Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AE)

DabaqabadEdit

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

Request concerning DabaqabadEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Apaugasma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dabaqabad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Horn of Africa (part of ARBHORN)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 24 August 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
  2. 10 September 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page
  3. 28 September 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
  4. 10 October 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
  5. 10 October 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (removing sourced content)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 25 January 2021 Dabaqabad blocked for 48 hours (disruptive editing in ARBHORN area)
  2. 4 March 2021 ARBHORN DS editing restriction imposed
  3. 24 August 2021 Dabaqabad blocked for 1 week (violating ARBHORN DS restriction)
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After having been blocked on 25 January 2021 for disruptive editing in the ARBHORN area, Dabaqabad was placed under a special editing restriction by El C on 4 March 2021, reading you are to always follow a revert with an article talk page comment explaining it in any and all WP:ARBHORN topic area pages or edits (whatsoever). They were warned on 23 March 2021 for violating the restriction. On 16 August 2021, they got into an edit war in an ARBHORN-related article (obviously including reversion without engaging on the talk page). On 24 August 2021, I inquired on El C's talk page whether the editing restriction was still active, pointing out repeated violations [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], which lead El C to block Dabaqabad for one week.

Their very first edit after getting unblocked was already a violation of the restriction [6]. Like most of Dabaqabad's reverts that stay unexplained at the talk page, this was reverting vandalism/a test edit, so at the time I decided to just leave it be. However, looking at their last 100 edits, it becomes clear that Dabaqabad is violating the editing restriction imposed on them almost casually. It's also not always obvious vandalism, e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10]. However, it becomes really egregious at the point where they are reverting the addition of reliably sourced content [11] (perhaps undue, but per their restriction they should explain this at the talk), and especially when reverting the removal of unreliably sourced (mis)information [12] [13].

Dabaqabad has little understanding of what constitutes a reliable source (for a long read, see here), and combined with the uncommunicative attitude and the clear disregard for an existing editing restriction, I believe there is enough evidence that they are not compatible with the project of building an encyclopedia.

Since ScottishFinnishRadish mentioned it: I too was confused about this at first, but yes, the ARBHORN discretionary sanctions were extended after their initial trial period (see here).
Let me also note that restoring my revision here (as an 'alternative' to directly reverting the other user; the gaming here itself betrays that there's no lack of awareness) was indeed restoring misinformation (which I then removed 2 edits later): I don't mean to imply that it was necessarily in bad faith (misinformation is regardless of an intention to deceive), just that this should not happen. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 19:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@El C: common sense was precisely what I tried to rely on when determining that Dabaqabad's many violations of their restriction were as a rule reverting vandalism. The fact that I come here now is not a 'gotcha' attempt, it's just that undoing the removal of badly sourced information really is a problem. The King Saud University source used here is an unedited manuscript of the Futūḥ al-Ḥabasha ('The Conquest of Abyssinia'), written in 1534 and the main primary source used by scholars for the Ethiopian–Adal war. This is a wholly inappropriate source for Wikipedia editors to base interpretative and evaluative statements on.

I happen to be able to read that manuscript, and it doesn't call the Habr Magaadle clan leader Aḥmad Guray ibn Ḥusayn al-Ṣūmālī the "right-hand man" of Imam Ahmad: rather, the Habr Magaadle are only one in a whole series of Somali clans that are named there (pp. 14/17-15/18), and their leader only one in a whole series of clan leaders who joined their forces with the Imam. I'll admit I was wrong here in suspecting that the Aḥmad Guray ibn Ḥusayn mentioned was a fabrication, though the two Aḥmads (the clan leader and the Imam) have been conflated in later times (see here). Anyway, that's why we have to rely on secondary, scholarly sources.

Dabaqabad has frustrated an earlier attempt by me to remove unreliably sourced information like this [14], and frankly the Ishaaq bin Ahmed article is still full of misinformation because of it. This has got nothing to do with assuming bad faith or 'getting' at other editors: I just really believe that it would be a huge improvement to Wikipedia if we would ban users from editing articles of which they clearly have no understanding on how to reliably source it. We're too focused generally on dramatic conflicts (blocking or banning users only when they cross some drama-line), and not enough on simply and dryly determining who is capable of writing an encyclopedia and who is not. Your custom sanction was certainly inventive, but I think it missed the main point in that someone who bases their edits on personal preconceptions rather than on what reliable sources happen to say, just ought not to edit at all. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 08:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I know I'm over my word limit here, but let me make this short clarifying statement: I just think that the smiley with the Christmas hat   is really funny, and the most disarming among the available smileys. Erm, what I meant to say: what Dabaqabad is claiming below is basically that, because Somali Islamic hagiographies are being studied by respected scholars such as Alessandro Gori, we should be able to base WP articles on these hagiographies and present their contents as historical facts. It's a bit like arguing that because the Bible is extensively studied by respected scholars, we should be able to base WP articles on the Bible and present the contents of the Bible as fact. I very much respect Dabaqabad's energy and drive, but it's wholly directed at making WP present as facts what are essentially religio-nationalistic myths. It's such a pity that, because of the obscurity of the topic area, this is not more readily recognized. It's a classic case for a TBAN, really, but what is perhaps lacking is more editors who are familiar enough with the subject to see this. Thanks for trying to deal with this difficult issue anyway, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 15:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wadamarow: that's interesting. Dabaqabad also misrepresented the same source you mention in another article [15] (cf. my correction). I weirdly assumed that one to be a good faith error, but the diff you brought up clearly shows they are really intent on puffing up the Isaaq clan numbers and misrepresenting their proportion in relation to other clans (according to the source, the Gadabuursi actually outnumber the Isaaq). I think we should be done here now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 21:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The problem on the Djibouti page was caused earlier by Dabaqabad here (putting the info on its head without any source). I think it speaks volumes that after we pointed it out on this page, Dabaqabad did nothing to fix that problem. I did it in their stead. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 14:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning DabaqabadEdit

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishEdit

I think these sanctions expired back in March. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Well would you look at that. I've been under the assumption for some time now that they were expired. Thanks for the info. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by DabaqabadEdit

Hello @Apaugasma:,

Most of these edits that I reverted were made by IP users or were unsourced, which I assumed would not warrant going to the talk page. I'm not on Wikipedia as often as I used to and am prone to forgetting the arbitration ruling sometimes (which is not acceptable at all), for which I am deeply sorry and will make sure to follow it as strictly as possible.

As for [17], I had explained earlier to him in [18] that the source he used, which was written in 1975 on behalf of the Ministry of Education of Somalia, at a time where Somalia was ruled by a clan-based military dictatorship, was not a valid source since the source twists the official narrative and contradicts many sources, including the very sources it cites. More on that there. On [19] I had reverted an edit that was clearly used out of context and which the source did not explicitly mention or back up. Again, I should have followed up with a message on the talk page. On [20] I had ironically restored your edit, and the source itself could be considered a primary source at worst (I did not originally add it in so I have no idea).

I'd also like to call on you to assume good faith as expected on Wikipedia. You calling my edits "misinformation" is not. I am here solely for the project of building an encyclopedia and improving Somali-related articles which have seen a lack of editors and therefore valuable information that many people can research and use (and which I have contributed to a lot). I have put a lot of time and effort into trying my best to improve a wide array of articles and if I make mistakes (which I inevitably do) then point it out for me so I can rectify them as soon as possible. Another thing I'd like to note is that all my sources I use are to the best of my knowledge reliable and might be misinterpreted as unreliable due to the foreign languages in which they are written in.

Many thanks, Dabaqabad (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Apaugasma: For the Ahmed Gurey reference, again that is not my text nor did I actually use that reference so I do not see why I should be under scrutiny for that. It's funny that you mentioned [21] since you had removed a lot of reliable sources and probably a third of the Ishaaq bin Ahmed page without reaching out first, claiming the sources cited were unreliable ([22], [23], [24])

I broke down each source one by one and explained where they came from and how they are reliable as can be seen on [25] however you rejected all of them in favour of IM Lewis, who (while being an expert in the wider Somali history genre) is not an expert at Somali genealogy and Islamic literary in the Horn of Africa and has had orientalist tendencies which we both agreed on per [26]. You flat out rejected all of these sources on the basis that IM Lewis had mentioned that certain recent hagiologies were myths (despite the fact that some of them were written decades before IM Lewis became active).

I tried to compromise with you (by proposing we include wording like "attributed" and "attested") but you rejected that as well with no basis whatsoever. This is despite the fact that many of the sources that were cited were either secondary sources by themselves (some are even published by Umm al-Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia as well as in other universities) or referenced by credible scholars like Alessandro Gori in his book 'Studi sulla letteratura hagiografica islamica somala in lingua araba' (Studies on the Arabic Islamic Hagiographic literature in Somalia) [27]. The book also confirms most of, if not all the content that I had put in (including Sheikh Ishaaq's lineage [28], the origin of Ghurbani, the author of a manuscript that I cited as well as his credibility and independence [29] etc.)

Mind you, Alessandro Gori is an associate professor of the Arabic Language and Literature, his main field being the Islamic literary production of the Horn of Africa (especially Ethiopia and Somalia/Somaliland). That is literally his job, to document the manuscript tradition in the Muslim communities in north-eastern Africa (especially Ethiopia and Somalia/Somaliland). Since he can be identified as the foremost expert, he therefore takes precedence over IM Lewis, who is not an expert in that specific field as I mentioned earlier. Alessandro Gato has therefore also established that the sources that I had referenced in the Ishaaq bin Ahmed page have due weight. I can give you more detail on that later in the talk page.

Changing an entire page to suit the POV of one scholar and ignoring other sources on the basis that they are "primary" sources or are discredited by said scholar is something that I doubt is acceptable on Wikipedia. "Monopolizing" pages prevents useful and reliable information from being added on to the page which hinders Wikipedians from their goal; creating an encyclopedia. Then is the fact that like El_C mentioned, it feels like it's a "gotcha" moment (not accusing you or anything but just saying). I frankly don't see how this report has been done in good-faith in all honesty, and the fact that you claim that I base my edits on personal preconceptions rather than on what reliable sources say just slightly short of confirms that for me. My violations of the sanctions and the issue with sources (which is by itself nothing more than a mere disagreement between two users and not a rule violation) that you had brought forth are unrelated and cannot be tied together.

As for @El C:, I'm wondering: does the sanctions include IPs and non-established users (those who only have a few edits to their name)? It is a bit confusing to be frank.

Many thanks, Dabaqabad (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@El C: I assure everyone in here that, upon given a final last chance, and now that I have properly read up on the sanction that was imposed on me, that I'll 100% stick to it and declare all reverts that I do in the talk page and ping the editors whose edits I have reverted. I very much regret the previous sanction violations that I have committed and can assure everyone on here that they will not be repeated at all. I fully understand the rules and regulations of Wikipedia and I will make as much effort as I can to fully follow them. The few issues that I have regrettably caused aside, I have contributed a lot to Somali articles (including writing several well-sourced pages like the Somaliland War of Independence, 1922 Burao Tax Revolt not to mention towns and districts) and would more than love to contribute even more.

As for @Freetrashbox:, let me explain my reverts now;

1. For [30], the source itself never mentioned the fact that the Musa Arreh inhabited the town or that it is one of their home wells (home wells = inhabiting in this context). It is a well known fact that the Musa Arreh don't reside in the Sool region, in fact, the only subclan of the Habr Yunis that do reside there are the Sa'ad Yunis. Since Somalis are nomadic clans tend to venture far into other clans' home wells and territories to graze during the drought season, which explains the part you mentioned. The Musa Arreh primarily reside in the Togdheer and Sanaag regions as well as the Somali Region in Ethiopia (specifically the Gashamo woreda).

2. For [31] the BBC article mentions clashes between two clans in Adhi'adeye. While in the Somali context the clans are pretty obvious, in Wikipedia's context that is not the case and upon further inspection I could not find the clans mentioned there. I will be doing more research on that topic however and will be adding a credible reference to that.

3. As for [32] the fact that Abdirashid Duale is of the Sanbur clan is well-known among Somalis. I was looking for a credible source to confirm that fact however I forgot to reference it on that page. Will be doing more research and will add a credible reference to that as well.

As for @RegentsPark:, understood.

@Apaugasma: Funnily enough I actually thanked you on the correction you made on Djibouti, which would not have been the case had there been an intentional "puffing up" that you mentioned. The Isaaq figure was the only one that actually had a percentage mentioned, and I assumed they would be the second largest Somali clan however they are the fourth, per closer inspection. I'd like for you, however, to address the points I made regarding the Ishaaq bin Ahmed page.
As for @Wadamarow:,

1. The first two edits have already been explained per my reply to Apaugasma

2. Per [33], I had actually explained to you the fact that the Habr Awal did have a presence in eastern Awdal. Instead of refuting that claim properly you essentially "threatened" (how I perceived it) to add "Samaroon presence in Gabiley" by saying "So in the interest of fairness, if you wish to add your source here, I will reciprocate and add it in Wajaale and Gabiley pages, which I'm sure you won't have an issue with. Rest assured, I have numerous sources for Gabiley and Wajaale, so I wont have a problem adding them all. I look forward to your response." (which goes against a long-standing consensus made after a length discussion [34]) in some sort of tit-for-tat game, while also saying "[...]I won't have to rely on your source, I have my own". That link also proves that I reached out to you as well. I also removed the excessive amount of blockquotes in accordance with WP:QUOTEFARM.

3. As for [35], I was under the impression that the Isaaq-majority town of Tog Wajaale fell under the Awbarre woreda (and which you also claimed it did up until 4 years ago), but upon closer inspection again we both came to a mutual understanding. You then once again "threatened" to add the "Samaroon" presence in Wajaale ("I could easily edit your Wajaale part and include Samaroon and I have plenty of sources to back up my claims, however since I do not wish to enter an edit war I have thus far not done so. If you insist on including Habar Awal in Awbarre, then I will insist on the same for Wajaale.") based on a source that only mentioned a land dispute. All of this while failing to assume good-faith by accusing me of "tampering".

I don't get how you are bringing up past events that I got warned for and which were resolved time ago, it seems to me that this is some sort of "gotcha" moment. You're beating a dead horse. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Wadamarow: These accusations of partisan editing is unfounded. None of my edits that I have done so far breach any rules and do not contain any reverting (which I have strictly avoided since arbitration began and which therefore do not necessitate mentioning them in the talk pages). I HAD actually added sources. It is funny to me how your position has changed from that of me "not adding enough sources" to now me not adding sources at all. This, along with what I mentioned before, proves to me that you're not doing this out of good-faith but rather to get rid of an editor whom you disagree with. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]


@Apaugasma: I'm not saying that the Ishaaq bin Ahmed page should be based upon only one source, nor did I ever imply that, but rather that the massive amount of information and reliable sources that you removed is not justifiable, especially now that I proved to you that they are backed by and sourced by a respectable scholar. While I do not believe in this notion that the Isaaqs are anything but Cushites, we do need to put in reliable information from reliable sources, especially in fields that are lacking. You're comparing apples with oranges when it comes to the comparison with the Bible, funnily enough there are actually many pages that are based on the Bible and other religious scripts (while of course containing other sources). That alone negates your point. Not to mention the fact that many pages are also based on hagiographies and other Arabic primary and secondary sources as well. The irony in all of this is the fact that you yourself was basing almost the entire article on the words of IM Lewis.

As for what you consider "religio-nationalist myths", that is how you personally see it. You cannot base your edits on your own personal opinions, your personal opinions should not affect your editing at all nor should they reflect them. If you want to, we can discuss a fair compromise for the article. I do prefer the wording used in the Ababda people article, where the article acknowledges both sides of the argument. That at least is much better than the article using wording like "probably legendary" and essentially claiming that the article is fake. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello @Apaugasma:. I assumed that it was already fixed given the fact that it was brought forth in the talk page. I will be fixing the edits that @Freetrashbox: addressed now. Dabaqabad (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Update: I removed the content I added on Abdirashid Duale after I failed to find a source to back it up [36], I'll be looking into that further as well. I'll also be looking into Dayaha as well. I saw that your edits on Adhi'adeye as well. @Freetrashbox: Dabaqabad (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello @Freetrashbox:,

I just added a few more sources that mention all five districts (see here). I hope that should be enough to confirm their existence. Dabaqabad (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by FreetrashboxEdit

Moved from the section above. El_C 12:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I am glad that you [Dabaqabad] welcome pointers to your edits. I've asked a few questions about sources on your talk page in the past [37][38][39], but you don't seem to have noticed yet. I am waiting for the answers.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

You should attach sources to all of your unsourced statements, including the three above. And all your statements against WP:BLP should be revoked immediately. These are also true in general, and since you often undo other people's edits on the grounds that they are "unsourced," you should adhere to them especially closely.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Dabaqabad: I have checked your edit mentioned at 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC). Thank you. However, it is still not enough. For example, in your recent edit on Sanaag, you reverted an IP user's edit as "vandalism". However, the source you indicated mentions Garadag, but not El Afweyn. When comparing the edits of you and the IP user, the third party editor will not be able to judge which one is correct. I am not saying that your description is wrong. IP users are objecting to your edits. In such cases, it is always a good idea to indicate the source of the information to prevent conflicts. And avoid extreme words such as "vandalism" as much as possible.--Freetrashbox (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Dabaqabad: Thanks for the correction. But it is not the only place where sources of information are lacking. What I've shown is just a random extract from your recent edits.--Freetrashbox (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Dabaqabad probably doesn't understand what I'm saying. He has corrected the parts I pointed out, but has made no attempt to correct the others. He also continues to edit without sources (For example, this edit.) I often translate articles from the English Wikipedia to the Japanese Wikipedia, but I can't trust articles with him in the history.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by WadamarowEdit

Hi I would like to point out some previous violations committed by Dabaqabad.

1. In the most recent violations on the Djibouti pages which can be found here [[40]] and here [[41]]. Dabaqabad added a source to mask an edit that is not reflected in the actual source. The source which can be found here [[42]] does not state what is shown in the edit, this is tantamount to tampering with sources and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Dabaqabad also made this edit without mentioning it on the Talk page.

2. In the Awdal Region page which can be found here [[43]], Dabaqabad also committed similar violations where he relentlessly made edits which weren't reflected in the sources and only stopped tampering when he was warned by another admin. He also deleted sourced edits by other users.

3. In another instance on the Somali Region page he also tried to make edits without the correct use of a reference and attempted to remove sourced edits. [[44]]

This repeated pattern of behavior, where Dabaqabad does not follow the Wiki guidelines has unfortunately reduced the accuracy of some of the content on these pages. I have refrained from editing the Djibouti page so as to not get into an edit war with him. However, in light of these repeated violations a topic ban would be in the best interests of all concerned editors on the HOA Region.

Regards Wadamarow (talk)

@Apaugasma: This isn't the first time it's happened either, on the Awdal page here [[45]] he removed sourced edits without reason and manipulated sources just as he did on the Djibouti pages. He also did the same on the Somali Region page here [[46]] this is despite being asked on the talk page to make sure he adds sources before editing.

Wadamarow (talk)

Result concerning DabaqabadEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Apaugasma, while I'm not liking parts of this complaint —what makes that King Saud University source unreliable? Almost seems like a gotcha attempt there— it is nonetheless disappointing to learn that Dabaqabad somehow forgot (forgot?) about their ARBHORN sanction, when all they seem to edit are ARBHORN pages. I'm finding that a bit difficult to reconcile, tbh.
As I mentioned on past occasions, this sanction was intended as a boon in lieu of a topic ban from all ARBHORN pages outright. Perhaps it ought to have been tightened to only include named accounts (that Dabaqabad could ping to a talk page) but exempting IPs unless their edits or explanations thereof are especially substantive. But I don't know how practical that would have been to enforce, what metric one would use to determine that, etc. Ideally, I'd like to count on common sense [That's it, that's the end of the sentence] Miss information, she be fierce!
Erm, sorry. Where was I? Right, the custom sanction. Likely, it was a mistake, structurally, as they often prove to be. Certainly, it seems like it was a mistake in the sense that Dabaqabad couldn't remember that it existed. Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed, because I'm sort of drawing a blank atm (though it is late). El_C 03:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RE: {{p|holidays}} — look, Apaugasma, I'm okay with putting up the Christmas lights in November (late November), but on Sept 1? Come on, give Santa a chance to rest. Double erm. Yeah, I'm not sure how one here at en is expected to infer that from the source or your previous explanations concerning it (possibly I missed it), whose Arabic text Googly does not offer to translate.
But beyond that, I'm having serious difficulties even remembering much of the context of the March 2021 events so as to tell what's what (or what was what then). I still might be open to a sanction that would allow Dabaqabad to continue editing ARBHORN pages in some limited capacity, as an alternative to a blanket (WP:BROADLY) ARBHORN WP:TBAN. But what that sanction might look like, I have no idea. If it even makes sense to not TBAN right now in light of Dabaqabad multiple failings to adhere to the sanction. El_C 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Dabaqabad, I think it's bit late in the day to express confusion about a sanction which you just plain forgot existed, anyway. And before then, got blocked for violating. You've had so many months to seek clarifications. Not sure you realize this, but at this point, the likelihood that the current sanction will just be converted into a full ARBHORN topic ban is high.
So it's probably best to deal with the underlying problems: sourcing issues, unexplained reverts (still), and assuring us that you'd even remember the existence of a sanction which covers the only topic area you edit. Again, that especially, inspires little confidence you could be relied upon to stick to the plan (whatever it might be and however it is defined as). El_C 13:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RegentsPark, right, I was thinking of blocking for a few weeks. Myself, though, I'd like to also get the long term sorted in this request. El_C 14:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Given how confusing all this is, the simplest solution is a block (whatever the appropriate escalation amount is) for clearly violating the restriction. @Dabaqabad: restrictions apply to all edits, whether they be IPs, new editors, or established editors. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @El C: Whatever you think appropriate works. On the face of it, the violations are few in number but, looking over their edits, it is clear that the Horn of Africa is their only interest. A topic ban might clarify things. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment by Deepfriedokra Thanks, El C for everything you bring to this discussion (well, all discussions) and for sorting the sortliness of this mess. @Dabaqabad: two things stand out. First and foremost-- this is an encyclopedia and the Horn of Africa is a "sticky wicket." As important as sourcing is in an encyclopedia, it's even more important in as contentious (in real life and on Wikipedia) an area as this one. Almost equally important anywhere, but particularly in this area, is the need to communicate clearly via edit summaries and talk pages. Lack of communication equates to miscommunication equates to someone getting the (maybe) wrong idea about what you are doing. And so here we are here now. I propose a six month TBAN of the subject area during which Dabaqabad can improve their skills at sourcing and communication. As onerous as this may sound, there are 6 x 106 articles on Wikipedia that need improvement. While it may be discomfiting to move out of a chosen area, it is also an opportunity to grow and improve. While blocking would have the desired effect of stopping the disruption, it would not provide this opportunity. And we can always resort to blocking if the TBAN is insufficient. (There's a really great quote from a Jerry Pournelle story comes to mind that's too awkward to fit in here.) But yeah, Dabaqabad, we'd hate for it to come to that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I support Deepfriedokra's proposed topic ban solution as the best response in that it potentially avoids the need for blocking and provides time for the user to educate themselves on the rules and standards. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Amanda A. BrantEdit

There is not a clear consensus that Amanda A. Brant has violated discretionary sanctions. The prevailing view is that this is a content dispute. The sources in this subject very much disagree on the subject and the editors involved disagree about which sources should be given weight. I am going to place the page in question under DS 1RR restriction as well as a consensus required restriction. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Amanda A. BrantEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 10:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Amanda A. Brant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15/10/2021 This talk-page edit demonstrates bias against ostensible ideological opponents, and against the subject of the BLP ("an exceedingly obscure philosopher")
  2. 15/10/2021 This talk-page contribution attempts to claim authority for her perspective over other perspectives, a stance that then strongly colours her article edits as well (see below)
  3. 16/10/2021 This talk-page contribution demonstrates the editor's penchant for imposing her own ideological views into the discussion: when asked (in connection with a previous post) "where did it declare itself a TERF group", the editor responds with her own deductions and analysis and attempts to delegitemise views and groups she evidently despises.
  4. 15/10/2021 This article edit removes material supported by a conventional RS source, on the basis of original research and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  5. 13/10/2021 Edit that seems intended to get "transphobic fear mongering" into the article lead, highlighting a tendentious description.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The diffs above are a selection from a much broader range of talk-page contributions that demonstrate animus against the BLP subject and article edits that seem intended to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, at the expense of balance and encyclopedic tone. Given the toxicity of current discourse and the harassment experienced by the BLP subject (the police have advised her to install cctv at her home: [47]), we need a much more careful approach to contributions/editing on this particular article. In my view a logged warning is in order.

I'm surprised to see certain comments in the "Result" section. They strike me as cavalier in regard to BLP. Yes, talk-page discussions can sometimes show contention, especially about controversial people. But in the end we're meant to insist on getting BLPs right. The diffs (especially those added by Crossroads) indicate that Amanda A. Brant is not doing that, and the talk-page comments show that her ideological commitments are the reason she is not doing that. (Crossroads has done a much better job than I did in presenting diffs that indicate the broad range of contributions demonstrating that point.) Some of those talk-page comments show that the editor thinks the BLP subject is truly despicable, and it then seems that it doesn't matter if the article isn't entirely accurate: if the sources don't support the idea that she isn't quite as bad as that, well who really cares because after all she's really bad. I brought this enforcement request in an effort to get a BLP done right, and from concern that the editor doesn't understand the requirements and/or isn't motivated to adhere to them. I'm genuinely surprised that the request isn't more persuasive in those terms; maybe I've simply done it poorly. @Bishonen: @HighInBC: Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[48]

Discussion concerning Amanda A. BrantEdit

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

Statement by Amanda A. BrantEdit

Statement by Sideswipe9thEdit

With respect to diffs 4 and 5, I believe they are an accurate representation of the sources used. The lead has been subject to much discussion over the last few days. Diffs 1-3 represent a difference of opinion between Nomoskedasticity and Amanda A. Brant, especially when it comes to choice of language but that is not unusual in this topic area.

I would like to point out that Nomoskedasticity seems to have taken umbrage with Amanda in this reply over choice of language, and is currently being antagonistic against Newimpartial both over in this discussion and on Nomoskedasticity's talk page where they seem to be trying to bait an ANI report against them.

Although I'm a relatively new editor, having reviewed the Gender and Sexuality remedy, I can't immediately see any behaviour from Amanda that strikes me as a breach. I would not recommend any action be taken against Amanda.

I agree with the comments made by Newimpartial, PaleoNeonate, XOR'easter, GoodDay, Firefangledfeathers, and RolandR. I also like the suggestion from HighInBC about a 1RR restriction.
SMcCandlish I have to disagree with you here. There is definitely TERF-advocacy in this content area.
Crossroads I don't have enough words left to do a full deconstruction of the diffs you provided, though overall I'd describe these as editorial disagreements and not WP:TE. WRT death threats, I disputed that claim here, and almost a week later there is still no confirmation as to the truth of it. WRT one sided summary in the lead, both of those are a fair representation of what the source said, and prior to the recent protest is what Stock was most notable for. I don't think any of this meeds the criteria for WP:TE, and if it does then a few more editors need requests opened about them.
Tewdar the open letter describes Stock as a prominent critic of trans-inclusive stances and policies. That is by definition transphobic, in the same way that being critical of homosexual-inclusive or race inclusive stances and policies would be homophobic or racist respectively. There are multiple ways to describe a concept without explicitly saying the obvious word. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Crossroads that is one form of TERF-advocacy but it is not the only form. Another is minimising sources critical of transphobic people [49], objecting to properly attributed words used by sources to describe the individual [50], or objecting to a source critical of a BLP because it was published in SAGE Open despite that being a reliable source. [51]
Tewdar that was in response to an email I sent Newimpartial because of concerns I had about contributions of another editor in this area possibly being disruptive. I'm relatively new here and wasn't sure how to go about addressing those concerns. Reading policy can only get you so far, and I felt that asking another editor familiar with the process directly would help. I didn't want to ask it publicly because I did not want to start or encourage a witch hunt against that user. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC), edited for clarity Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC) []

Statement by PaleoNeonateEdit

I look at the diffs but don't interpret them the way they are presented. For instance a removal claimed to be for IDONTLIKEIT reasons was only an editorial. Another argument above is that people or groups should be described as what they claim (outside of gender or religious affiliation), when WP relies on descriptions by reliable independent sources... —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by XOR'easterEdit

To echo PaleoNeonate's comment above, I find the diffs presented to be much less problematic than they were made out to be. Describing a philosopher as "exceedingly obscure" based on their citation count is no worse than what we do at the Academics and educators AfD's every day, for example. One might dispute the evaluation, but it's a fair position to hold. Diffs 2 and 3 are sensible objections to splitting terminological hairs. Likewise, the edit to the lede seems broadly in compliance with MOS:LEDE, giving key points from the text that follows. Doubtlessly it could have been written in a different way, but it's not beyond the pale by any means. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by CrossroadsEdit

The edits above, and on the page in general, show a clear pattern of WP:Tendentious editing, WP:SOAPBOXing about the topic, and editing based on her own opinions; and I will present more diffs a little later today. For the record, this removal was not just an editorial; it also removed a letter from trans people who had supported Stock and which had been discussed in a normal article in that newspaper. It has since been restored with a reference to another newspaper that mentioned it. Crossroads -talk- 22:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Here are more diffs documenting this editor's problems with this article. Note that the editor has received the BLP DS notice as well. These are all at the same article in just the past few days.

Article:

  • [52] Puts "transphobic fear mongering" description in lead
  • [53] Uses wikilink to claim BLP supports the anti-gender movement, a false/OR claim not found in any of the sources
  • [54][55] Adds and re-adds statement from labor union about "transphobia" to lead - clearly tendentious cherry-picking
  • [56][57] Twice falsifies words of another BLP - claiming she called "criticism" disgraceful even though the source said "attacks"
  • [58] Tendentiously removes RS info about the death threats Stock faced
  • [59] Without consensus, re-inserts biased text in lead that is a one-sided summary of the article (this diff was mentioned by OP); later re-inserts a shortened version, again without consensus
  • [60] Tendentiously rewrites RS material to not mention number or status of signatories
  • [61] Waters down source based on own opinion

Talk page:

  • [62] BLP violation, asserts she (Stock) is "primarily known for anti-trans activism", without sources
  • [63] WP:ASPERSIONS on another editor ("many others") and attempts to discredit that editor
  • [64][65] Repeatedly and baselessly says Stock is an activist in the anti-gender movement, a claim not found in any RS
  • [66] Calls another BLP, trans woman Debbie Hayton, a "fringe figure" and "the world's only trans anti-trans activist", a clear BLP violation. Hayton also was definitely not the only trans person to support Stock, so that's a falsehood.
  • [67][68] Tendentiously and baselessly asserts that British mainstream media, generally reliable by Wikipedia consensus, are equivalent to the press in Orban's Hungary; also asserts reports in The Times are from an "anti-LGBT newspaper"

All the OP was asking for was a logged warning. Based on how much disruption there has been in such a short time, I'd be more inclined to favor a topic ban from Kathleen Stock, or from BLPs involved in transgender-related controversies. Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC) added talk page diffs Crossroads -talk- 05:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment: I'm aware that people will try to nitpick some of the diffs shown. However, the point is to show a pattern, which is what WP:Tendentious editing is. And quite a few diffs can't be explained away. BLP does apply even when some editors don't like the person, and it is strict and applies to talk pages. Crossroads -talk- 05:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Regarding claims that there is "TERF-advocacy" going in this area, if that were so, then we would be seeing editors clamoring to add labels of praise to the lead of Stock's bio, disparaging her critics personally, claiming that the mainstream media were "anti-woman" (as they'd put it) for being insufficiently deferential to their POV, and advocating for the superiority of their equivalent of PinkNews. None of that is happening. Resisting POV pushing is not pushing an opposite POV. It is the duty of every editor. Crossroads -talk- 03:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by NewimpartialEdit

I agree with the Admin suggestion that 1RR on Kathleen Stock would be more appropriate than any sanctions directed at Amanda A. Brant. Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

SMcCandlish If you don't recognize what you call TERF-advocacy editing on this and other related articles, that isn't because it isn't happening. It is. Your conclusions become less plausible, if you misunderstand both the actors and the subject matter itself. For example, the Kathleen Stock article currently refers largely to The Times and The Telegraph who are sympathetic to the subject's POV, rather than adhering to more critical sources. Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Also, what neutral editors, SMcCandlish? You are not a "neutral editor" on this topic; neither is Crossroads and neither is Nomoskedasticity. If any of you sees yourself as a neutral editor, and does not recognize the biases involved, e.g., in your own choices of language - as is clearly demonstrated in Nomo's and Crosroads's interpretation of the diffs they present, and in your accusations of transactivism, which you don't even seem to recognize as a value-laden LABEL wielded by the "gender critical" side of the controversy - then that misconception that you are editing "neutrally", when you are in fact taking a side, is a huge part of the problems in "gender and sexuality" discussions on WP. That is, if you can't see your own positioning objectively, you are part of the problem.
Before anyone says anything unnecessary, I recognize my own positioning: I represent the mainstream Canadian view on these issues, which is why I frequently cite Statistics Canada or the CBC when I want to document a typical practice. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Crossroads let's not CRYBLP, shall we? You describe your first Talk page bullet as a BLP violation, but what you quote the editor as saying, that Stock is "primarily known for anti-trans activism", is quite similar to the statement in the letter signed by many of the UK's philosophers. Agreeing - on a Talk page - with a public statement by hundreds of the UK's practicing philosophers is unlikely to be a "BLP violation". And as far as your next bullet on ASPERSIONS goes, the pot really ought not be calling the kettle. Your final point, about baseless criticism of The Times and The Telegraph, ignores all the evidence presented on the Kathleen Stock talk page about both factual and editorial concerns with The Times and The Telegraph. Newimpartial (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, BLP in general applies to Talk pages, but the BLP sourcing requirements do not apply to Talk pages, nor does MOS:LABEL. Newimpartial (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
In this area, TERF advocacy consists largely in pushing the language preferred by Stock and her allies over the language used by her critics. This is what The Times and The Telegraph are doing, and this is what several editors to Kathleen Stock have been doing, present company included. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Tewdar: since you have cited a comment I made at my Talk page, I should clarify that I was not talking about editors who disagree but rather editors who are disruptive. And while I personally have never succeeded in having a disruptive editor topic-banned, I have witnessed some disruptive editors remove themselves from WP through their own actions. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by SMcCandlishEdit

Generally concur with Crossroads, other than diffs 4 and 5 might not be so problematic. This editor is clearly failing WP:NOT#ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV policies.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

HighInBC The nature of the problem at this and several other articles is that they are subject to waves of PoV-laden "trans-activism" editing, but very rarely any "TERF-advocacy" PoV from the other direction. Rather, neutrality-minded editors are stuck in the middle trying to produce proper encyclopedia material and taking it from both sides in theory, but pretty much only trans activism in practice. This is not a typical "one side wants X and the other side wants Y" situation, but "Wikipedia needs X, but one organized faction with off-site concerns to advance wants Y, while a less-organized faction with opposite off-site views to push here wants Z". No blanket 1RR should be put into place if it hampers the ability to get at and maintain a neutral X text. At any article like this presently dominated by one viewpoint, a 1RR just produces a WP:TAGTEAM that can always WP:WIN through attrition.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

HighInBC, I generally have a very dim view of "consensus required" page-sanctions, since they're a prior restraint that directly conflict with WP:EDITING policy (no one needs to gain permission before editing here). However, things are consistently bad enough across this entire topic area that I'm willing to see an experiment in "consensus required" if we're really certain that the benefits have been better than the costs in topics like modern American politics. If Sideswipe9th and Newimpartial (deep in one side of this socio-political debate) were actually correct that there's a bunch of pro-TERF activism on Wikipedia, there would be a thick sheaf of evidence for it, but there is not. (Rather, trans-activists misidentify any push-back against their agenda, from neutral editors, as pro-TERF activism; we've been over this many times before, including at RFARB.) However, even if they were right, it would simply lend further strength to my concerns. Presently, we have neutral-minded editors having to fight a near-constant fire all coming from a single direction. If it actually starts coming from both polar opposites on this debate, then the topic area is going to be even more of a scorched-earth wreck than it already is and has been for several years now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment by GoodDayEdit

Looks more like a content dispute, rather then an editorial behaviour problem. Recommend not enforcing. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Let's be careful, on how this case is handled, as it may create precedent for any future WP:AE reports, around this general topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by FirefangledfeathersEdit

I haven't reviewed all of Crossroads' diffs, but many seem like edits they don't like with the word "tendentious" tacked on. Taking the first diff as an example: the edit didn't just pull "transphobic fear mongering" out of nowhere. It's a direct quote from an open letter signed by about 600 philosophers. It's fair to debate whether that belongs in the lead; taking either position in that content dispute is not sanction-worthy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Contribution by TewdarEdit

This diff added a claim that "Stock received broad media attention in January 2021 when she was criticised for transphobia in a letter signed by 600 philosophers and other academics, who objected to her receiving an OBE." - as far as I can tell from both the open letter and the PinkNews article, the claim that "she was criticised for transphobia" is not supported by either source, unless I am missing something here. Perhaps we should all take more care to report what the cited sources actually say, especially since so many editors in this topic area usually pay so much attention to small details such as this. Tewdar (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • RolandR - neither Stock nor her work nor her views, are explicitly described as "transphobic fearmongering" in that letter as far as I can see. If it is essential to describe her as "transphobic" in the lede, perhaps a different source can be found, but I don't see how you can use the existing one without a substantial pinch o' SYNTH. Tewdar (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Also, I'm sure that a Disagreement of Philosophers are quite capable of formulating an explicit statement like "Kathleen Stock/'s work/'s views are transphobic". So why didn't they? Even PinkNews don't claim the letter says this, so why should Wikipedia? Tewdar (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Bishonen: - this topic area is utterly toxic - contributing editors get taken to AN/I or AE for the most trivial disagreements or supposed infractions. Every week or so, an editor on one side or the other comes up with some pathetic complaint for ANI/E, followed by a chorus of meatpuppets cheering on their comrade, in a pathetic attempt to defeat the other team. I suggest that every editor who ever edited in this topic area should be permanently TBANed, including myself. Tewdar (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @RolandR: Like I said, why didn't PinkNews (which is the cited source, not the letter itself) say that the letter criticised her for "transphobia"? They do not say this. Why? Because the letter does not explicitly state this, probably. Is "trans-exclusionary" the same as transphobic? Perhaps. But why don't the authors say "transphobic" if that's what they mean? Feel free to revert my edits to the article and discuss further on the relevant talk page if you really think "transphobic" is appropriate here. Tewdar (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Contribution by RolandREdit

Oh come on, Tewdar! The open letter from hundreds of philosophers is actually headed "Philosophy Transphobia Letter". They write "Stock is best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [amendments to*] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity, and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters", and later "our concern is that some — apparently including the British government — have a tendency to mistake transphobic fearmongering for valuable scholarship". This is quite clearly describing Stock's arguments as "transphobic fearmongering". RolandR (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Tewdar, the letter explicitly discusses and criticises Stock's views and writings. It explicitly refers to "her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse". It concludes by making an explicit distinction between "transphobic fearmongering" and "valuable scholarship". No other academic is mentioned by name or referred to indirectly in the letter. It is by no means SYNTH to state that this is a criticism of Stock for transphobia. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by AquillionEdit

I will point out that SMcCandlish's statement that the nature of the problem at this and several other articles is that they are subject to waves of PoV-laden "trans-activism" editing, but very rarely any "TERF-advocacy" PoV from the other direction, in addition to being patently and shockingly inaccurate (as, I think, any uninvolved editor can tell just by looking at the intensity, tone, and nature of the disputes at hand), shows an obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to the topic area. The core issue here is that the underlying real-world disputes are so acrimonious and fundamental, without even the slender middle ground we have for most other political topics - they split drastically in terms of what qualifies as appropriate language, what sources ought to be trusted, how much weight to give different sides of an extremely complex controversy, often with virtually no overlap at all. As a result, many of the more stridently opinionated editors on the topic are unable to see past their own views to the point where any edits by people who disagree with them seem tendentious (or "TERFs" or "trans-activists" or some other snarlword) simply by virtue of using language or assuming basic points that they consider categorically invalid. The resulting deep-set battleground mindset is not something that is going to be resolved by calling individual editors out at AE, especially since people with such strident opinions on the topic are (as we see here) really really bad at accurately identifying bad-faith editing.

These sorts of things are only likely to be resolved either a willingness to broadly assume good faith for everyone in the topic area, or, more likely, by a more comprehensive ArbCom case to examine the long-term behavior of everyone involved. If multiple editors believe that the entire topic area is swarming with one-sided POV-pushing, and are consistently editing from that perspective, then reaching compromises on even simple content disputes like these is going to be very difficult. We need a venue where anyone who thinks that can either make their case once and for all or be forced to drop it (or leave the topic area themselves, if they seem unable to). In my view, though, these constant vague and sweeping accusations of bad faith, more than anything else, are what makes this particular topic area so wrought, since it not only disrupts the consensus-building process but encourages others who see it to take the same strident battleground stance in a way that makes collaborative editing extremely difficult. --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning Amanda A. BrantEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This seems to be a topic where the sources themselves are highly divided on opinion. This also appears to be a content dispute about which sources should have how much representation. I am open to more evidence but I am currently leaning towards this being a normal editorial process and not a violation of discretionary sanctions. I do however think the article may benefit from a 1RR restriction to reduce attempts to implement consensus prematurely. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Regarding concerns that a 1RR restriction may result in tag teaming overriding consensus we could also add the "Consensus required" restriction more often used in American Politics. "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit." along with 1RR.
This can really slow down creation of an article, but can be helpful in developed articles where most major changes are controversial. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This case is starting to become stale. Unless another further evidence is presented, or another admin weighs in with an alterative opinion, I am going to close this tomorrow as no violation. I will also place editing restrictions on the article in question. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

DhawanguptaEdit

This matter is primarily a content dispute. Parties are advised to utilize dispute resolution processes such as a request for comment if regular discussion has come to an impasse. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning DhawanguptaEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dhawangupta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  • 23:32, 6 July 2020 They were provided with a final warning for assuming bad faith, advocacy of poor sourcing and tendentious editing at Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15#Suggestion to Shed Biases. Their conduct since then seems to have barely changed. They are an occasional editor (50 edits since 11 Februrary 2021) and the following diffs are that of the most recent example of similar conduct.
  1. 23:07, 17 October 2021 They state that "[t]hose who are attempting to show it as historical fact are clearly engaging in WP:DE" at Talk:Breast Tax in response to a comment providing sources (Special:Diff/1050103405), note the first one of the two is from a peer reviewed journal.
  2. 21:00, 18 October 2021 Claims there is a consensus for calling Breast Tax a hoax by linking to Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, a discussion about whether to include Breast Tax as a cause for the revolt or not. This gets rejected on 21:06, 18 October 2021 by an uninvolved sysop for their demand of changes to the article.
  3. 19:46, 19 October 2021 Repeats the above by linking Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? to state that "[i]t has been agreed by most of the editors", in addition naming 2 uninvolved editors from there while claiming to have support from them. Also canvasses 3 different editors to the page in the same comment. The comment overall is in support of a twitter post and two newspaper editorials (Special:Diff/1050656985) and is in response to being provided with two more peer reviewed scholarly publications (Special:Diff/1050508080) which they claim are "shoddy sources", rejecting them with statements like "[i]t simply does not become true even if "multiple sources are available" to claim that Earth is square."
  • On a sidenote, nothing against those who were canvassed. I know a couple of them, they are constructive editors from what I've seen but that doesn't excuse Dhawangupta's canvassing itself.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

They are certainly not the only editor with similar conduct at Talk:Breast Tax (the entire talk page is filled with persistent demands to declare it a hoax) but this seems to be a long established pattern with them. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Seraphimblade, this is about conduct, even if we disregard the sourcing issue (although I'd argue calling every source which includes books published by peer reviewed academic presses but contradicts their stance to be "shoddy sources" is tendentious conduct), there is still accusation of disruptive editing without any evidence against those they disagree with, persistent misrepresention of a discussion on another talk page as a consensus for their desired changes (they are still doing it over here) and canvassing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1050762121

Discussion concerning DhawanguptaEdit

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

Statement by DhawanguptaEdit

These edits of mine are just supporting facts held by nearly a dozen editors like Sitush, Winged Blades of Godric, Azuredivay, and others as per Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, Talk:Breast tax#Deleting article, Talk:Breast tax#Redirect. While OP is standing with only 2 other editors in supporting blatant revisionism by presenting a folk story as history. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning DhawanguptaEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This looks to me to be a content dispute; Dhawangupta is not the only editor who has questioned the reliability of the sources in this area. If specific sources are in question it might help to ask for an evaluation at the reliable sources noticeboard. If more generally over what the article should say, a request for comment may be helpful. Ultimately, it is not up to AE to determine whether sources are reliable or not, nor what articles should or should not contain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I am not seeing further appetite to take any action here, so unless any other uninvolved admins have weighed in by tomorrow or so, I will close this as content dispute/no action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Spartan7WEdit

:Indefinitely blocked as an AE action per general agreement in this discussion. Blocked for one year as an AE action per general agreement in this discussion, followed by an indefinite block as a normal admin action. Bishonen | tålk 11:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC).[]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Spartan7WEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Spartan7W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics (broadly construed)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 16:11, 19 October 2021 to Rachel Levine. Levine is the the United States assistant secretary for health, a Senate-confirmed seat in the Biden administration.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [70] User is indefinitely partial-blocked from Donald Trump as well.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • n/a
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Spartan7W has emerged from relative inactivity to make an edit to the article of a Biden administration official. The edit in question also happens to violate MOS:DEADNAME (and past consensus at the page on the same). I've left them a gender discretionary sanctions notice as well, so they are aware going forward. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Spartan7WEdit

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

Statement by Spartan7WEdit

  • @GorillaWarfare: I apologize for including the birth name of an individual on their biographical entry on an encyclopedia. In the future, I will be sure to leave out facts, truth, or any other piece of relevant information. Furthermore, I regret that I have chosen to be sparingly active on Wikipedia as an editor; I have never had a periodic inactivity in my time on this website, and I apologize for investing my time in other things. Surely my pursuit of life outside of a website is indicative of my terribly malicious and destructive desires. I graciously thank you for your demagoguery and reminder to me that I should not engage in basic practices of the documentation of factual information. This oversight on my part cannot be fathomed. We ought to celebrate that readers of Wikipedia, many of them U.S. citizens, arriving to the site to find out about a high-level government official, will remain protected from basic information about the backgrounds of those who serve them. I ask for your mercy in whatever penalty is afforded to me. The inclusion of information regarding the background of government officials has no place on a free, open, public encyclopedia. Words cannot capture the guilt I feel for disseminating facts.   Spartan7W §   22:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Please explain to me why making an edit on an article with a piece of factual information, cited, is requisite an indefinite ban?   Spartan7W §   22:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    (reply to clpo13)Well there is no fair reason for the topic ban, so I addressed the general topic.   Spartan7W §   22:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    (reply to Deepfriedokra)So replying directly to a ping in the section in which I was pinged is evidence I need a ban?   Spartan7W §   22:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    (reply to HighInBC)How exactly am I supposed to know what articles I can and cannot edit?   Spartan7W §   23:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    (reply to HighInBC) How am I supposed to know this was done via the honor system? I literally cannot edit the Donald Trump article. I've avoided editing because one of my preferred areas is modern politics. When the ban was issued, it made sense I would actually be banned from editing. Turns out I wasn't. I had no clue this was the honor system. If you look through my edit history, I go through long periods without editing. I also made contributions to aviation articles several months back. If my inactivity is a grounds for being banned, I'm sorry you can't see the world beyond this website.   Spartan7W §   23:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Sideswipe9th: I don't see what your political opinions have to do with this discussion? Please leave them out. Thanks.   Spartan7W §   23:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Given the fact that the software literally prevents me from pressing the edit button on the Donald Trump article, which is the one where your ridiculous ban in question came from, it would be a reasonable expectation of mine to assume that the ban would prevent editing of other politics articles under the same definition.   Spartan7W §   14:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by NewimpartialEdit

The article already contained Levine was not notable under her prior name, so MOS:DEADNAME recommends excluding her former name, right after the spot Spartan edited. This may be a WP:CIR issue. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by Sideswipe9thEdit

Given that in the diff in question, Spartan7W deadnamed a trans woman, is this not also a violation of WP:ARBGSDS? If the resolution is not for a permanent ban, would a TBAN for Gender and Sexuality also be warranted? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Deepfriedokra: ah OK. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't overlooked, and wasn't sure of the exact procedure. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning Spartan7WEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Spartan7W: Amazing. All those words and you didn't even get close to addressing the topic ban. clpo13(talk) 22:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Finding by Deepfriedokra. @Spartan7W: Please move your reply to your own section. Ironically, you have proven the need for the topic ban. At Rachel Levine and in your discourse here. I guess there is a general inability to follow instructions, as you have posted in this section. (sigh). Looks like we need an indefinite block as the user refuses to learn or to abide by their TBAN or follow any rule but their own. They evidently are WP:NOTHERE, choosing to use Wikipedia to fight . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Addendum Agree with WP:CIR issues. User does not understand how an article about a member of the current American president's cabinet violates a topic ban on post-1992 American politics. @Spartan7W:, it is not the edit per se, which is bad enough in that it violates MOS:DEADNAME. It is that you violated a topic ban, and give no indication of accepting it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Sideswipe9th: Yes, but had not been DS alert warned for that before hand. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I concur on the indef block. Clearly, even if we ignore the over the top sarcasm, they've returned only to make a point. It is doubtful if they want to edit in other areas anyway and, in that sense, an indef block is pareto optimal. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Clear violation. Response gives no indication that they regret the violation and every indication that they do not respect the topic ban. I recommend a minimum of a multi-month block. Given the lack of other contributions I also support the indefinite block suggested by the other admins here. I believe and indefinite block from the project is the best result here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • If you are unable to read "post-1992 American politics (broadly construed)" and not understand that this includes modern American politicians then you are incapable of following the ban, your extended sarcasm makes me think that you do understand and just don't respect the ban. Either way it is a problem. Topic bans are a last resort used instead of removing a user outright, and alternative to taking a user off the project. But it only works if the user understands, accepts and follows the ban. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • You were told about the ban: [72]. The notice clearly said you were banned from the topic. Do you think we employ artificial intelligence that can look at the context of your edits and determine if it meets the criteria for the ban? I am having trouble taking your explanation at face value. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • In the topic ban notice from American politics,[73] Spartan7W was informed that they were "indefinitely banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the post-1992 American politics topic area (WP:AP2), broadly construed", and was urged to "please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means". Now they say, above, "How exactly am I supposed to know what articles I can and cannot edit?" and "How am I supposed to know this was done via the honor system? ... I had no clue this was the honor system". I guess they didn't look at the banning policy. This is not somebody else's fault. They violated the topic ban, and their comment on that above, here, is pure trolling. Per general agreement in this discussion, I have blocked them indefinitely for one year as an AE action, followed by an indefinite block as a normal admin action. Bishonen | tålk 06:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC).[]

Hodgdon's secret gardenEdit

Hodgdon's secret garden is indefinitely topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, broadly construed. clpo13(talk) 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Hodgdon's secret gardenEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC) edited 02:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Hodgdon's secret garden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Unnecessarily personalizing debates (including personal attacks) at Talk:Woke:

  1. 16:13, 7 September 2021 Orwell ... Whose trenchant observations, under Sangdeboeuf's non-ideal editing regime, would need be discarded in favor of "objective" reportings that, by lucky circumstance, (by way of this inherent & systemic bias in favor of ersatz "progressive" trajectory to history) inherently align with the If-your-not-with-the-struggle,-you're-against-it conceit.
  2. 23:16, 13 September 2021 It seems you may be blinded by your own belief system.
  3. 20:53, 17 October 2021 Whatever animus generated by your editorial philosophy's against activist activities self-branded/commented on in news reports as "Stay Woke" ...
  4. 18:01, 19 October 2021 I'm surprised you hadn't removed it (in that I believe that if those with an editing regime similar to the one applied on this page were editing the Cancel culture page much, it wouldn't be able to be found there).
  5. 23:32, 19 October 2021 Whereas I grant that this discussion's voters' ... ad hoc rationales seem arrived at sincerely, I also self-speculate that these same hint at such editors' mistrust that others in general -- if including those not passing some kind of subtle, ideological litmus test -- could "responsibly" handle the ersatz complexity of giving neutral coverage to both left and centrist discourse regarding woke ...
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Firefangledfeathers politely asked HSG on their user talk page to stop accusing people of enforcing some Orwellian "editing regime", but HSG has been unable to let it go. They have kept casting aspersions, accusing others of hidden biases (somehow simultaneously in favor of and against "progressive"/"woke" ideas), ad hoc (read: unprincipled) reasoning, and an "ideological litmus test" when the discussion doesn't go their way. Since HSG "disinvited" me from editing their user talk page, I don't see another option for addressing this kind of disruption but to file an AE request. (See earlier discussion here.) I'm leaving aside for now HSG's apparent inability to write clearly or concisely in discussions (seen above), and their habit of filling talk pages with many quotations from copyrighted sources in lieu of proposals for improvement (example diff).

Informality isn't the problem. The problem is insinuating that other users, including me, are maintaining a non-neutral "editing regime". This is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA (Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, and Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence).
The "Orwell" comments ("The fatal attraction that totalitarian power has for contemporary intellectuals" ... ), which I removed, also imply a comparison to Communist dictators, which is specifically forbidden by WP:NPA.
Regarding HSG's being, in their words, "on the spectrum": Wikipedia doesn't discriminate based on intellectual ability, but some ability to read, follow, and respond appropriately to discussions is generally required to contribute effectively. Having a disability doesn't justify personal attacks when one is in the minority in a content dispute, as in the case of #4 and #5 above. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The example diff contains about 720 words quoted from various copyrighted sources, not 150. Since HSG seems to have stopped doing this, it's not my main complaint. But saying there was no non-involved input is untrue. Firefangledfeathers had already asked HSG on 13 September to stop posting so much material to the talk page because of its bludgeon-like effect. I collapsed the discussion after HSG basically admitted that the material had nothing to do with improving the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Hodgdon's secret gardenEdit

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

Statement by Hodgdon's secret gardenEdit

One quick correction to the filing, however: Something I wrote on the article's Talkpage today I believe is mischaracterized. I actually try very hard to consider things with nuance and I certainly didn't intend for my words -- where I said opposing arguments seemed ad hoc to me -- to imply that I believed them to be lacking, bl*ck-and-wh*te, in principles [sic]; rather, what I meant to convey was that something proposed's gets turned down for complaint X yet after that's successfully addressed, previously-unmentioned complaint Y appears. Something of this nature, while improvisational, doesn't imply for me lack of principles so much as admirably searching for an applicable editorial principle bit by bit rather than having a fully-formed one at the ready.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Every edit I've make to the article recently has been quite promptly deleted (eg mention of MLK's "Remaining Awake During a Great Revolution" wasn't courteously tagged as needing more sourcing, as suggested @ the basic wp:Edit pg, but abruptly removed, my talkpage marshalling of sourcing for a period remaining uncommented upon). I apologize for reacting such via my addressing the deleting editor informally with "you" and can see how this might have impeded reaching possible compromises.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  1. In the complainant's linked edit, I'd quoted merely about 150 words from Zak Cheney-Rice; yet, the complainant uses this same as an impetus to template my talk page within an attempt to impose the complainant's own, unreasonable restriction on copyrighted material on the talk page on me: a move I perceived as gaslighting me by overshadowing the complainant's refusal to respond to the documentation by improperly alleging it should not be posted; and, thereafter, rather than explaining his disagreement with the material, the complainant collapsed the entire discussion and informed me on my talk page, as though the complainant were an uninvolved party, not to engage in allegedly off-topic discussions on the article's talk page. In an effort to forestall continued inappropriate editing of my talk page in this manner (by means of the complainant's failure to obtain non-involved input and perhaps oversight regarding our respective editing POVs), I requested of the complainant to forego further such editing of my talk page.
  1. In the edit that complainant links, the extensive content removed regarding activists' and Twitter's use of the hashtag #StayWoke to publicize their activism (and, in the case of Twitter, of Twitter). I supply amply documentation that these activists used the hashtag in this manner and that the individuals and events involved are prominent (the primary party, the memoirist DeRay Mckesson's, even instructing upon the topic of racial-equality social activism at the U. of Chicago's Institute of Politics; and, the second and third sentences in one source I provided [74] reads, "Woke[ ]gained more popularity amongst non-Black people following the increased visibility[ ]after the Ferguson protests when DeRay McKesson–who often included a 'stay woke' within his tweets–launched a platform literally called Stay Woke").
  1. As another very recent example (one of truly many), the complainant deleted a mass of longstanding content covering woke's influence in the UK, France, and elsewhere in Europe, falsely alleging - albeit in pithy fashion - on the article's talk page that the conception that the term woke's has such geographical reach is POV. Although I very often fail, I sincerely try to be clear in what I write. (Note: I believe I'm undiagnosed "on the spectrum.") By cause of such an intellectual handicap, I find others' applications of editing philosophies confusing and am too quick to see them as mercurial.
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers re HSGEdit

I'll be able to elaborate more another day, but I want to say now that I corroborate the main points of Sangdeboeuf's report. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It's emblematic of the problem that HSG just blew through the 500-word limit. His comments at Talk:Woke have length, copyright, clarity, and civility problems. Sangdebouef has linked some examples of incivility.
For length and copyright, consider this archived section from April. No one else but HSG ever edited the section, but it added about 23,000 bytes and 3,000 words to the talk page. Most of it is quotes from sources, some copyrighted. Particularly egregious is this edit, in which he adds a 700+ word quote from a 2012 book. The word 'woke' is not mentioned anywhere in the section.
HSG claims in his statement that he sincerely tries to be clear. I have no reason not to believe him. That said, some of his comments are needlessly unclear. I might be 60% of the way toward understanding this comment after multiple re-readings. This comment begins with:

Awaiting glosses for a neologism from ostensibly-neutral corporate media/the academy/writers of texts saves from the definitional free-for-all proffered among the commentariat (to wit: professionals' descriptions through multifarious journalistic/academic/political/et al lenses, of the mass ventings of/listening to voices of subjugation currently amplified through ubiquitous, interactive media; and of the distinct-yet-amorphous spirit comprising these voices' genesis (such that individual approaches to definition/applications/when-acceptable-ends-met ad infinitum can end up mutually contradictory

It continues for 300 words. All this after a third opinion from Seraphimblade beginning with "It is difficult to understand what is being proposed. An effort to state it more plainly and comprehensibly might be very helpful toward resolution here."
Requests to change this behavior have not been successful. My ideal remedy here would be a temporary or indefinite page ban from Woke and Talk:Woke. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by PaleoNeonateEdit

Although not a new editor, I was unfamiliar with them (as far as I know the editor has edited in the past with a previous long-abandoned account and some IP addresses and I don't think they were banned, the current account is ~11 years old). I looked at two recent talk pages, Talk:Woke and its latest archive, Talk:Woke/Archive 5. I am somewhat surprised for this apparently experienced editor to regularly ascribe policies to the opinions of particular editors. NorthBySouthBaranof and Sangdeboeuf have to explain the basis of the policy about independent reliable sources and original research to aspersions like:

  • It's quite natural for any of us editors trying to operate mostly from a secular standpoint (eg of the Academy) to undervalue certain works published within whatever devotional framework
  • I'm stunned about the sensitivity to insult here. Being able to use the term "Woke" both admiringly and not-admiringly is ESSENTIAL, both at large and within Wikipedia. It's established that the grassroots movement within Western intelligentsia ...
  • This 'Wikipedia as Wiktionary-lite' ploy works great
  • So since some crew think some /X/ is important so assert /Y/ and so my observation /Z/ must be thrown out? Of course, you are free to believe what but I won't be thus gaslighted.

I note that the effort on Woke has been going on for months, it seems (and all other talk archives have requests). I think that there's also some good faith and effort involved, but a failure to acknowledge when the number of requests or attempts to twist sources and arguments with synthesis to present a particular point of view becomes unreasonable. This may be when impatience shows with statements that question the motives of other editors, rather than moving-on... —PaleoNeonate – 19:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by 力Edit

My sense is that HSG is trying to be helpful at Woke, but has lost the plot in continually suggesting that every mention of the term be added to the article, and now the content disputes have turned into personalized disputes. I endorse Bishonen's page ban. I'm not familiar with this editor otherwise (and most of their edits in the past 6 months are at Woke or Talk:Woke), I don't see cause for a full AP2 block here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning Hodgdon's secret gardenEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is sort of alarming. I don't know if HSG needs a topic ban from American politics or not; I don't have time to research that issue in any depth; but I have taken the time to study Talk:Woke and the history of Woke, with special attention to the examples offered here by Sangdeboeuf and Firefangledfeathers, and, as simple first aid, I have blocked HSG indefinitely from those two pages. Perhaps they can be unblocked pretty soon if they make some undertakings to not waste so much of other people's time. Bishonen | tålk 13:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC).[]
  • My previous (and I think only) involvement with HSG was an equivalent waste of many editor's time trying to get Tara Reade into mainspace - see Draft:Tara Reade, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_May_19#Tara_Reade. The issues here seem quite similar, behaviourally. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Topic ban, Amercan politics, indefinite HSG seems able to contribute constructively in other areas of the encyclopedia. Noting (perhaps a little pedantically, cause I keep writing this) there are ~6,000,000 articles on Wikipedia that would benefit from the amount of effort wasted in this area because of this editor. It couldn't be any fun. This is certainly not an easy area to edit in-- except for creating a few state legislature bio's ages ago, I avoid it. Life's too short to find oneself in conflict editing what is supposed to be a collaborative work. If it ain't fun, don't do it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Noting power~enwiki's apt statement. However, I do not see the page ban as sufficient. (I keep thinking they are an admin.) And I think Dennis Brown's hit the nail squarely. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • To put it blunty, HSG lacks the competence to edit in this contentious area and should be indef topic banned from AP2 areas. Reading the talk page of Woke is enough to demonstrate this. I would expect this would be true for any contentious topic, but AP2 is what is before us. Dennis Brown - 22:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I agree with Dennis here. A topic ban makes sense --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nableezy (part II)Edit

Complaint has been withdrawn. BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions. Sockpuppet claims are best raised at SPI. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

Request concerning NableezyEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 09:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 24 October 2021 Insinuation of sockpuppetry
  2. 24 October 2021 Rejection of declining to make such insinuations in the futur
  3. 12 May 2021 Insinuation of sockpuppetry, objected to as an accusation by User:NonReproBlue
  4. 4 January 2019 Insinuation of sockpuppetry, objected to as WP:ASPERSIONS by User:The Kingfisher
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 12 October 2021 Cautioned to keep to promise to moderate tone
  2. 19 March 2021 Warned to "significantly" moderate their tone.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22 March 2021
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe this is the appropriate location for this, being personal attacks in the ARBPIA area, as well as the fact that the nature and timing of the discussion is likely to dissolve into a mess at ANI, but apologies if I am incorrect.

Nableezy is a prolific sockpuppet hunter, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with how they do it. Rather than carefully gathering evidence to present at SPI, their initial steps are to throw out accusations or pointed insinuations, contributing to an WP:UNCIVIL environment in an already contentious area.

I won't cover them throwing out accusations, as that has been recently discussed in the ZScarpia Case, but I will cover their insinuations. In particular, this was prompted by their recent post on my talk page of Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? - diff #1.

This is a very pointed question, particularly if one is even vaguely aware of their history, one that there will only ever be one answer to, and one that casts aspersions on the editor it is aimed at, particularly as it is presented without evidence. This interpretation is not a fringe one; many editors consider it an accusation and violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, with diff #3 and diff #4 serving as examples of this.

Attempts to voluntarily correct this behaviour has failed; in diff #2 they show that they consider there to be nothing wrong with their approach and if it is appropriate to request remedies I would ask that when it comes to directly or indirectly accusing editors of sockpuppetry in the ARBPIA area that Nableezy is required to do so only at SPI.

User:Seraphimblade it is insinuations of sockpuppetry in the area covered by ARBPIA; this isn't explicitly stated, but it is clear from context, particularly this post made immediately afterwards. If this connection is too tenuous, or if AE requires the issues in question to not be in user space then I apologize; please don't hesitate to close. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There appears to be a strong consensus that I am wrong and the question did not cast WP:ASPERSIONS, and that it is not especially related to ARBPIA. User:Euryalus, I don't know how to withdraw this but if I am allowed to please consider this withdrawn. User:Nableezy, apologies for taking you here, though I would ask that you consider how you might rephrase the question in the future so that the editors it is addressed to take less issue with it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

Discussion concerning NableezyEdit

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

Statement by NableezyEdit

There is in fact more than one answer to the question, a question I think reasonable when this is somebody's first edit. Among the possible answers is yes I used to edit under account X, or I used to edit as an IP and became familiar with the processes and templates, or "no". Asking somebody, one time, a question that allows them to give a reasonable explanation so that I might stop spending my time on something that has some other reasonable explanation is not an "aspersion", it is not an "accusation", and it is not prohibited by any rule or policy. Also not entirely sure how a user with 2436 edits knows so much about my history with socks, but I suppose that is another curiosity I can spend time trying to figure out. nableezy - 13:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by ShrikeEdit

@Seraphimblade: Because all those users are operate mainly in the area and all the aspirations were made regarding the edits in the area --Shrike (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by SelfstudierEdit

It all started at Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes#Recent reverts and then "spread" to Talk:2006 Qana airstrike#NPOV and massacre as well as one or two other articles and is essentially an arcane discussion about whether article altnames (massacres in these cases) should be categorized in addition to main article titles. Then one thing has led to another but this issue shouldn't be here at all, really.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by Zero0000Edit

Asking a question is not casting aspersions. That's just silly. In fact, WP:Sockpuppetry/Notes for the accuser recommends it: "Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations." Zerotalk 12:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment by GoodDayEdit

If one believes that an editor is a sock of another editor. Then he/she should open up an SPI. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by Volunteer MarekEdit

Waitaminute, does anyone here sincerely believe that this BilledMammal (do platypus quack?) is not a sock? Volunteer Marek 18:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning NableezyEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It looks like these conversations were on user talk pages, and I do not see that any of the comments mentioned anything regarding the ARBPIA2 area. Could BilledMammal, or anyone, explain how this is in scope for an arbitration case covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I am finding the presented evidence lacking in that it does not a) show significantly disruptive behavior and b) does not establish how it falls under the scope of the listed arbitration sanction. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • In response to User:Johnuniq, I am agreeing that an examination of BilledMammal's use of AE is relevant and more likely to yield an actionable outcome that the case as presented. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Given the filer's desire to withdraw the case I suggest we close this as withdrawn. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The history of User talk:BilledMammal shows that Nableezy has made four edits to that page, each dated 24 October 2021 and each reasonably expressed and policy-compliant. It is time for a more robust pushback against the use of this page to knock-out opponents. It appears the issue concerns 2006 Qana airstrike and whether it was a "massacre". If an editor wants to say that an airstrike which killed 28 civilians was not a massacre, they need to be prepared to give a straightforward answer if asked whether they have edited with a previous account. There may be no logical connection between that article and the question, but give an answer even if it's to remove the question, and move on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • What Johnuniq said. The comments you raise as evidence are policy-compliant. They are also not especially related to ARBPIA. If you don't have any AE-relevant material to present, suggest you withdraw your complaint. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

NomoskedasticityEdit

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

Request concerning NomoskedasticityEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Gender and sexuality, specifically the consensus required restriction imposed on October 24
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 14:03, 25 October 2021 Nomoskedasticity makes an edit to the lead of Kathleen Stock
  2. 14:21, 25 October 2021 The edit is reverted by Newimpartial
  3. 15:17, 25 October 2021 Nomoskedasticity restores their edit, without building consensus, thereby violating the consensus required restriction
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on October 16, 2021.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nomoskedasticity has claimed the BLP exemption to the CR restriction. The validity of the exemption is the crux of the issue here. Nomoskedasticity feels that it's a BLP violation to say that Stock opposes gender self-identification. I, and others at the talk page, find Stock's own comments, her actions, and interpretations of those by reliable sources to all support the claim. Nomoskedasticity refused requests to self-revert or to consider a discussion at WP:BLPN instead of claiming BLP exemption. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure why Nomoskedasticity continues to hold their view on the definition of gender self-identification. I am not sure I've ever seen anything other than the standard definition of the term. The first few pages of Google, Google News, and Google Scholar results for "gender self-identification" all use the standard (only?) definition. I worry that the CR restriction, implemented to avoid disruptive editing, would be weakened by allowing exemptions when an editor feels some content is "very arguably inaccurate", as Nomoskedasticity does here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Below, Newimpartial is trying again to get Nomoskedasticity to recognize the definition of gender self-identification. They are not the first user to try. It has been deeply disruptive to have a user who disputes that terms mean what they mean, with no evidence. I encourage those uninvolved to review Talk:Kathleen Stock#"opposition to gender self-identification". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I wouldn’t recommend comparing just the one source quote with the three word summary. The summary applies to the whole article, including multiple sources, especially the “Views on gender self-identification”. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have compiled some quotes on Stock's opposition to gender self-id from sources that were in the article as of Nomoskedasticity's first edit in this talk page edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Johnuniq: does that satisfy your request for verification? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Dennis Brown, Seraphimblade, and HighinBC: I am presenting in-article verification of the claim. Can this still be considered a BLP violation? I note that through this whole discussion, the article has continued to state that Stock opposes self-ID in the body, including a whole section dedicated to this view and the responses of others to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Johnuniq: thank you for responding. I don't suppose I can make my case any stronger than this. I continue to feel that no synthesis is happening, with sources, and Stock herself, saying directly that she opposes self-ID. I urge the admins to take a fresh look at the existing evidence. That said, I get the sense that I should be dropping the stick, and I'll only be responding if prompted out of respect for the process here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning NomoskedasticityEdit

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

Statement by NomoskedasticityEdit

I find all of this very puzzling. We do not have sources that help us write that Stock "opposes gender self-identification". What we have is a source that says she opposes "the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters, that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex". This is not obviously equivalent to "gender self-identification". If we say she opposes gender self-identification, we risk misrepresenting her: some readers might think that she opposes people adopting their preferred gender identity. I genuinely don't see why this is hard to understand, nor why we would risk misrepresenting her, especially when all we have to do is stick more closely to the source. I certainly don't see why we must use "opposes gender self-identification" -- i.e., why it is even plausibly better. It's a bit more concise, but very arguably inaccurate. On that basis I think it is actually a BLP violation. Why are we here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Newimpartial's post just below is really worth paying attention to. (Note as well that it was added to the article talk-page after this AE request was made.) It refers to an article from the Economist, with the following quote from Stock: "They want to change the law to allow gender self-identification via an administrative process of self-certification as the only criterion for legally changing the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate." That passage is effective in indicating what Stock's real objection is: use of self-identification "as the only criterion for legally changing the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate." We risk severely misleading our readers if (as proposed by Newimpartial) we try to convey that idea in prose indicating that Stock "opposes gender self-identification". I can't imagine this sort of thing being condoned by admins/arbs: it amounts to misrepresenting the subject of a BLP.
This sort of thing is exactly what has been happening at the Stock article (and no doubt at other related articles as well). It merits close attention.
Now, if admins/arbs tell me that what the other editors are doing is in fact okay per BLP, then of course I'll have to accept it. As things stand, I think a revert rooted in a concern about our BLP policy was exactly the right thing to do -- in fact required. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Other editors are convinced they know "the definition" of gender self-identification. But the article (and in particular the lead) isn't for them. It's for readers who don't already know things. Most not-well-informed readers will not know "the definition" of gender self-identification. We should not risk misleading them by using a term that could easily be taken to refer to the idea that someone might want to adopt a preferred gender identity. It is far from obvious that Stock opposes someone adopting a different gender identity, for themselves. If we use language that potentially gives readers this impression, we misrepresent her -- a BLP violation, surely. And once again there's no need for it: we can (and indeed should) convey a more accurate meaning, especially in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by NewimpartialEdit

As I have noted on Talk, we do indeed have other sources in which Stock also objected to gender self-identification. But that isn't the point, here. The point is that Nomoskedasticity restored their preferred content after objections were raised, while making the bizarre claim that a statement made (and sourced) in the body, and used as the basis for a section heading, was somehow a BLP vio when appearing in the lede. That's what I call WP:CRYBLP, but I'm not posing as an expert.

In fact, as has been pointed out on the article Talk page, Nomoskedicity's version employs quotation marks in such a way that readers might be misled into thinking the lead is quoting the article's subject, when it is actually quoting a source. An unsympathetic observer might interpret that as a BLP vio. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nomoskedasricity, if you don't understand what gender self-identification means, first maybe read Gender self-identification. The term doesn't give rise to any of the problems you seem so vexed about as to pre-empt an Arbitration Enforcement sanction (consensus required). Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Dennis Brown and Johnuniq: the stable text that Nomoskedasticity was warring against was wikilinked to gender self-identification, the first sentence of which explains it as the concept that a person's legal sex or gender should be determined by their gender identity, without any medical requirements. How is this different from the source cited within the article at the time, or the quote Nomoskedasticity inserted from that source? Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Dennis Brown, Johnuniq and HighinBC, you are completely misconstruing the relationship between Stock's writing and gender self-identification. This is not a term that WP editors are somehow imposing on her views; it is a term that she has been using and promoting in her writing, since 2018, in exactly the signification given. Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by Silver serenEdit

By our own definition on gender self-identification, the quote from the article very apparently means the same thing, that "that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex" is the definition. Our article says right on the first line that it means "the concept that a person's legal sex or gender should be determined by their gender identity". Their "legal sex" is the "entitlements" part being referred to in the Guardian quote. I'm sorry, @Dennis Brown:, but you're just completely wrong. And very obviously so. SilverserenC 22:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The used reference is the verification, @Johnuniq:. Dennis has self-contradicted themselves. SilverserenC 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by CrossroadsEdit

Stating "opposition to gender self-identification" (which Nomoskedasticity was reverting away from) is at best very sketchy per WP:BLP, because it is an untruth by omission, as already explained on this page. Sure, the few people who follow the wikilink will have the matter clarified, but that is not a reason to avoid being 100% clear and accurate in the article itself. Efforts to use terminology and euphemisms that are propagandistic and vague are rife in this topic area. Crossroads -talk- 23:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Nomoskedasticity's revert happens after Newimpartial had themselves violated the DS, as I explain in the AE report below. Without that violation by Newimpartial, there would have been nothing by Nomoskedasticity to report in the first place. Crossroads -talk- 00:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by Sideswipe9thEdit

I'd like to address one point that Dennis Brown made. The "institutionalisation" quote is not from Stock. It's sourced from an interview in The Guardian where it is a summarisation of what Stock says she opposes in the words of the interviewer. What Stock is criticised for is wider than this, or the simpler gender self-identification, which I've now raised on the article talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning NomoskedasticityEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I think there is a legitimate claim of BLP exception here. The quote, and the three word phrase, are not the same thing. I'm a bit stumped because it would seem that we would universally prefer a short quote rather than an (over) simplification that is prone to be misunderstood. To be clear, what we are talking about is:

Old text: Her opposition to gender self-identification...

versus the actual quote from the source Her opposition to "the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters, that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex"

Which are clearly two different things. They simply do not mean the same thing, period. To infer she is against "gender self-idenfication" seems improper synthesis, and a legitimate BLP concern given the current state of sourcing. Claiming you saw it once in a book isn't how WP:V works with BLPs. It probably needs to go to the BLP noticeboard, as it may appear to some, that words are being put in her mouth, instead of using her own. Regardless, without citation, it looks like a potential BLP violation, which is an exception for reverting, so I'm not inclined to take action. Dennis Brown - 21:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Firefangledfeathers This isn't a board that ultimately decides content questions, under most circumstances. Speaking solely for myself, I see the shortened version as a BLP violation. I get the feeling that is universal down in this section (although to differing degrees), but I can't speak for others. As it stands, it is an unsourced synthesis of sources that is in conflict with sources we do have. Dennis Brown - 17:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I looked at the given diffs and believe Dennis Brown's statement above. Unless someone can show verification in the article at the time of the disputed edit (verification contradicting Dennis Brown's statement), Nomoskedasticity should be thanked for removing the synthesis. Johnuniq (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I had a closer look at the edit and read through the four (four!) references. I also skimmed article talk but I probably missed anything relevant. I see that ref 3 has the quote that Nomoskedasticity put in the lead rather than "Her opposition to gender self-identification". Perhaps someone added the quote to footnote 3 to explain how an editor arrived at the conclusion that Stock opposes gender self-identification. I don't see why it needs to be explained that such a conclusion would be fine on Twitter but is improper at Wikipedia. Either you find a really reliable source using those words, or you use the words chosen by the professor of philosophy. A complication is that whereas gender self-identification would be well known to a small number of people in the past, it is only in relatively recent years that the term has become widely used. The problem is that there is no guarantee that a source talking about gender self-identification would be referring to exactly what is documented in Wikipedia's article. The BBC ref uses these words: Professor Stock, who recently published a book questioning the idea that gender identity is more "socially significant" than biological sex, completely rejects the claim that she or her work is transphobic. My guess is that there is an intractable problem at the article and a solution would be to topic ban all those who support the use of WP:SYNTH to disparage a living person. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This is a legitimate BLP concern, as it is certainly a potentially controversial claim and the concerns about it being based upon synthesis are well founded. I would give a mild caution to Nomoskedasticity that the snarky tone sometimes exhibited in the discussion could well be dispensed with, and to others here that BLP concerns should not be handwaved away. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • At the time of these edits I had made it clear in the talk notice, edit notice, and a mention on the talk page that BLP still applies and that these exemptions do not override BLP. I agree with the other admins that there was a legitimate BLP concern being addressed here and as such do not see a violation.
Editors are cautioned against synthesis and BLP violations. I will point out that the general nature of discretionary sanctions is that the topic is held to a higher standard, and that even if a specific restriction is not violated that the higher standard restriction is in place for all topics under discretionary sanctions. Please be careful, especially in articles about living people. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Responding to Silverseren, taking the definition of gender identity in our article on the topic and then mixing it with what a source says is a perfect example of the type of synthesis of sources we need to avoid. Not only is it synthesis, it is treating Wikipedia as a reliable source which it is not. Even if both sources were reliable it is not okay to combine them in that fashion. It certainly cannot be used to attribute an opinion to a person beyond what they have actually stated, subjects don't need to adopt and be held to our definitions. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

NewimpartialEdit

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

Request concerning NewimpartialEdit

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Crossroads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Gender and sexuality, especially, but not only, the consensus required restriction imposed on October 24
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

I need to include background edits to properly explain:

  • [76] "Views on", regarding gender identification/self-identification, dates back to October 9.
  • [77] Another editor, whom I'll call B, WP:BOLDly changes it to "opposition to".
  • [78] Another editor, N, rewrites per BLP.

Violations:

  1. [79] Newimpartial reverts N and falsely claims that B's version is the "consensus version", though it had only been in place for 3.5 hours. This is also clearly a reinstatement of a challenged edit, violating the restriction.
  2. [80] Again falsely calls it a "stable version".
  3. [81] Again falsely claims that very same new text without any consensus behind it is in fact "stable text", and does so while at another AE report trying to get another editor in trouble for behavior they themselves had done.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [82]
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 25 October 2021.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a continuation of Newimpartial's same behavior exhibited earlier this month (yes, before the 1RR and CR restrictions, but false edit summaries and BLP violations are always bad, and it shows this is a pattern of bad behavior on the page). This was the actual long-standing version from 17 August to 7 October, but two times the next day, in the midst of a flurry of editing by multiple editors, Newimpartial falsely claims their version with "transgender people" was the "stable version" even though the actual stable version contained no such phrase. Stating that the BLP had gained attention for her views on transgender people (rather than, say, specific policies about gender identification in specific contexts) is unsourced and a BLP violation. Crossroads -talk- 00:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Silver seren, where was this alleged consensus reached? Crossroads -talk- 00:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Newimpartial's first diff does not clearly show four editors in favor, and in any case does not justify the disregard of the rule against reinstating a contested edit so rapidly. The "opposed gender self-identification" that was already in the article, from this diff, then immediately goes on to say in regards to proposed reforms to the UK Gender Recognition Act. That absolutely does not constitute a "stable version" justifying a contextless insertion in the lead. Many of their assertions about the state of consensus are unsupported. Crossroads -talk- 04:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Newimpartial's proposed paraphrase quietly replaces Stock's reference to sex with a reference to gender ("being a man or woman"). Newimpartial is more than familiar enough with this topic area to know that this is a massive difference due to the sex and gender distinction. That is itself a BLP violation - again misrepresenting Stock. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[83]

Discussion concerning NewimpartialEdit

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

Statement by NewimpartialEdit

Concerning the express reason for the filing, the only issue concerning the consensus required restriction is "Violation 1", and the question is whether the version I reverted to had consensus. At the time I reverted, I count four editors in favor of "opposition to" language, and two opposed. Barring an RfC, I interpreted this as consensus - or at least, non-consensus for the "views on" language which had faced continually repeated objections since it was introduced on October 8. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

As far as the "stable version" statements I made (in edit summaries and Talk), I recognize that I have not been as clear as I could be. But the language Stock has opposed gender self-identification has opened a section of the article's main text, without challenge on Talk or in the article's edit history since October 13. The edit that added this language reflected the consensus of a discussion, carried on by several editors in edit summaries and on Talk, concluding that "gender critical" was a value-laden term that could not be used in Wikivoice. Noone subsequently objected to this, so Stock has opposed gender self-identification was (and is) part of the stable version of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Concerning Crossroads' other comments, he has conveniently left out the fact that the "views on ... self-identification" language has been contested - on Talk and by article editors - since it was formulated on October 8, and Crossroads' preferred version has never had majority support, much less consensus. As far as a pattern of bad behaviour on my part, that seems to be part of a pattern of ASPERSIONS towards me that he just can't help. I have sometimes referred to pre-BOLD article versions as "stable" when they were part of a status quo ante but not really "stable", and I have been vague (or confused) about stable content on the body vs. in the lead. I recognise that I should do better in this area. But my edits on Kathleen Stock have never sought any goal other than making the article more true to the balance of all quality RS, to be useful to its readers, and to meet WP:BLP requirements - which do not allow editors, we should remember, to defer unduly to the views of a BLP subject against the language and perspectives of quality RS. Newimpartial (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Concerning Crossroads' latest allegation: first, he makes precisely the misinterpretation I have been warning about - "the entitlements of that sex" isn't Stock's phrase, it is The Guardian's. The key paragraph in the Guardian piece, in my view, is actually Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, says the key question she addresses – itself offensive to many – is this: do trans women count as women? I was no more invoking "gender" in my paraphrase than Stock implying the same when asking if trans women count as women (which she does in both primary and secondary sources; this is not a Guardian artefact). Anyone reading Stock's work will find that she is remarkably consistent in using "woman" as the label for a sex when appropriate - the idea that "woman" always means gender is OR by Crossroads and entirely alien to Stock and her work - in fact, it is a position she argues against directly. Newimpartial (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

HighinBC - I was so preoccupied with the "consensus required" restriction that I emphatically did not violate that, until reading your query, I did not notice the inadvertent 1RR violation that I did make (even for the text I removed where I violated 1RR, there was in fact a consensus from multiple editors to exclude and no prior consensus for inclusion). I have therefore self-reverted. I note that this leaves the article lead with text that is not appropriately attributed (and therefore is likely to mislead the reader) and is in a version where an editor has forced content into the article against a rather explicit consensus. The text that I had removed also violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies by deferring unduly to the subject's own view of the conflict in contrast with mainstream views. But those are content issues, rather than AE concerns, so I won't try to have them adjudicated here. The main point is that I made a mistake re: 1RR and will be more careful from now on. My prior experience with 1RR articles is quite limited, TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Seraphimblade - I completely agree that We must always be cautious and conservative when editing BLP articles, and ensure to always accurately represent the best available sources in a neutral fashion. That was exactly what I was trying to accomplish with my edits, in particular the edit I later self-reverted for my inadvertent breach of 1RR. The quotation inserted by Nomoskedasticity tended to mislead the reader (by not being transparently attributed to the journalistic source), as several editors have noted, and also lacks neutrality in being a paraphrase by the journalist of Stock's interpretation of her position, rather than being a neutral journalistic statement of the controversy, I haven't seen any suggestions that my proposed paraphrase was any less neutral or less accurate than Nomo's version, and it certainly attempted to address the two problems I have outlined here. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by Silver serenEdit

There was a consensus among multiple editors that having a quote that isn't actually a quote from the person was misleading and there was agreement to remove the quotations. However, just removing them would make it a copy-vio, so it would have to be re-written to avoid that. Which Newimpartial did. Are you seriously suggesting he should have left the section as a copy-vio, @HighInBC:? SilverserenC 00:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

You ignored what I said, @HighInBC: There was a consensus on the talk page to remove the quotation marks. Hence, putting it in violation of the copy-vio part of the section you just noted. Therefore, without quotation marks, it needed to be rewritten as a paraphrase of the original quote so as not to be a copy-vio issue. SilverserenC 00:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Statement by (username)Edit

Result concerning NewimpartialEdit

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Setting aside(but not dismissing) the BLP concerns and consensus required restriction for now, I am seeing the removal of the text "gender identity is all that matters, that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex" twice within 24 hours[84][85]. This appears to be a 1RR violation. Newimpartial, can you explain how this is not a 1RR violation? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
In response to Silverseren: A short attributed quote is not a copyright violation. Our non free content criteria says "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, {{Quote}}, or a similar method". The text is within quotation marks and directly followed by the attributing reference. The copyright violation exemption from the 3/1RR rule does not apply. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
What you are describing is not a 3/1RR exemption. I am going to wait for other admins to give their opinion, as well as to allow Newimpartial to respond. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I take the claim that the 1RR violation was inadvertent at face value, it is easy to accidentally violate. The self reversion is appreciated. I am going to wait for more admins to respond before deciding on what response if any this needs. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • One of the reasons I've avoided gender issues until yesterday, never editing or admin'ing those areas, is there is a lot of "Righting of great wrongs" and politics involved, and I have no interest in politics or getting tangled up in them. What we need is more objectivity and less advocacy in a great many articles on Wikipedia, including gender related. As for the merits, they speak for themselves and I offer no opinion. Dennis Brown - 11:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I certainly agree with Dennis Brown that advocacy does not have a place in any article, and even less so in a BLP. I am willing to accept the explanation that the 1RR violation was unintentional, and given the self-revert, I do not believe any action is required in regards to that. However, concerns that the subject of a BLP is being misrepresented absolutely must be taken seriously. We cannot put words in someone's mouth, especially when those words would be extremely controversial. If use of a verbatim quote is necessary to avoid potential misrepresentation, use the quote. BLP does not cease to apply because an individual is controversial; indeed, that is when strict adherence to it is most necessary. I would not apply sanctions at this time, but I also certainly would not rule it out if this type of problem continues. We must always be cautious and conservative when editing BLP articles, and ensure to always accurately represent the best available sources in a neutral fashion. If anyone is too invested in the underlying matter to be able to do that, don't edit the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There certainly was a 1RR violation which I agree was almost certainly inadvertent; the rest of this is a standard attempt to remove an "opponent" from a subject; no action needed. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]