above me said, By their own words, they are here to right great wrongs. — Czello 15:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following on from this, I've just read through the collection of comments collated by Red-Tailed Hawk above, and all I can say is, good grief. While many here are saying that their off-wiki activities should be discounted, I firmly disagree. Not only does she link to her social media on her user page, but it's a pretty telling admission of a desire to use Wikipedia as a tool (her words) to clearly push an WP:AGENDA. TheTranarchist is not here to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 16:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBan - While TheTranarchist has made some mistakes while editing, they've also been willing to try and correct them, both before and after this thread started. As for making intemperate social media posts...I mean, who among us? No one should be sanctioned for that unless it creeps into their editing, and the evidence it has in this case is pretty thin. A more targeted restriction such as a requirement that all BLPs written by this user go through AFC as suggested above could be reasonable, though. Hatman31 (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN, regretfully, from GENSEX and BLPs. I wanted to vote for a warning but this just now: "If multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to [categorize them as opposing] LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right?" The answer is yes!, and that TheTransarchist still doesn't grasp this, even at this late stage, shows she has much to learn before she can competently edit in these very sensitive topic areas, particularly when coupled with the blatant advocacy on- and off-wiki. It's not just 'at most 4 bad edits', she doesn't seem to understand why everyone else thinks her editing is not policy-compliant, and I think that's because she doesn't actually understand our policies, as evidenced by this quote. "Indefinite is not infinite", but she needs to edit elsewhere and really learn how to properly summarize sources, and how to identify reliable sources, and how to responsibly use social media, before she edits GENSEX topics, especially contentious BLP content (which is almost inseparable from GENSEX). I feel bad because I think this new editor is suffering the consequences of being led astray by more experienced editors who should have, but haven't, offered course corrections. This is the harm that echo chambers cause. I would support a warning, but only if I actually saw her take some corrective action or at least some genuine self-reflection, but all I see is doubling-down. At bottom, the need to be fair to BLPs is more important than being nice to a well-meaning editor, so I regretfully support. Levivich (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For what little it's worth, this edit and these two recent comments were intended as course corrections. As well as this observation. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right: credit where credit is due, those were attempted course corrections, thank you for trying. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried a few times too, in a sort of "take my advice, I'm not using it anyway" kind of way.  Tewdar  22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In regards to the point about categorization, that is a more nuanced discussion than framed here, a position that others agreed with me on there, and a categorization question, not a SYNTH question, as I never said "the organization opposes transgender rights" should be anywhere in the lead or body. I think it would be best served as an RFC on how to define LGBT rights or a discussion on appropriate categorization and scope at the category's page. For example, if "organizations that oppose same-sex marriage" was a subcategory of "organizations that oppose LGBT rights", that would be based on reliable sources generally noting that same-sex marriage is a right at the category page. If sources frequently concurred an organization opposed same sex marriage without explicitly calling it "opposed to LGBT rights", we could still say they "oppose same-sex marriage", which would still be a subcategory of "opposed to LGBT rights", regardless of people's opinions on whether same-sex marriage is a right or if sources said the organization opposed LGBT rights. Frankly, I'm fine with the (somewhat overly specific subcategory) "organizations that oppose rules against misgendering", and a discussion at "organizations that oppose transgender rights" as to whether that's a valid subcategory.

  Regarding my genuine self-reflection, in this discussion I've variously acknowledged

  • I majorly fucked up with my Mastodon posts, no question there. I should post a lot less and more tactfully or not at all, as I'd ditch Mastodon posts in a second if that's what consensus calls for since I care more about editing the Encyclopedia than posting about editing it
  • I fucked up by including unreliable sources in a BLP, and I should be a helluva lot more careful ensuring sources are up to snuff, and I will do a lot better and should be given WP:ENOUGHROPE to not introduce them in future
  • I should work on my WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, as even supportive editors have noted it
  • While I genuinely try to write neutral articles, any editor will let bias slip in, so I think reviews and good faith discussion and collaboration to address such issues would be a good thing
  • Relatedly, I fully support sanctions on publishing articles directly to mainspace and a requirement I go through AFC, since I want other eyes to ensure I've introduced no accidental bias and the article is as good as it could be

  TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We can all read Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism#Category: Organizations that oppose transgender rights, where many (all?) of the things I've said were brought up by others.

  Saying it's a categorization question, not a SYNTH question, as I never said "the organization opposes transgender rights" should be anywhere in the lead or body demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:CAT. See specifically, WP:CATDEF: it should not be a cat unless it's a defining characteristic, in which case it should be in the lead, and anything in the lead must be in the body.

  We're not going to have an RFC or a discussion about "how to define LGBT rights" because we would never define LGBT rights (WP:OR). The only time we ever say someone or something is "anti-LGBT rights" is when there are many high-quality sources that say that, and never under any other circumstances ("exceptional claims require exceptional sources" is WP:V).

  See also WP:SUBCAT: Y is a subcat of X if all Ys are Xes (an "is-a" relationship), but all Yx are Xes does not mean all Xes are Ys. So "opposed to SSM" is not a subcat of "opposed to LGBT rights", even though SSM is a subcat of LGBT rights, because while SSM is a type of LGBT right, not everyone opposed to SSM opposes LGBT rights. For example, gay people who oppose SSM but support civil unions are not anti-LGBT rights. Trans people who oppose gender-affirming care for minors, or oppose trans women participating in certain women's sports, can still support other trans rights; it doesn't mean they are anti-LGBT rights. That's why if RSes say someone opposes same-sex marriage, we say they oppose same-sex marriage, we do not say they oppose anti-LGBT rights; we categorize them as opponents of SSM (if it's a defining category), we do not categorize them as anti-LGBT rights.

  I checked your Mastodon today and I did not see you delete/remove/whatever any of the problematic posts, nor make any kind of correction, apology, or other mea culpa. If you realize you majorly fucked up with your Mastodon posts, tell your Mastodon audience; un-fuck-it-up. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I showed above somewhere, the editors opposed were largely basing it off their opinion that it is not a right, while I provided evidence that it is a recognized right. So in that case, I think a discussion on whether "organizations that oppose band on misgendering students", which is a defining characteristic of the organization and already noted in the lead, is a subset of "organizations that oppose transgender rights" is called for. A categorization disagreement, which I based off reliable sources saying it is a recognized right of transgender students to not be misgendered, is not grounds for a TBAN.

  In regards to Mastodon: I was planning to do that after all this anyways - post a brief note, apology, clarification, and notification I will either not be posting further or purely post uncontroversial edits (like "check out this article I wrote <link>" with no further exposition). I have not made private my Mastodon account or deleted my posts since I wanted to be fully transparent, and not seen as trying to delete the evidence or tamper with it after the fact. I wanted to post about this whole situation but have been very purposefully avoiding further interaction with it. Damned if I do post, damned if I don't apparently. I will do a thorough review of my Mastodon and add clarifications and apologies where needed after this whole thing is over with. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While there are other reasons, I don't think your focus on the editor not being an expert in SYNTH or SUBCAT is usefully a reason for a topic ban, particularly as nearly all the other editors on this page would struggle with those at times. The category system is a dreadful way of classifying things in the real world and nearly all other modern knowledge databases use keywords, tags and other looser things. That someone hasn't fully grasped the awful Venn diagrams one needs to create in order to get that right on Wikipedia... well... you don't have to be perfect to edit on Wikipedia but can you collaborate? That surely has to be a better question for topic bans than whether every single edit complies with NPOV. Because if you think that is the standard for topic banning, I've got a list... -- Colin°^Talk 20:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not just misunderstanding WP:CAT, it's also not understanding WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and being argumentative throughout (see below). I support a TBAN to protect other editors from having their time wasted arguing things over the basics. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget WP:GNG... JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether that was WP:SYNTH has been disputed by other editors, and there isn't evidence I don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or WP:RS. WP:GNG is a new one though... Any evidence of that? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I got mixed up with which thread this was. JoelleJay (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A side note that's maybe not directly relevant here:

  "If multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to [categorize them as opposing] LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right?" The answer is yes!

  I've been editing almost as long as you have and I think this is a transparent over-reading of WP:SYNTH. I'm honestly flabbergasted that anyone could say this. This is like saying that we couldn't report that Edmund Hillary climbed a mountain from the sources that said he climbed Mt. Everest, because who's to say Everest is a mountain? Loki (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  RSes say that Everest is a mountain, that's who. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But let me guess, if the sources saying Hillary climbed Everest don't explicitly state the BLUESKY fact that Everest is a mountain, then the editor who says it's obviously a mountain, and even provides sources showing RS generally classify it as a mountain, while others insist it isn't a mountain based on their FRINGE opinion, is guilty of violating SYNTH to the most extreme degree and should be topic banned? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am 100% sure that:

  1. There are a profusion of reliable sources that say that gay marriage is part of the category "LGBT rights".

  2. The fact that gay marriage is an LGBT right is WP:BLUESKY.

  Which is to say, this response does not make your response make any more sense, and in fact mostly just makes it more confusing. My instinct is that if there's any argument at all here, it's whether "opposes an LGBT right" and "opposes LGBT rights" are synonyms or not, not whether gay marriage is an LGBT right. Loki (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They are most definitely synonyms in the present case. @Levivich's fringe hypotheticals aside, if you oppose SSM, a fundamental LGBT right, it is safe to say you oppose LGBT rights. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By comparing:

  • whether Chloe Cole is "an anti-transgender activist" or "opposes gender-affirming care for minors"
  • to whether Edmund Hillary climbed "a mountain" or climbed "Mt. Everest"

  ...you are making a number of serious policy mistakes:

  1. Chloe Cole is a WP:BLP; Edmund Hillary is not
  2. Being an "anti-transgender activist" is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim; Hillary climbing Mt. Everest is not an extraordinary claim
  3. Being an "anti-transgender activist" is "contentious material" within the meaning of WP:BLP; climbing Mt. Everest is not
  4. Being an "anti-transgender activist" is a MOS:LABEL; climbing Mt. Everest is not
  5. Mt. Everest is a mountain, but "opposing gender-affirming care for minors" is not "opposing LGBT rights" (or "anti-transgender activism"). Being opposed to one LGBT right is not the same thing as "opposing LGBT rights" because "opposing LGBT rights" means opposing all (or most, or at least many) LGBT rights. And your opinion doesn't matter; it's the RSes' opinions who matter. So unless an RS says it, we don't say it, period.
  6. Putting it all together: the only time we say a living person is 'anti-X' is if RSes widely say 'anti-X'; never SYNTH LABELs in a BLP.

  Because if you do, you will probably get TBANed. Levivich (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding point 5 - @TheTranarchist stated it best - "Quick note, trans kids are not magically not trans people. Campaigning to forcibly detransition people and deny them access to transgender healthcare is indeed anti-trans activism, regardless of their age."

  Is the above not true? It also seems like coverage from "reliable sources" like the Washington Examiner or other conservative outlets who focus on such individuals are likely to use veiled language or dogwhistles. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And to add to that. Sources directly call her an anti-trans activist, especially SIRS ones. Others note she lobbies for anti-trans legislation. And even if we put aside bullshit arguments about "think of the children", one would hope you read the article or talk page, where you could see she has supported bills that would criminalize or restrict access to trans healthcare even for adults TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Climbing a mountain might not be A MOS:LABEL but being a mountaineer is. Are we not allowed to refer to edmund hillary as a mountaineer if we only have a source referring to him as having climbed multiple mountains? I don't think calling someone who is on the record touring across the country to campaign against the right to transition an "anti-trans activist" is anything even remotely close to a an extraordinary claim. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, "mountaineer" is not an MOS:LABEL. Did you even read the page? Sheesh, noobs. Levivich (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also want to clarify since I left my earlier comment while travelling - my comment about Mount Everest being a Mountain was not in relation to Chloe Cole at all (who is so blatantly an anti-trans activist, which is so unequivocally covered by RS, that it's hard to understand why you'd argue otherwise). It was in regards to FAIR and opposition to the rights of transgender students still being counted under opposition to transgender rights, per BLUESKY and reliable sources categorizing it as a right. By your example: if I categorized Hillary as "known for climbing mountains" since sources repeatedly noted they had climbed Mt Everest, Mt K2, and Mt Kilimanjaro (just examples, not sure if he had), without explicitly saying they were mountains and people objected on the basis they did not believe those to be mountains, and when presented with RS that they were mountains, called it SYNTH, they would be laughed out of the discussion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wanted to corroborate what @TheTranarchist said about actively trying to improve the article Gays Against Groomers to maintain NPOV. She has been very responsive and open to constructive criticism, illustrating her commitment to editorial integrity. She is passionate, yes, but is also a hard-working editor. Because I have been helping with the article, and can be thus perceived as involved party, I will refrain from making any judgements regarding taking action against the editor. At the same time, I want to stress that there are editors in this discussion, most notably Jweiss11, who had previously made POV statements in TheTranarchist's articles' talk pages and who should immediately recuse themselves. That they attempt to influence this discussion and openly recommend a TBAN is just grossly unethical. I urge everyone, and the administrators in particular, to be very vigilant when gathering and assessing community consensus. Ppt91^talk 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any sanctions as non-productive. TheTranarchist has been editing in a highly charged area while adhering to WP:RS, with a few heated moments of poor judgement. She acknowledges those missteps, and I don't see any benefit to the encyclopedia for forcing her out of this area of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Both their off-wiki tone and on-wiki editing fall below the threshold of someone we want involved in contentious areas. I appreciate their suggestion that they will moderate their approach going forward, but it's a bit 'closing the barn door after the horse has bolted'. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...you already !voted, right? Just yesterday in fact? Loki (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah weird to vote again so recently. @David Fuchs will you strike this !vote? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from biographies of living persons who are related to the topic area of WP:GENSEX. If one of the subjects of the posts/biographies described above were to pursue legal remedies (perhaps before a jury in Mississippi or another jurisdiction where trans rights are not recognized/respected), the off-wiki posts referenced above (including a statement of intent to "expose" and "undermine" such persons) would provide evidence of actual malice. And if Wikipedia failed to take action to limit further editing after such actual malice was brought to the community's attention (as had been done in this discussion), such failure could be viewed as ratification of the comments. It would be reckless of us not to impose a topic ban under such circumstances. Cbl62 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cbl62, are you implying the community should impose sanctions on an editor based on the possibility of legal consequences? I would find that an unlikely possibility and a weak source for wiki interpretation of PAGs so want to understand your perspective further. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nil Einne, Red-tailed hawk, and BilledMammal set forth valid reasons for the topic ban. As for "legal consequences", I simply think it is extremely reckless to make statements essentially admitting that actual malice (a desire to "expose" and "undermine") is the reason for one's edits. A TBAN sends the message that Wikipedia does not tolerate or ratify such malice. Cbl62 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nil Einne referenced a non-neutral notification I posted, but as I showed in my response, in the discussion it referenced, those who opposed did so on the basis of flat out not considering it a right for transgender students to not be misgendered in schools, and ignored the RS and evidence provided that is generally recognized as a right. That is important context. BilledMammal said my comment about "exposing" Genspect/SEGM was an issue, but the articles themselves are fine, and nobody has been able to prove otherwise. Please note, the comments about "exposing" and "undermining" explicitly used those in reference to "misinformation". A motivation for writing an article has nothing to do with the merits of the article itself. Even then, I've already spoken about how "expose" was a linguistic miscommunication, as I relied exclusively on WP:RS to write the articles in question. I've already re-hashed Red-tailed Hawks points multiple times, but a miniscule fraction of poor sourcing judgements compared to an extensive history of ensuring WP:RS and WP:MEDRS are used, do not justify a full TBAN.

  A TBAN would send the message that Wikipedia tolerates WP:FRINGE and will ban editors who try to stick to it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose TBAN so far none of their onwiki editing has risen to the level of meriting such sanctions. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning Watching from the sidelines, I think Dumuzid's comment characterizes my position well enough, except that I'm not sure what purpose a warning would serve, apart from a bureaucratic one (should another ANI come up, people could say "editor has previously been warned"). XOR'easter (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN This is cut and dry tendentious editing. Looking at their contributions, I'm surprised support for a TBAN isn't unanimous. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Pixius (talk · contribs) arrived at a discussion in progress, and introduced themselves with:

the destructive work you are conducting here is against wikipedia policies. The "cancel culture" you are trying to impose on the name of the series and to push the WP:OWN is beyond any normal conduct.[89]

You behave like in 1984 novel the ministry of truth[90]

An uninvolved editor @DMacks warned them about tone,[91] but they insisted No, the tone is quite fine and accused me of using language from MSM (actually from current scholarship which I can cite) not in good faith, but used as a cover for the wrong doings”[92] Finally, they resorted to speculating on my ancestry, something I feel is subject to my WP:PRIVACY, and using it to cancel my ability to edit:

You being an of Ukrainian descent disqualify you from being objective[93]

I asked them to take it back,[94] but they refused.[95]

The user accuses me of Taking only one dubious source and build a narative around it post 24.02. is a part of canceling culture. We were discussing more than one source, and I introduced several others during the exchange, while they offered links to a personal website and an image search. So I don’t think this user’s problem is really about sources. The mention of post 24.02 is a reference to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In fact what is happening is that the invasion has prompted academics and institutions to reevaluate longstanding cancellation of Ukrainian identity in favour of imperial Russian and then Soviet narratives, and de-colonize their scholarship.[96] This user may be attacking me to prevent this from being reflected in Wikipedia articles. I apologize for speculating about their motives: I don’t really care about their motives.

I believe I have a right not to be treated this way. It constitutes WP:casting aspersions, openly justified by racism. —Michael Z. 00:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is for an article subject to WP:ACDS because it is related to the subject area of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed.

The editor was notified of DS nearly two years ago.[97]  —Michael Z. 00:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

As you stated above you don't care about the motives - my is to stop the cancel culture which took the EN Wikipedia. It is difficult time for all of us, but "yellow band star of David to mark those Russkies" will not happen again.

Alleged "speculation" of your ancestry (I do not have to speculate), is not under the WP:PRIVACY. Privacy, as written in WP:PRIVACY, refers to your personal information, address, IP address, pictures, documents, your personal information etc... which none of these I have mentioned, nor used, nor written anywhere.

"...and using it to cancel my ability to edit...": No I am not preventing you in any way to edit and to write what you want. But also a new emotional source "academic" forgeries are not WP:RS. These authors have to deal with their problems personally.

Regarding the sources, I gave the sources not under the influence of MSM hysteria. Google, unfortunately, has become part of MSM. Hence the Bing, hence the "private" webpage dealing only with Degas work. Literally the first sentence in talk page of the Russian dancers article is from only one PhD thesis

"The name given by the author is 'Russian Dancers', so the title must be consistent. "Degas himself (mistakenly) titled a series of works with this name"." What was exactly mistaken? Has Degas had a chance to speak with those people? Most of the pictures have red dresses, red boots, a part of Russian culture. Has the PhD thesis taken this into evaluation proclaiming the "mistaken" name? The source is dubious, one sided and fits to the narrative. What you do is a pure cherry picking based on one PhD thesis and all other, the majority of them, sources have appeared post 24.02. events

Even now you are mentioning the Russian imperialism and cancelation of identity.

Stop playing the victim here. "In fact what is happening is that the invasion has prompted academics and institutions to reevaluate longstanding cancellation of Ukrainian identity in favour of imperial Russian and then Soviet narratives, and... " ::This is a pure MSM narrative, and it is not objective. I see no dissing on UK Comonwealth Imperisalism or USofA Imperialism. The whole tone of the article is pure cancelation culture of anything even remotely in touch with Russian. For God's sake, even the cat breed "Russian blue. " was renamed by some feline associations. It is a pure lunacy

When looking on your talk page, you frequently enter into a wars with other users. pushing your NPOVs, deciding what is right what is wrong, what sources a re reliable, which one ar to be frowned upon (example: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and leaders, you even write the same threatening text and warnings to the other users, and as well to me. You tend to attack people when you face the facts.

Concerning the ongoing cancel culture

Living in the west, in Germany, and having many friends of Russian and Ukrainian descent, from mixed marriages, and all sort of different combinations, I hear their daily struggle, their bank accounts being blocked, frozen, they being bullied at jobs, asking to publicly denounce the 24.02. event, being laid off from work, whole family companies being in blockade, and only because of their ethnicity, now we face a complete cancel culture of everything that it has a name Russ or Russian in it.

Wikipedia is not a place for buffs and vendettas. Don't make the English Wikipedia to spiral down like the Croatian one did.

Pixius talk 02:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonisation time! We should ASAP run a bot to replace every instance of "Russian" with either "Ukrainian" (for good guys and things) or "Orcish" (for bad guys and stuff), merge Russia to Mordor, and site-ban on sight all Russian editors, 'cause they all are mafia who cannot handle criticism and censor those who oppose them. Why we still allow terrorists from a lawless wasteland of bandits to edit our free encyclopedia? a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 09:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this is supposed to be some witty retort, but it just reads like WP:POLEMIC to me, and potentially sanctionable at that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is witty, but he has a point. Check the @Mzajac talk page Pixius talk 20:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds, whether it was witty retort, polemic or just blowing the gasket from absolutely stupid "disputes" in Eastern European topic area, I don't fucking care anymore. I'd rather sniff lung-ful of NO2 than to take part in any Eastern Slavic shenanigans on WP. I'm fucking tired of this macabre, it sucks like vacuum pump. a!rado🔫🦈 (C✙T) 06:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then quit commenting on the topic. It's entirely up to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Pixius should be blocked the personal attack i.e. claiming an editor cannot be objective due to their ancestry. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would add their comments including on this very thread seem to have strong signs of WP:RGW so perhaps they are enough for an indef. My main poiint is at a minimum Pixius's personal attack which they don't seem to be withdrawing or apologising for should have consequences. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne

Hi Nil. I understand/speak Russian, and Understand Ukrainian, and several other Slavic languages

The guy/girl has a name (M)Zajac - the rabbit. He is active on UC Wikipedia. His talk page is full of warnings not to push the UC POV in topics. I said he is not objective, it was not intended to be a personal attack.

You can read from first reply that I have both Russians and Ukrainians as friends - I do not draw any distinction between them.

If it was offensive to assume @Mzajac being Ukrainian, then I apologize to the @Mzajacfor the offence.

But I still stand to my observation he has a subjective opinion and he has disruptive behavior Pixius talk 21:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pixius: to be blunt, we don't give a damn who your friends are. And you're missing my main point. Regardless of whether Mzajac is or is not Ukrainian, it's completely unacceptable for you to suggest any editor cannot be objective because of their nationality, that's a personal attack. If you have evidence that Mzajac isn't "objective" you need to demonstrate that in the forms of diffs of this behaviour. You cannot use their nationality as evidence they are not objective. You need to treat your fellow Wikipedians like you treat your friends. This means rather than assuming an editor is not objective because of their nationality you need to treat them all equally regardless of their nationality. It does not help us in any way if you treat your friends the same whatever their nationality but then treat Ukrainians on Wikipedia poorly by making an assumption they are not objective based on their nationality. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil,

per Wikipedia rules you are not allowed to talk like that to me. You being an admin does not put you above the rules of civil discussion. Second it seams you have not read the first comment regarding the racism the Russians are taking in Germany.

I got your point clear and I have already said that I apologize, even pinging the user to see it.

I have provided the links to his talk page with the warning issued to him - that is main source of objectivism/subjectivism. Please, check his talk page.

Unfortunately, because of the first sentence you have written, I would like you, together with @DMacks and the "last warning" breaking rules, being excused from this panel/case and the whole case to be lifted to "higher instances" Pixius talk 21:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. Any racism you've experienced in Germany has my strongest sympathies but it does not excuse you treating Germans let alone Ukrainians here any less than you would any other editor. Just the same that Russians here (and Serbians, Croatians...) need to be treated the same as any other editors. And if you're going to keep bring up your random friends, expect to be called out for it. And your apology is still very unclear. You seem to be saying you apologise for assuming Mzajac is Ukrainian. This is good assuming Mzajac does not identify as Ukrainian. But it is not sufficient. As I said, regardless of whether Mzajac is a Ukranian you cannot make assumptions about their objectivity based on ethnicity or nationality. You need to recognise that this is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia and you still haven't clearly done so. Again please apply the same standards of behaviour here as you do with your friends and treat them all the same regardless of their ethnicity or nationality. And the only "high instances" is arbcom. There's zero chance they will take this case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by 'higher instances', but I don't see that Nil Einne said anything outside of policy with the sentence "to be blunt, we don't give a damn who your friends are." You may have misunderstood what he was likely trying to communicate: that anyone can say anything about themselves here on Wikipedia, and we don't really care. It doesn't matter whether you have Russian and Ukrainian friends. It doesn't matter whether you privately sympathize with Russia or with Ukraine, as long as you don't let it affect your editing here. Ditto Mzajac -- we don't care what their private opinion is. What we care about is whether they edit objectively here on enwiki. What we care about is that they are here to build an encyclopedia and can help to do so with well-intentioned, competent compliance with policy. Valereee (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My warning to this editor at the Ukranian-dancers talkpage was at 14:01 on Feb 10. Yesterday, I checked up on their later contributions, at which point I found that they have been at Talk:Sonja Yelich, hammering on that BLP-subject's ethnicity for over a year via OR and rejecting RS. Timestamped prior to my warning at the dancers talkpage, he responded to a neutral comment from User:LivelyRatification with "do not ask for mercy for the load of stupidity you have wrote there" and "should I call you potato". I left a final-warning about civility in discussions (timestamped subsequent to my warning at the dancers talkpage). Their response was again a rejection of the warning and rejection of our standard of WP:RS for BLP. DMacks (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: How long does this user need to be blocked? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to their response here, I was at "final warning", having initially had my finger on 31h block as a quick-stop. I usually think 72h or 1wk for a first block for major disruption, or whatever would get them out of time-limited discussions (RFC, AFD, RM, etc.) where they are disruptive. Here there's no such discussion in play, and their response here indicates they need some serious self-reflection and policy-reading and we need some serious time without their participation. DMacks (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pixius has clearly stated that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but instead to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Between that and the racism and the absolute lack of any repentance, their apparent conviction that what they're doing is not only okay but is actually their duty...I'm kind of in agreement that this person needs to do some serious learning about what WP is and isn't. I'm wondering if we shouldn't just indef. People can just ignore short blocks and come right back and pick up where they left off. This editor, if they want to work here, is going to have to make a major change in approach. Valereee (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Please, do not twist my words. I wrote that the racism toward one nation in the eye of 24.02. event is unacceptable and it is against the rules of Wikipedia. Again, read the talk page of the user @Mzajac. and multiple warning he has for his editing behavior related to Russian/Ukrainian topics. I have pointed out that all the sources citing the Ukrainian dancers are after the 24.02. The only PhD thesis prior to the 24.02. events is puling a construct <<mistakenly>>, and the thesis is not taking into account the whole "dancers" opus of Degas's with numerous drawings depicting the in red boots/ white dresses/red dresses, floral patterns, etc.. and other sources (i have provided the link to Bing, which , contrary to Google, indexes Russian sources as well) depict very same Russian women doing folk dances in red boots/ white dresses/red dresses, floral patterns, etc..

You are taking my words out of the contexts and you do not bother to read the whole conversation, nor to check the links I have provided, but you have "decided to shoot me first, and then I will have a fair trial".

I am here to build encyclopedia. The racism you are mentioning cannot be pinned to me, and racism has no place on Wikipedia Pixius talk 21:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pixius, you literally wrote "you don't care about the motives - my is to stop the cancel culture which took the EN Wikipedia". That is being NOTHERE and being here to RGW. It's practically the definition of it. Ditto your statement that "You being an of Ukrainian descent disqualify you from being objective": that is practically the definition of racism. Valereee (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have literally quoted the text written by the user @Mzajac This user may be attacking me to prevent this from being reflected in Wikipedia articles. I apologize for speculating about their motives: I don’t really care about their motives."

The user is editing the Wikipedia in bad faith The part "my is to stop the cancel culture which took the EN Wikipedia" is a reaction related to his destructive behavioral pattern and WP:incivility,WP:IDONTCARE and sentences like {{tq |In fact what is happening is that the invasion has prompted academics and institutions to reevaluate longstanding cancellation of Ukrainian identity in favor of imperial Russian and then Soviet narratives, and de-colonize their scholarship, {{tq|"...In case you’re not aware, different terminology was used for Ukrainians under Russian imperialism than is today..."[[98]], We don’t refer to Ukrainians as “Russians,” “Little Russians,” or “Khokhols,” all of which are seen as expressions of diminishment or denial of Ukraine and Ukrainians.[[99]]

Then again [[100]] [Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and leaders], and again ["knowingly repeating disinformation"], and again [[101]] and again discussing which source fits, and which not, because they are from Russia [at War in Donbas (2014–2022)], and again here in a lengthy discussion [about Labelling of the conflict at Talk:War in Donbas (2014–2022)] disruptive editing [[102]], and this[[103]], and this[[104]], and here openly attacking the users, abusing teh administrator privilege :::::::Here’s the gist of my beef with the comments you made. This is not comprehensive and I’d rather not start a project tracking down all the comments everyone made in several different talk pages, some of which I think were removed.

My understanding is that Joaziela made statements that Ukraine is Nazi (false), that Ukraine was committing genocide in Ukraine over seven years (false), and that not including this in Wikipedia is “historical negationism,” i.e., genocide denial (false). These statements share several distinct themes straight from the Russian state’s justification of mass atrocities and its genocide incitement, as outlined in a report by 35 legal and genocide experts.

["knowingly repeating disinformation"]... Pixius talk 22:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]