Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:46, 20 December 2021

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

The History Wizard of Cambridge

Blocked for 1 week -Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

[1] Revert of Nug on 21:34, 11 December 2021.
[2] Revert of Volunteer Marek on 22:00, 11 December 2021. Mass killings under communist regimes is under a strict 1RR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[3] Received a 48 hour block for edit-warring earlier this year at Cecil Rhodes on 09:06, 3 April 2021.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 06:29, 10 December 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I explained the discretionary sanctions and asked The History Wizard of Cambridge to self-revert the 1RR violation prior to filing this AE report, deliberately declining to revert it myself or to take any particular stance on the underlying content, but The History Wizard of Cambridge refused to do so.

The History Wizard of Cambridge previously deleted content in two non-consecutive edits on 5 December ([4], [5]) although those edits were not reported here because it was ambiguous whether they qualified as reverts and whether the user was then aware of the discretionary sanctions in effect at Mass killings under communist regimes (notwithstanding the prominent notice that displays whenever editing the page).

Under the former account name of BulgeUwU, which was considered obscene and had to be changed, this user was the subject of an ANI report by Pudeo detailing what other users called "mass POV changes" (Pudeo), "ridiculously blatant POV-pushing" (Ineffablebookkeeper), "deliberate falsification or just incompetence" (Red Rock Canyon), and "improper synthesis" (Fences and windows). Among other things, The History Wizard of Cambridge/BulgeUwU wrote in wikivoice that British historian Robert Conquest (author of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties) "committed plagiarism" using a source that failed verification, after which the user conceded: "Even though the word plagiarism is not used [in the source], I don't know how else to accurately describe [Conquest's] actions."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

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

Statement by The History Wizard of Cambridge

Statement by Paul Siebert

I myself noticed this edit war, and I posted this warning on the talk page. There is a clear 1RR violation here, but before making a decision, two considerations must be taken into account.

First, this edit by @Nug: restored the source that is, according to this RSN discussion is unreliable. In addition, several users ([7], [8]) objected to that. Therefore, the user whom The History Wizard of Cambridge reverted clearly violated consensus. Similarly @Volunteer Marek: repeated the same edit, and that action also was against a consensus.
Second, there is a serious reason to suspect that the opposite party was acting as a tag-team. I believe, many admins are aware of that reason, but if they aren't, I can explain it, either here of by email.

My opinion is that this article has a very bad karma, but we currently are starting to work productively and collaboratively on fixing its problem. Thus, a dispute resolution is currently in progress, and Nug is an important participant in it. I think that AE sanctions will bring unneeded drama, which will immediately create a very toxic atmosphere. However, if admins decide that sanctions are needed, then both warring parties must be sanctioned. In my opinion, a final warning to all parties would be the most fruitful solution.

@RegentsPark: I think you are absolutely right, but in addition to that, I propose to look at the problem that I partially discussed in my previous statement. This article is a focus of interest of two warring groups of users. The 1RR restriction does not prevent an edit war between the groups, as each user in the group only makes one revert in 24 hr. It is easy to see that this type edit war has already begun. The reverts made by The History Wizard of Cambridge are just a part of the long series of reverts and re-reverts made by the two opposing parties: the full history is this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). As we can see, we have a full scale edit war between two parties. More importantly, three users who restore this text are ex-members of WP:EEML. And, in this situation, to block or warn just a single user, who was not patient enough to wait 24 hours, would be the least logical step. It would be a clear signal to all parties: "You may continue your conflict, just try to observe some formal decorum". Therefore, it would be fair to apply additional restrictions prohibiting the execution of the second revert independently on whether the first revert was done by the same user or by another editor. If necessary, I can make it a subject of a separate request. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to ping @Seraphimblade: too, for it seems there are some aspects in this story that he overlooked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the 'tag-team' edit war still continues. I am seriously contemplating a separate AE request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Does the filing party really think that the best way to improve this article, which was the subject of the largest AFD in the history of Wikipedia, is to identify an editor or editors who have violated 1RR and sanction them? I don't think so. I suggest that we warn the reported editor, and advise the reporting editor that this sort of enforcement by clock isn't useful either. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) IP editor

I don't know if uninvolved persons are allowed to comment..if not, my apologies. @RegentsPark: and @Seraphimblade:: I strongly urge you both, as well as any other admins that may happen to review this, to thoroughly read the statements by the editors directly above and carefully consider the entirety of the whole situation here; first of all, 1RR is clearly failing to prevent disruption on this page. 1RR does no good if there are a tag team of 10 (or whatever many) editors each taking their turn to revert once a day! To block one editor for reverting twice against a tag team of editors - who were adding unreliably sourced (per RSN consensus) material, no less (which is not just some frivolous content dispute, mind you, and is a violation of WP:V), is not reasonable. On a final note, I remind all admins reviewing that WP is intended to not be a bureaucracy, that IAR is a core policy intended as a safeguard against situations when the enforcement of the letter of the rest of policy would result in a broken system, as well as a countermeasure against editors, or groups of editors gaming the system. And that's all. Do the right thing! Peace! 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C2:BB5:D65F:F72A (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

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

This is a clear cut 1RR violation, and on highly contentious articles, 1RR is an absolute bright line. I'm also not at all impressed by the failure to self-revert when notified of the issue. I was waiting for the reported editor to respond here, but by now they have had plenty of time to do so. I would suggest a week or so block from editing the article (though not the talk page or any other page, so that discussion may continue), but the point needs gotten across that 1RR means 1RR, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a clear cut 1RR violation that was pointed out and not self reverted. But, I think a warning is probably a better bet than a block. Everybody has a bad moment and the response here seems like one of those. That offending edit was reverted by someone else, History Wizard seems to have taken a cool down break of their own accord, time to move on. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh

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

Request concerning Maneesh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Maneesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:GENSEX

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

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

Explanatory note discussing key points from diff 10

By posting this to AE, after having been notified of the GENSEX DS and (presumably) reading the filing, Maneesh has helpfully announced what to expect if they are allowed to continue editing on GENSEX topics. First, Maneesh denies that the removal of material about trans people from the articles Man and Sex differences in medicine is in scope for WP:GENSEX at all, insisting that doing so is not part it a gender-related dispute or controversy since the edits are focused on biology and medicine, as though the two were mutually exclusive. The idea that removing material about trans people from such articles as Man isn't covered by GENSEX suggests either WP:CIR issues or truly blinding POV, and is, in any event, very likely to continue to produce disruption.

Later, Maneesh makes the unsubstantiated claim that MEDRS in all these cases uses male/female man/woman men/women synonymously (just like the english you read in the news) - that isn't likely to be true, and certainly isn't self-evident. For example, the news I read typically uses male/female and man/woman in context-specific ways: these terms do not always mean the same thing, sometimes including and sometimes excluding various trans identities, and recent MEDRS I have read do the same. While I am not suggesting that Maneesh's POV on this is beyond what is acceptable on WP, the fact that no other perspective about these terms is imaginable to Maneesh makes further disruption inevitable, the longer editing of GENSEX topics is allowed, since Maneesh will keep running up against the site-wide community values embodied in MOS:GENDERID.

A couple of Maneesh's specific explanations are of particular interest. The defense of this edit is The edit does not mention "gender identity" or any delusion, that's all that is needed verify that this complaint is meritless. Whatever Maneesh meant by males or females can identify as males or females or ... alien beings, it represents either WP:CIR issues or deep POV not to recognize that while the comment may not mention gender identity, the most plausible interpretation (from a qualified reader) is that it is a statement about gender identity. Doubling down on the comparison between gender identity and identifying as ... alien beings in an arbitration enforcement discussion is a clear signal that the editor will continue to disrupt the subject matter because they have done nothing wrong.

Maneesh also defends this edit, replacing article mentions of the (standard in recent MEDRS) terms transgender men and transgender women with a notation that some men identify as as women and some women identify as men, later in the same discussion - though strangely the option to identify as alien beings is not proposed. The defense is, Totally appropriate suggestion that invokes the (plural of) the article title and supported by RS provided earlier in this post - I am not saying that such a proposal could not be made, for example by an editor inexperienced in gender-related issues, but to insist on doubling down on this proposal in the context of arbitration enforcement discussion is a classic example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and a very clear promise to continue to disrupt discussions in this subject matter area.

It is difficult enough to edit on sensitive topics without the additional disruption caused by editors who believe that site-wide consensus and civility norms do not apply to them, that their opinions carry more authority than the recent, reliable sources, and that they do not need to enter into meaningful dialogue with other editors because they know better. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory note for diff 11

Trebling down, Maneesh is now insisting that MEDRS consistently use male/female man/woman men/women synonymously, saying How anyone could take NewImpartial's claims seriously beggars belief. This suggests a lack of familiarity with recent MEDRS such as this one, which says, For example, a cisgender woman is a person who identifies as a woman and was assigned female sex at birth (ie, the sex listed on their birth certificate). Yet, people of many genders—women, men, genderqueer, nonbinary, and more—can and do carry pregnancies. Presumably some of the sources Maneesh prefers use women and men in a different sense than this. My statement that these terms do not always mean the same thing, sometimes including and sometimes excluding various trans identities might not be absurd or represent flat-out ignorance of MEDRS and English. Again, the promise of more disruption. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

Discussion concerning Maneesh

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

Statement by Maneesh

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

On WP:GENSEX

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

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

[26]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Crossroads

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

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

2. This removal is absolutely correct and removed WP:UNDUE weight. We don't interrupt every sentence about sex differences on Wikipedia to give a shout-out to transgender and non-binary identities. Even after removal, it said these sex-specific conditions were "mostly" in women even though most medical sources would say "only" in women. Yes, contrary to what Newimpartial claimed on that talk page, it is still the norm in WP:MEDRS to use "women" to refer to adult humans of the female sex. This can be seen by searching Google Scholar for "only in women" or "pregnant women", in quotes, and selecting "since 2021": [35][36] Newimpartial continues to argue tendentiously in that discussion, attacks Maneesh by saying he is playing a shell game, then doubles down and attacks GoodDay, saying, Don't be a mug.

3 & 4. As I explained, it is normal in MEDRS to refer to "men" and "women" in reference to the sexes, so there's nothing POV about these edits. "In female humans" does read oddly and sort of alien. While BRD would have been better, Newimpartial is also guilty of edit warring in the same timeframe as the edits they reported here ([37][38][39]), and against 3 different editors rather than 1, so any "guilt" logically applies to them as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ping RegentsPark.

Regarding Newimpartial's diff 11, Maneesh is correct that the overwhelming majority of MEDRS regularly use "men" and "women" when referring to adults of male and female sexes. [40][41] Newimpartial's "MEDRS" is a cherry-picked article in an open access journal making an explictly "right great wrongs" argument for language reform, among other things. Frankly, the position that in ordinary medical articles we can't simply say "men" and "women" to refer to sex, as the vast majority of people do, without getting caught up in exceptions, is held by very, very few of the authors of MEDRS as shown by how they write, and is therefore WP:FRINGE. And this has been the norm on Wikipedia since the beginning as well, including at sex differences in medicine, as documented at WP:GNL. It is Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th who are being disruptive at Talk:Sex differences in medicine by ignoring that prior consensus and making a huge deal out of a routine additional use of wording that is already on the page (!) and WP:FILIBUSTERing removal of a random shout-out to transgender identity. Literally disrupting good editing. And this sort of obstructionism in transgender articles is rampant. It is very unfortunate to see it spread into medical articles that have nothing to do with gender dysphoria. It is no wonder that an editor would get frustrated when faced with this behavior. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by SMcCandlish

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

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

Statement by GoodDay

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Seraphimblade Maneesh was originally made aware of the sanctions in January 2020 [42]. The diff that Newimpartial used above was my refreshing it as twelve months had passed. Not sure if that changes your view on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with everything Newimpartial has said in their initial analysis. However there is some additional context I'd like to add. My first interactions with Maneesh were reverting two changes they had made to Sex differences in medicine [43], [44] which changed the context of that section as I stated in the talk page [45]. Maneesh's reply to this on the talk page was deeply offensive [46] by stating that Transwomen are obviously also men, adult males. Whenever I attempted to point out to them the inaccuracy of that statement [47], I was accused of religious thinking [48]. Newimpartial has already addressed the brief edit war that occurred on the article where Maneesh refused to acknowledge WP:BRD, which ran concurrent to a discussion on the talk page:

My asking Maneesh to self revert [49]
Maneesh refusing to self revert [50]
My attempt at explaining BRD [51]
Maneesh accusing me of tendentious editing [52]

As part of this exchange, Maneesh invited me to count the number of occurrences of "men" and "women" below each respective title out of the total number of points [53]. However Maneesh then moved the goal posts to synonymous use of men/male and women/female [54] within the MEDRS in the article, before extending it further to the same synonymous use in any news media [55] while simultaneously attacking my English language skills. This is I believe what Newimpartial correctly identifies as the shell game. I stated my objection to this movement of the goal posts [56], however Maneesh doubled down and accused me of falsifying my claim[57].

I'd also like to point out that I am also not the only editor Maneesh has accused of religious thinking or editing [58] in this topic area. I would argue that Maneesh is engaging in some very heavy WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour over the last couple of days at Talk:Sex differences in medicine, Talk:Woman, and possibly Talk:Man. Although I wasn't a participant in Talk:Man so I'll leave summarising that to another editor. In addition to making a generalised battle out of the discussions, Maneesh is also very clearly engaging in an ideological battle by casting aspersions on multiple other editors for editing on "religious grounds". As I said before, I agree with Newimpartial that a topic ban in this area is warranted as it is seemingly impossible to carry out a civil discussion with them to build consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Addendum, @RegentsPark, how can you build a compromise consensus when Maneesh has only a single acceptable outcome for the language choice in the article? [59] Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Admins, based on these diffs [60], [61] would a one way IBAN between Maneesh and Newimpartial (Maneesh at fault) also be warranted in addition to the TBAN? They're very close in content to being the transphobic attack helicopter meme. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Springee

This is a subject area I'm not overly involved with so I can't say I understand all the history. I do think that NewImpartial is too quick to assign -phobia type motives to other editors and too quick to assume their POV is the sky is blue correct one. For example in the [Man] article there was a section outside of the lead that was addressing trans- cases. The material had no citations. NewImpartial felt that was fine and actively removed CN tags. If one looks at the Talk:J._K._Rowling#Bludgeoning_of_D-preference_editors discussion where NewImpartial has been far and away the most active participant. I believe several editors complained of -phobic accusations again. A big issue with many of these topics is they are often very expansive so PROPORTION is critical. I suspect NewImpartial's understandable, good faith interest in trans topics results in a feeling that it's often one of the most critical aspects of any particular topic vs one of many and one that many readers wouldn't find significant. That is fine but they need to understand that others might not agree yet that doesn't mean they are "denying trans people" [62]. Such accusations aren't helpful and certainly come off as POV pushing, especially when combined with bludgeoning talk page discussions. Springee (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update in reply to comments made by Bilorv and I believe a few others regarding the Man article. It was claimed that Maneesh "edit warred against consensus". I don't see that this claim was ever backed by diffs. I don't see it. There was an small edit war regarding content in the article lead. That seemed to be NewImpartial vs other editors and it was clear the current consensus of editors was against NewImpartial and with Maneesh (example diff [63]). Looking at the talk page history of the Man article I see nothing that shows a consensus for this content in the lead was ever established. Springee (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Statement by Aircorn

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

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

Statement by IP editor

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

Statement by Dtobias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Joe Roe:: Another admin saying that merely stating a viewpoint (consistent with the definitions of Male and Female on Wikipedia itself) is inherently ban-worthy. And do you have reliable sources for it being a minority viewpoint? Polls I've seen in both the US and UK show wide variation depending on exactly what question is asked, but often show substantial majorities favoring views that go against the activist positions grounded in "Trans women are women", such as when polls ask if trans women should compete in female sports. [64] [65] *Dan T.* (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

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

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

Statement by Sweet6970

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

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

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

@Maneesh: and @Newimpartial: in particular, but also to anyone else interested in this case: I have started a discussion at WP:NOT. [66] I am proposing a new section Wikipedia is not the Thought Police. I believe that the wording I am proposing expresses what is already Wikipedia policy. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tewdar

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

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

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:Maneesh)

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

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

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

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

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

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

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

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

Statement by OID

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

Statement by EvergreenFir

I'm INVOLVED so I will just comment here.

The question that needs to be asked is:

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

Statement by Bilorv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maneesh

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

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

~~:* Seraphimblade Apparently first notified in January 2020 ([67]). Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

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

~~This and especially this suggests to me that this is an editor who may probably should not be editing in the gender area. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
This is extremely confusing. I read the entire discussion on Talk:Sex differences in medicine and came out of it thoroughly confused. On the one hand, it is true that Maneesh needs to understand that gender identity is a sensitive area and that a light touch, rather than a dismissive one, is the higher road to take. However, it is also true that Newimpartial occupies a rather large part of the discussion, perhaps to the point of bludgeoning. Perhaps, then, that high road is not as easy to take as it looks. I'm not too keen to issue warnings or bans in an area where the behavioral issues are muddy but it does seem to me that the editors participating in Sex differences in medicine (and I mean all of them) need to hash out a consensus on the terminology, shove it up there in the yellow area of the talk page, and then make everyone stick to it. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second diff that Black Kite refers to is definitely problematic and @Maneesh: if you don't see why, then we do have a problem. I get what you're trying to say, but it is generally accepted today that gender identity is not a choice that an individual makes. The implication that it is, which is what your post is making, is unacceptable. If you don't see that, then I agree with Black Kite that you should probably not be editing in this area. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: The usual way is to start an RfC, everyone gives their arguments, and an uninvolved editor closes it with a decision that is then binding, at least in the short term. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Maneesh is digging a deeper hole, I now think a topic ban is necessary. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: While it may be the case that gender identification issues in medical articles need additional thought, the reason why I think Maneesh needs a topic ban is because of their insistence that gender identity is a choice that a person makes (the comparison to basketball players and aliens). That is contrary to accepted practice (as Evergreen Fir cogently states). Gender identification issues in medical articles is a content issue that is best left to the talk page of those articles, and that was my initial reaction, but the doubling down on the choice issue is a problem and we can, and should, topic ban an editor for their inability to conform to acceptable norms. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dtobias: Maneesh is welcome to hold whatver views they like but they are in the process of being topic banned for repeatedly doubling down on an unacceptable on. Once is forgiveable. But repeatedly? Note that there was absolutely no need for Maneesh to make this "choice" argument in the first place and to keep on pushing it is either a deliberate action of some sort or they just don't know when to stop. In either case, a topic ban is the minimum required action.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After reading everything, I would support a topic ban here for Maneesh --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads: If you want to discuss Newimpartial's conduct, please open a new AE thread or request an ArbCom case. I suggest that you skip the evidence that is more than a month or two old since it is not actionable at AE -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: Boomerangs work when there is much more limited content. This thread has passed that by -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am recusing from this. I will let other admins who will presumably be more immune from various insinuations deal with this. I will say that I don't believe that Wikipedia is currently dealing with the problems in the field of transgender issues very well at all, and we may probably need to go back to ArbCom at some point before it gets to the point that the Wikipedia environment gets too hostile for those with certain POVs. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bringtar

Not actionable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Bringtar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bringtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIP

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

11 December: Wants to apply WP:BLPCAT on a person who died centuries ago.
11 December: rejects his own edit summary by telling "it removed due to failed verification and not because of BLPCAT" but the added sources supported the information
11 December: Falsely claims other user is vandalizing. See WP:NOTVAND.
11 December: When presented evidence of his wrongdoing, he removes discussion with edit summary: "removing false claims and lies".
11 December: Edit warring to restore misrepresentation of sources and BLP violations.
11 December Files a disruptive SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgethedragonslayer in retaliation.
12 December: Adds a name on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism in violation of WP:BLPCAT; the article does not mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism".
12 December: Same as above.
13 December Edit wars when above additions are reverted in violation of WP:BLP and shows his lack of understanding of WP:LINKVIO.
13 December: Adds a quotation to establish a conversion but the quotation does not verify his claim.
13 December: Same as above; quotation does not verify conversion.
13 December Edit wars to restore another name by adding 2 sources, none of which mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism", thus violating WP:BLPCAT again.
13 December: Restores his another BLPCAT violation when neither sources confirm the subject's admission of conversion from Hinduism to Christianity.
13 December: Showing lack of WP:AGF by alleging me of "using WP:LINKVIO at your whim".
14 December: Edit warring to restore his misrepresentation, LINKVIO and BLP violations with edit summary: "undo disruption"
14 December: Engages in WP:IDHT by repeating himself and shows his failure to understand WP:LINKVIO. Claims that there is no LINKVIO violation because the "youtube video is not uploaded here" on Wikipedia. See WP:CIR.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [68]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The above diffs are recent and they show that the user does not understand that who is alive and who isn't, what the sources say, what is a personal attack, what is a WP:LINKVIO and the importance of WP:SECONDARY sources. While the user shows a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLPCAT on the mentioned articles above, he happens to be strict about the policies when the article's main subject happens to be opposite.[69] This shows intended POV pushing.

The user is an WP:SPA with whom, together with several other editors, I have already tried enough to guide on the basics of Wikipedia for months[70] but this user is unwilling to learn. Given the continued display of WP:CIR and battleground mentality, I have zero hopes with this user. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [71]

Discussion concerning Bringtar

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

Statement by Bringtar

Statement by Vice regent

I don't see how this is an India-Pakistan issue. There have been some problematic editing at List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, where all sides have made bad edits: some have added insufficiently sourced content while others have removed sufficiently sourced content. If you click on those histories, you'll see half a dozen additional parties to this dispute (besides OP and Bringtar).VR _talk 19:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bringtar

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

This is a religion not an India-Pakistan issue. I will close this in 24 hours if there are no objections from other AE admins --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined every diff, but this does look troubling. Should it be moved to ANI instead of closed? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

probably. I think all of the Conversion to X articles need some sort of look at them due to how they are used to further disputes -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I had some involvement in this (as an admin) and I note that the person who is edit-warring with Bringtar is the filer, and I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area. I would simply decline this unless there's a socking issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barecode

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

Request concerning Barecode

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Lmharding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Barecode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAP2

@Barecode: doesn't seem to know how to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop WP:FORUM. Source [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] There's a difference between civil, useful conversation and WP:CANVASSING with long rants. He also shifts blame when someone tells him to cool it[78] Lmharding (talk)

(Replying to Ivan VA) I'm not a scorned editor as you are implying. In fact, I have been uninvolved in those conflicts until I saw that Barecode was spamming and making a mess of things. I'm just a fellow Wikipedia editor with valid concerns that Bare is spamming and canvassing fringe theories. I ask to to please not tie me into the group of editors he was feuding with. That has nothing to do with this request. Thank you. Lmharding (talk)

That is a personal attack which is also not allowed. Maybe you aren't here to build an encyclopedia since you seem to keep being uncivil Barecode. Lmharding (talk)

Replying to Neonate) A topicban might be a valid option, if the WP:CIR, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOPOV, and other issues hadn't been pointed out. Those would have to be addressed first. That only works if Barecode won't be back here in a couple weeks with other core issues. A WP:TOPICBAN would 100% be required either way. Lmharding (talk) Recinding due to possible meat and other questionable stuff User:Barecode did, pushing again for a site ban see this [79] may count as WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK Lmharding (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: *@Doug Weller: noting how Ivan also responded in first person to a comment made towards Barecode, will he also get banned as an obvious WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT account or is that insufficient evidence? Lmharding (talk)! 13:23, December 20, 2021 (UTC)‎

Discussion concerning Barecode

Statement by Barecode

Lmharding - please excuse me, I don't know exactly if I'm allowed to post here and if yes, then where can I post. Please move my message where necessary - or remove it if that's the case. This is a clear attempt to shut down editors who dare to disagree with the political views of other editors. In my view, there is a liberal bias at Wikipedia, there is a liberal bias in the media and there is a liberal bias against Glenn Greenwald. Simply because I dared to talk about it, a lot of editors got upset. Especially one editor reacted very aggressive. I answered before on my talk page about the forum shopping accusation: on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The bias of the liberal media - it's already stopped. On Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Independent_journalists - this is where I started to talk about Greenwald then I moved to WP:RSN. The people kept pinging me there and I assumed I can answer them. At Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Reliability_and_Credibility I asked for helping me to understand - I asked the difference between reliability and credibility. And at WP:RSN#RfC on Glenn Greenwald I was struggling to close that conversation and to start a RfC. I'm sorry to disagree but I wasn't forum shopping. If you mean that by answering to people's pings in a conversation that was not closed is WP:DROPTHESTICK then either you are wrong, or that policy is completely wrong. At Wikipedia talk:Verifiability I was asking why certain statements can't be added in the articles about WP:SPS. Is that wrong? I wasn't asking for a revert, I wasn't asking to change the policy, I was asking for clarifications and I suggested to add more clarifications in the policy or a guide or an essay. Again that aggressive editor tried to bully. I understood why this policy is that way, I made that clear, I lost interest to continue, I also made it clear and I left the conversation before it was closed, I didn't even bothered to check the last three replies. I made it clear that I am ready to respect the rule. Then Alexbrn decided that there is actually a problem, that somehow I don't get it. I don't get what? Can anyone explain? It's not enough that I want to respect the policy? What else is required? What else do I have to get? Do I have to inoculate deep in my mind and in my soul a strong belief in that policy? Maybe I have to even worship Wikipedia? Is that what I'm doing wrong? And then he asked if there is any admin to "put me on a better path" - which I suppose means banning me. Again: I wasn't asking for a revert, I wasn't asking to change the policy and I did not open a closed discussion I posted until certain editors made it all clear and then I left. This is a clear attempt of bullying and an attempt to shut down the editors who dare to think different. -- Barecode (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lmharding - What kind of fringe theories you think I am trying to promote? The claim that Wikipedia has a liberal bias? Is that a fringe theory? Or maybe you mean one single wrong edit at Project Veritas is already a proof that I am promoting fringe theories? In that case, you just want to make sure and therefore to ban an editor for making a single error? -- Barecode (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lmharding claims that I am gulity of "shifting the blame" simply because I dared to answer to accusations and to set the record straight. Yes, kafkaesque indeed. Throwing all kind of absurd accusations at someone who dared to say that Wikipedia is president-friendly. -- Barecode (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia suggests that my claim of liberal bias in the media is somewhat fringe and toxic when actually respectable sources talk about such a bias. Then they suggest that the fact that I disagree with something at Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory means some kind of toxic complaining. Then they falsely claim that I want Glenn Greenwald's work to be considered a reliable source. In reality I wanted a RFC for deciding if indeed Glenn Greenwald is totally unreliable and having zero credibility as was claimed before. And then then my fatal error is the fact that I made an error at Project Veritas and then I dared to ask clarifications at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability - which they describe as "involved" like it was something wrong to ask questions. It's impossible not to note the how quickly some editors jump on lambasting me. And all that because I dared to say Wikipedia and the media is too friendly with the "dear leader". Their reaction is indeed exactly the kind of reaction you can expect from the people who love the "dear leader". Intimidation, bullying plus absurd and fuzzy claims. Indeed, distinguished colleagues, that's how things work in North Korea - you are "toxic" and you should be removed if you dare to disagree with those who love the "dear leader" -- Barecode (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq - Of course it was a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. It is my error and I admit it. -- Barecode (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn claims the problem is not the way I act, but the problem is deep inside my mind - "I simply don't get it" and therefore I have to be banned for what I think, not for my edits. I wasn't warned at WT:V (except by him trying to bully), other editors explained me the policy and then I understood and I then I left that conversation. After I left, he came to claim that "I didn't get it" and I should be banned. What I exactly I didn't get, Mr. Alexbrn? Can you actually bother to explain what you mean by that? Instead of throwing fuzzy accusations can you actually articulate something intelligible? You also jump to trying to intimidate Ivan VA because somehow "it looks like" there is a problem there too - therefore whoever you don't like must be removed. I feel disgusted that I even have to comment such a violent behavior. -- Barecode (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate - Sorry to disagree but I debunked the forum shopping accusation in the first message here (you can read it above). Repeating a baseless accusation does not make it true. -- Barecode (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean - Sorry it was late and I misread Johnuniq's question. I read it like "if not, then why not". I understand the policy as I said from the very beginning at WP:V - what I was asking was why it is like that. I think Wikipedia is the place where you are not expected to simply obey the rules without any question. I think Wikipedia should be the place where any policy can be disseminated and a place where questions about policies are allowed. And I understand very well why the policy is like that: A media outlet is not allowed to quote an allegation about a person without publishing the other side of the story (Right of reply). This recent video explains it. Therefore Wikipedia can quote defamatory allegations only from Reliable Sources, which give a voice to both parties: to the attacker and also to the attacked. Once the accusation was published by the Reliable Sources, only then Wikipedia can quote such accusations. But quoting such accusations from unreliable sources (like for example self published sources), which do not give a voice to the other party, can put Wikipedia at risk of being sued - and therefore is a serious violation of the Wikipedia's policy - because such edits can create serious problems for Wikipedia. That is why I believe such edits are a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy. If my explanation is not good enough then please let me know and I will search into the policies and I will come with the right quotes - as I did at the very beginning when I started the whole conversation about it. -- Barecode (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan VA - Thanks a lot for your support! Yet by insisting Glenn Greenwald should be formally considered a reliable source you make things worse for me. That's not exactly what I claimed. My point is that Wikipedia silences all those who give Glenn Greenwald a voice and also another point is that Glenn Greenwald is a credible as a journalist and as a person - which is technically different from Wikipedia's reliability requirements. According to Wikipedia policies, Glenn Greenwald doesn't meet the requirements to be considered RS. To consider him RS Wikipedia would have to make an exception for him. Therefore Greenwald is a reliable source for me as a person but not as an editor. The fact that he is not RS according to WP policy is something very different than attacking Glenn Greenwald and portraying him as having no credibility, as many editors here do - and to which I disagree. I think you make a confusion by not separating these two issues: It's one thing to stand against those who claim Greenwald has no credibility and it's another thing to ask for an exception to be made for Greenwald. I support the first but I don't believe asking for an exception is worth since the problem is somewhere else - Wikipedia is president-friendly. For those who find such a claim outrageous I can say: if I try to prove it, you try to silence me before I can even show the facts. What you are doing is to try to silence the people who dare to disagree. You transform Wikipedia into a North-Korea-like place, in your woke fight for righteous justice. -- Barecode (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hemiauchenia

I first noticed Barecode when he posted a 7,000 byte unactionable diatribe to the RSP talkpage on the 5 December complaining that the liberal media were "biased", [80]. Since then, they have complained about Wikipedia's "biased" coverage of the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory (see Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory) and argued against the view of everyone else that Glenn Greenwald's self published work should be considered a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_361#RfC_on_Glenn_Greenwald. They were most recently involved in the thread Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_and_their_claims_about_third_parties which I understand involved Barecode adding BLP violating content to the Project Veritas article which was oversighted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivan_VA

Barecode just rebelled against a quite clear violation of standard editing rules, where a group of editors decided to ban a credible article source just because the sources political views didn't match their owns'. It's a screaming injustice, violation and deterioration of editing standards. All the user did was trying to have a meaningful debate. Now the incriminated are trying to ban the messenger. This process here will be kafkaesque. --Ivan VA (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Ivan VA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Alexbrn: U dare to call me a POV warrior, having more in depth and extensive written articles than u have. My contributions to the project speak for themselves, if we wanna start from this. As i said b4 up there, this is going to be a kafkaesqe one. U obviously aspire the role of the inquisitor. --Ivan VA (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So Barecode just admitted that he and Ivan are a pair of socks of each other, permaban both. It's the right way forward. Lmharding (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

I've only just realised Barecode is the same editor behind a recent Glenn Greenwald RfC[81] in which they didn't seem able to "get" the WP:PAGs, instead wielding a WP:STICK. That was pretty bad, but the edits at WT:V were worse, as the same kind of not getting-it and stick-wielding were accompanied by repeated serious BLP problems (now suppressed), ignoring what other editors in that thread were warning about. Smells like another AP2 POV-warrior on a mission to prove some kind of WP:POINT about Wikipedia. Don't know how the community usually handles such cases but maybe an AP2 TBAN might let us see if Barecode is truly WP:HERE? (Oh, and from the comments of Ivan VA above, it looks like there's a similar kind of problem there.) Alexbrn (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barecode: with this you rather prove the point. The problem is not what you might "think" but what you're doing on Wikipedia, but it's true that may be because you lack competence. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivan VA: Admittedly, I only suggested you were a likely POV warrior on the basis of your contribution to this AE. But now I check out your slender contribution to the Project[82] I see you condemn yourself:[83]

I'm willing to fight a crusade for that. And if i fail, there needs to be a battle on the record the way en.wiki seized to be an encyclopedia.

So it seems what we may be seeing, from both these editors, is an attempt at WP:SBA so they can whine about their Wikipedia martyrdom in some other forum. But it's not martyrdom, it's just boredom for the rest of us, tired of predictable AP2 silliness. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: The project isn't just the english version of it. It also includes other language versions, and meta. With identical, if not -same- editing rules and standards. The meter also doesnt count articles created by me translated onto this wiki by others. If u werent so absorbed into ignorance u would have found what u have not been looking for. Speaking from your wast reservoir of editorial experience in writing in depth articles. As for I'm willing to fight a crusade for that. u clearly dont understand metaphors, its quite simple to understand. Im into enlightenment enough to bother to explain u. As for the merit, i dont see ure bored at all, if u were u wouldnt bother. All i see is a shallow attempt to ad hominemize a clear and blatant violation of editorial standards coz of some higher purpose. --Ivan VA (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

I first noticed Barecode when participating at an RFC on December 8th and although I didn't get up to date with all recent talk page discussions, some WP:FORUM-style posts at least going back to the 3rd were visible, like this. I then made sure that they were aware of the AP2 DS situation and reminded them of NOTFORUM. We had a bit of friendly user talk page chat that I didn't pursue. It however appears that the need to push questionable primary sources and to WP:SOAPBOX escalated to various noticeboards and policy talk pages. They were carefully explained policy with links multiple times during multiple discussions and warned of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. For some reason this persists. A recent incident involves promoting some claims of Project Veritas (a WP:BLPSPS issue with a terrible source) without recourse to reliable secondary sources (necessary for WP:WEIGHT evaluation and independent RS analysis that WP has to reflect per WP:NPOV). —Paleo Neonate – 03:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan_VA: Your statement would be more credible if you were not also arguing against policy here, if Wikipedia was a free speech platform for political opinions, a place to promote the claims of unreliable sources, or a democracy (WP:NOT). This cannot distract from the above-mentioned facts... —Paleo Neonate – 03:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: Barecode can edit more successfully in other areas (example) suggesting that a topic ban may be a better idea than a siteban. —Paleo Neonate – 04:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Generalrelative

Barecode isn't doing themselves any favors by referring to criticism as violent behavior and comparing Wikipedia's culture to the government of North Korea. Yes there are many who believe that left-leaning biases in the media and on Wikipedia exist, but it takes a special level of disconnection from reality to insist that Joe Biden commands some sort of cult-like following à la Kim Jong Un. Generalrelative (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

Barecode, Johnuniq asked two questions ("Do you now think it was? Briefly, why or why not?"). You have answered the first one, but we'd like to see your answer to the second one: "Briefly, why or why not?" was your edit a "serious BLP violation". We need to know if you actually understand the BLP policy.

BTW, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Self Published Sources and their claims about third parties, you should have provided an answer there, but you never did. -- Valjean (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Barecode

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

@Barecode: I've had a quick look at most of the links above but have not formed an opinion about whether there is a sanctionable problem. I'm more interested in recent edits and noticed User talk:Barecode#BLP violation which concerns an edit on 18 December 2021 at Project Veritas that has now been suppressed. Without repeating whatever was in that edit, would you please outline how you would respond to the message on your talk. The claim is that your edit was a "serious BLP violation". Do you now think it was? Briefly, why or why not? Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the feeling that an indef NOTHERE block is the only way forward. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the above and their posts elsewhere, I agree that an indefinite block is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Thinking about this since I posted above, it's my opinion that User:Dtobias should also at the minimum be topic banned.~~ I see I've been asked about User:Ivan VA. I don't think they are a sock as they were asked for help by Barecode on their sr-wiki talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Oops, came here to reply to Ivan VA with the thought of also saying a tb for someone in another AE request and put both here. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Could u please, for the sake of ending this, explain me why Glenn Greenwald isn't a reliable source in the article about Hunter Biden? U would save all of us a lot of time. As for this pulling blocks outta thin air, u also have to explain how did the incriminated user deserve an indefinite block. --Ivan VA (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support an indef not here block for Barecode. I'm open to one for Ivan VA as well. @Doug Weller:, did you mean to comment about Dtobias in the Maneesh section? --RegentsPark (comment) 16:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I've corrected that. @Ivan VA: please use your own section - content issues aren't relevant here. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 576: / Line 576: @@
 : {{u|PaleoNeonate}} - Sorry to disagree but I debunked the forum shopping accusation in the first message here (you can read it above). Repeating a baseless accusation does not make it true. -- [[User:Barecode|Barecode]] ([[User talk:Barecode|talk]]) 04:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
+: {{u|Valjean}} - Sorry it was late and I misread Johnuniq's question. I read it like "if not, then why not". I understand the policy as I said from the very beginning at WP:V - what I was asking was why it is like that. I think Wikipedia is the place where you are not expected to simply obey the rules without any question. I think Wikipedia should be the place where any policy can be disseminated and a place where questions about policies are allowed. And I understand very well why the policy is like that: A media outlet is not allowed to quote an allegation about a person without publishing the other side of the story ([[Right of reply]]). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aP7FE0ws0s&t=172s This recent video explains it]. Therefore Wikipedia can quote defamatory allegations only from Reliable Sources, which give a voice to both parties: to the attacker and also to the attacked. Once the accusation was published by the Reliable Sources, only then Wikipedia can quote such accusations. But quoting such accusations from unreliable sources (like for example self published sources), which do not give a voice to the other party, can put Wikipedia at risk of being sued - and therefore is a serious violation of the Wikipedia's policy - because such edits can create serious problems for Wikipedia. That is why I believe such edits are a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy. If my explanation is not good enough then please let me know and I will search into the policies and I will come with the right quotes - as I did at the very beginning when I started the whole conversation about it. -- [[User:Barecode|Barecode]] ([[User talk:Barecode|talk]]) 17:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
+: {{u|Ivan VA}} - Thanks a lot for your support! Yet by insisting Glenn Greenwald should be formally considered a reliable source you make things worse for me. That's not exactly what I claimed. My point is that Wikipedia silences all those who give Glenn Greenwald a voice and also another point is that Glenn Greenwald is a credible as a journalist and as a person - which is technically different from Wikipedia's reliability requirements. According to Wikipedia policies, Glenn Greenwald doesn't meet the requirements to be considered RS. To consider him RS Wikipedia would have to make an exception for him. Therefore Greenwald is a reliable source for me as a person but not as an editor. The fact that he is not RS according to WP policy is something very different than attacking Glenn Greenwald and portraying him as having no credibility, as many editors here do - and to which I disagree. I think you make a confusion by not separating these two issues: It's one thing to stand against those who claim Greenwald has no credibility and it's another thing to ask for an exception to be made for Greenwald. I support the first but I don't believe asking for an exception is worth since the problem is somewhere else - Wikipedia is president-friendly. For those who find such a claim outrageous I can say: if I try to prove it, you try to silence me before I can even show the facts. What you are doing is to try to silence the people who dare to disagree. You transform Wikipedia into a North-Korea-like place, in your woke fight for righteous justice. -- [[User:Barecode|Barecode]] ([[User talk:Barecode|talk]]) 17:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Hemiauchenia====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 17:46, 20 December 2021

The History Wizard of Cambridge

Request concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

Discussion concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

Statement by The History Wizard of Cambridge

Statement by Paul Siebert

Statement by Robert McClenon

Statement by (uninvolved) IP editor

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge

Maneesh

Request concerning Maneesh

Discussion concerning Maneesh

Statement by Maneesh

Statement by Crossroads

Statement by SMcCandlish

Statement by GoodDay

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Statement by Springee

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Statement by Aircorn

Statement by IP editor

Statement by Dtobias

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

Statement by Sweet6970

Statement by Tewdar

Statement by Mr Ernie

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:Maneesh)

Statement by Aquillion

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Statement by OID

Statement by EvergreenFir

Statement by Nableezy

Statement by Bilorv

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Maneesh

Bringtar

Request concerning Bringtar

Discussion concerning Bringtar

Statement by Bringtar

Statement by Vice regent

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bringtar

Barecode

Request concerning Barecode

Discussion concerning Barecode

Statement by Barecode

Statement by Hemiauchenia

Statement by Ivan_VA

Statement by Alexbrn

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Statement by Generalrelative

Statement by Valjean

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Barecode

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.