Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive293

WikiMonitor2021
''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 WikiMonitor2021

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 21:51, 1 September 2021 With misleading edit summary, restores material previously objected without consensus
 * 2) 12:37, 2 September 2021 Restores material previously objected without consensus
 * 3) 13:05, 2 September 2021 Restores material previously objected without consensus
 * 4) 09:25, 3 September 2021 Restores material previously objected without consensus, also a 1RR breach
 * 5) 11:44, 3 September 2021 The most problematic diff of all is a talk page post. Comments such as I write about the Troubles in a blog and post comments on social media regarding the Troubles, Irish politics, crime and terrorism etc, so obviously a number of politicians and journalists who follow me, will be intrigued by my commentary regarding my Wikipedia experiences this week and If you don't wish to respond, that's fine, but a lack of a suitable response, or a non-response will mean that people will have to reach their own conclusions about this page and your editorial decisions and motivations. By the way, I have a number of screenshots of the Claudy page and I have everything copied onto a Word document are designed to have a chilling effect.
 * 6) 19:23, 3 September 2021 Further talk page post with I have posted a screenshot on social media, to provide some context about your editing on Wikipedia and I think this is a public interest story that should be dealt with externally, on social and news media.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

na

Notified
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

Additional diff added. FDW777 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning WikiMonitor2021
''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 WikiMonitor2021
Hello everyone, thanks for joining in. I'm currently discussing this matter on social media, so your input will be appreciated. I write / blog about politics, crime, terrorism on the island of Ireland. This includes the Troubles. The type of people who read my work include politicians, journalists, experts on crime / terrorism. I (and other people) are curious as to why the names of the nine people killed in the Claudy bombings have been removed twice by FDW777. Names of victims are on other Troubles related pages (Such as Bloody Friday), so the intentional deletion on the Claudy page is inconsistent with accepted practice on other Wikipedia pages. It also creates the impression of politically motivated editing / deletion. Clearly this does not help the reputation of Wikipedia, as it puts a question mark over the credibility / reliability of content and the motivation of editors. So...would anyone like to comment? Could FDW777 also explain why another Wikipedia user was praising his work on the Provisional IRA? In light of the fact that FDW777 is delating the names of victims of an IRA bomb attack, this seems rather sinister. Thanks in advance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMonitor2021 (talk • contribs)

Statement by Thryduulf
The combination of username and behaviour here is giving me very strong feelings that this user might be a sock of someone previously banned from this topic area. I couldn't tell you who, or even precisely why I feel this way, and so can provide no concrete evidence of anything (which is why I'm posting in this section). does this ring any bells for you? Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning WikiMonitor2021

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


 * Just a little reply to Thryduulf, not an opinion on the report, as I'm pretty unfamiliar with the area: there's an impression, certainly. I've asked them whose sock they are. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC).
 * and is fairly straightforward harassment. Any objections to a quick indef?  ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections, and I have now done so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Arqamkhawaja
''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 Arqamkhawaja

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 09:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan


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

n/a
 * 1) 06:31, 31 August 2021 Moves the disambiguation page Kashmir Premier League (it eventually ended up at Kashmir Premier League Topics
 * 2) 06:38, 31 August 2021 Back at Kashmir Premier League (which was a redirect thanks to the page move) performs a copy and paste move from Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan) (that circle is completed here
 * 3) 08:23, 31 August 2021 Restores the new redriect from Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan)‎ to Kashmir Premier League
 * 4) 08:24, 31 August 2021 Removes my G6 speedy deletion request that's trying to sort out their mess
 * 5) 11:08, 17 August 2021 Several consecutive edits removing Ahmadiyya from Outline of Islam
 * 6) 06:54, 18 August 2021 Amends a section heading to read Ahmadiyya (Ahmadis are not Muslim)
 * 7) 06:57, 18 August 2021 Removes "Islamic" from the Ahmadiyya article
 * 8) 07:06, 18 August 2021 Removes "Islam" and "Muslim" from the Ahmadiyya founder article
 * 9) 07:16, 18 August 2021 Removes "Islam" and "Muslim" from an Ahmadiyya related article
 * 10) 06:17, 31 August 2021‎-10:57, 31 August 2021‎ Entire history of Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation (detailed explanation in comments]
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Notified Obviously a simple copy and paste move itself isn't a sanction-worthy problem, but given the disputed status of Kashmir, it is a problem if the Pakistan page is moved to Kashmir Premier League while leaving Kashmir Premier League (India). Although they seem to have stopped their Ahmadiyya related disruption, thought it sensible to bring it up here to show there's been wider issues than just the one page move.
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Detailed explanation on the final diff, or article hisotry to be precise. On 12 August they created Draft:Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation, which was declined as a submission on 15 August (which of course they've just resubmitted without any changes at all, sigh). To sidestep this, we have the following.
 * 06:17. Moved page from Keran, Azad Kashmir to Keran, Neelum Valley (I don't have any position on this move, it's what happens next that's the problem
 * 10:53. Moved the subsequent redirect from Keran, Azad Kashmir to Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation
 * 10:56. Removes the redirect and creates a new article about the foundation. This might, and I only say might as I still think it's totally inappropriate, have been acceptable if there was any connection between Keran and the foundation, but they appear to have no connection whatsoever.
 * I was tempted to take this latest stunt to ANI, but it probably makes sense to keep the discussion in one place. FDW777 (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I realise this seems to be heading in one direction only and this might be redundant, but the more I see from this editor the more I think they don't have the competence to edit Wikipedia. I didn't delve too deeply into their editing history or the history of their talk page, if I had I'd have seen this edit adding an unreferenced date of birth to an entertainment related article, and their reply of "Shivaji Satam was born on April 1950.it was true" to a warning about this edit sets alarm bells ringing. And since this report was filed, they've made another incompetent page move. The disambiguation page at Javed Iqbal lists two judges, so an additional disambiguator than just "judge" is used for both of them. Despite this, they moved one of them to "Jawed Iqbal (Judge)". FDW777 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Arqamkhawaja
''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 Kleuske
I came across this user during their exploits in Kashmir Premier League and Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation. I concur with MrsSnoozyTurtle (See AfD nom) that Arqamkhawaja is WP:GAMING the system, and for that reason, I do not think topic bans will suffice, since the users behavior trancends POV editing and out-of-control content disputes, but goes well into disruptive territory. For that reason, I would have preferred an AN/I case, but the problems are well summed up, here. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Arqamkhawaja

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


 * And never an edit summary. Arqamkhawaja is clearly here mainly for the purpose of furthering their agendas concerning Kashmir, as well as concerning Islam. My first instinct was to block them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, but I see they have also sometimes edited harmlessly and/or helpfully on sports and entertainment pages. A T-ban from WP:ARBIPA subjects (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan) would in practice also prevent this editing, since they apparently (and understandably) are only interested in IPA-related sports and entertainment. Thus it would be tantamount to an indefinite site block. So perhaps a time-limited block instead? One month? Or a bespoke T-ban from anything related to Kashmir, broadly contrued, plus anything related to Islam? I'd foresee difficulties with grey areas and with enforcement of such a T-ban, though. We do tend to waste a lot of time tailoring and enforcing these bans. But edits such as the Kashmir-related move warring, or this, are absolutely terrible, and something should be done. PS,, I see you are editing. Do you not want to respond to the charges here? There's a special section with your name on it above, for you to use if you like. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC).
 * I agree that some action is needed to prevent the disruption here. Perhaps a way to do it might be a topic ban from Kashmir and Islam both broadly construed, except on pages related to sports and entertainment (including related people). Plus a warning that any non-neutral editing in the exemption areas can be dealt with immediately by any uninvoled admin by removing the exemption. While it allows a fairly large hole in the sports and entertainment area I expect that, if there is non-neutral editing in these areas, Arqamkhawaja will be reported to AE (or any admin knowing the background) fairly quickly. It's effectively a last chance before removing the ability to edit completely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a serious problem here that needs strong action. Some of their sports edits are good, so a simple ARBIPA-scope tban could be too broad. But as the Kashmir Premier League aspect highlighted by FDW777 demonstrates, even some of their sports edits are part of their ARBIPA-spirit-violating behavior. Therefore, I don't think Callanecc's crafted broadly-construed-with-carveout is sufficient. They've already had multiple warnings (including level 4), with ARBIPA and ethnicity-related details noted. Unless they start communicating (at all) and explicitly agree to comply with our policies in those regards, I think a block is in order. I'm willing to sacrifice some sports data updates (lots of editors update these sorts of things) in order to get rid of yet another Eastern ethnicity POV-warrior who spreads damage to so many different pages. After reading their edits today, I actually had my finger on the "another lame ethnicity zealot, indef" button before I read the user-talk to see this WP:AE thread. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at gaming noted Articles for deletion/Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation and page-move/topic-change-rewrite in the edit-history of Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation, they are more widely disruptive and a time-sink of other editors than I'd noticed earlier, so I now support site-indef (though only some areas of that are for ARB-related reasons). DMacks (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I'm considered "involved" or not...I've been watching this editor's behavior and have issued multiple warnings and undoing various edits for a while. Feel free to move my comment into a "Statement by DMacks" section if that's more proper. DMacks (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that Arqamkhawaja has decided not to respond to concerns here but has edited elsewhere I'll block them indefinitely per NOTHERE and general disruption in around 24 hours if there aren't objections from uninvolved admins. I'll probably encourage them to appeal the block and admins to consider unblocking if Arqamkhawaja demonstrates an understanding of the issues and a willingness to engage in discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with an indefinite block in this case, Callanecc. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

Huldra
''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 Huldra

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:A/I/PIA


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


 * 1) 21:17, 31 August 2021 Revert of this material that was added on august 30 on honor killings
 * 2) 21:16, 1 September 2021‎ recent revert of this


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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


 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Huldra only recently filed 1RR complaint and here she has broken 1RR and removed recently added text. She is seasoned editor and knows about the rules very well.
 * There is another 1RR that was broken by fairly new user, but contrary to Huldra the user have received the alert only after his edits (the alert was given by Huldra!).Its up to admins to decide if this user should receive any sanction but I will notify him too. --Shrike (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * She was notified about the infraction and continued to edit after that

can still restore the material that she removed with her first edit. Huldra are you going to do it? --Shrike (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) She can still restore her first removal of material --Shrike (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Discussion concerning Huldra
''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 Huldra
Yes, I confess, I reverted stuff on the Tira article: That was careless of me; I should of course have waited, (especially as I am fully aware that have half a dozen editors watching my every edit with hawk-eyes, and will report me if I get a word wrong)
 * 21:17, 31 August 2021, and then
 * 21:16, 1 September 2021‎; reverted some other stuff,

And yes, I was made aware of this at 23:09, 1 September 2021   But already at  21:24, 1 September 2021‎ the article had been edited again, making a self-revert impossible. (I tried), Huldra (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
Did you even ask for a self revert?  nableezy  - 17:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by 11Fox11
Wow. Just WOW.

It doesn't get more blatant than this.

Huldra goes after a newbie with a 1RR violation notice, right after Huldra broke 1RR herself with an undo 23 hours and 59 minutes (did Huldra thing 24 hours were up?) after this removal (with a false edit summary, removal of lots of content not a reword) that removed quite a bit including the complete removal of this recent edit a day before: ("Violence in the name of protecting "honor" is also a problem. In 2003, a Tira couple who took part in a pornographic film were attacker by a lynch mob in the town square, beaten and had to be hospitalized under police guard. Residents were of the opinion that the couple had brought this upon themselves, and were disappointed was that they were not killed by the mob.

And if the lack of self awareness in warning Shadybabs for the 1RR rule Huldra just broke, Huldra was notified twice of this 1RR violation: on Shadybabs 's talk and on Huldra's talk. All this a week after Huldra filed a 1RR complaint here closed without action

Huldra is behaving as if the 1RR rule applies only to other editors, but not Huldra. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MJL
I'm looking at a diff 1 and diff 2. There is no overlap in content, so this can't really be considered a violation of WP:1RR. Considering that the given diffs are 23 hours and 59 minutes apart from each other (with like 25 intervening edits between them), I think it is safe to say that this report can be considered rather frivolous. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware these two had previous history with one another. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen an editor-interaction report this.. extensive before.
 * That can complicate matters for how to handle this. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . It completely escaped me that WP:1RR can still apply to reverts of different material introduced after an initial revert. I'm more used to situations where the A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. part of the policy comes more into play. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I believe Shrike is saying that if Huldra self-reversed the removal, then the second revert would not count as a violation of WP:1RR. I guess she theoretically could have done that on her own accord, but that would feel pretty WP:GAME-y to me. Doing so now, at this stage and as part of an administrative enforcement action, would essentially be using the sanctions to effect the outcome of a content dispute unncessarily. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to link this diff regarding . In your statement, you link to the same diff twice. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella
Should editors who made a single likely slip be cautioned first on their talk page about it, before running to this board? I don't understand such a "gotcha" approach. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I see it now. The user was notified about the possible breach but could not correct himself because the article has been adjusted since their last edit. Oh boy, what a confusion. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hippeus
MJL, 1RR and 3RR applies to edits with no overlap this is spelled out in WP:4RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."

This is particularly heinous given that Huldra was alerted to their violation, and that Huldra reported a new editor here a week ago for something that wasn't a violation and complained to Shadybabs that Shadybabs broke 1RR right after Huldra broke it.

The same rules apply to Huldra, this should be sanctioned.--Hippeus (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Huldra is meticulous about the rules, but here she slipped up. She would have self-reverted if she had realised soon enough, but by the time she was notified there were already intervening edits. There is no case for treating this as more than an innocent mistake. Zerotalk 04:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Huldra

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


 * I see it this way, yes this a 1RR breach (by 2 minutes) such as this is at level that a block would be appropriate. A block would not be appropriate if Huldra had self-reverted. It seems like Huldra did try to self-revert but couldn't due to the intervening edit. I'd suggest closing this with a reminder to Huldra to be very careful with 1RR compliance and that a breach in the future, even if self-reverted, may very well result in a block given this experience. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've left a message on Shadybabs's talk page to clarify how 1RR works. Hopefully, that'll clear up that issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a 1RR violation, but since it's demonstrably true that a self-revert was no longer possible when Huldra was reminded of this, I don't think anything more than a reminder is needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shrike, why does she need to revert the first removal? It was not contrary to any restriction. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MJL, I thought it might be something like that, but I wanted Shrike to spell it out in their own words. I agree that that would be quite pointless. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Minor technical violation in which the offending user acknowledges that they screwed up and provides a reasonable explanation as to why they didn't self-revert. A simple reminder to be more cautious about 1RR would seem to be the most appropriate course of action here. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wi Spa controversy
previously protected Wi Spa controversy under standard semi-protection. In the past few days, the page talk and editing history has been much more heated. Given the controversial nature of this topic and previous implemention of GENSEX D/s, I am requesting semi-protection be elevated to ECP. ~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 22:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * All the editors involved in the dispute on the article itself are well into extended-confirmed it seems? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then, perhaps, we should gold lock it for a week. ~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 23:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? There was some edit warring but it's now moved to talk page discussion, it seems, and there seems to be no ongoing disruption. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Mikele99
''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 Mikele99

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons


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


 * 1) 14:24, 8 September 2021 Removes secondary references and replaces them with negative information referenced by a claimed public record hosting by a known Holocaust denier. Site previously discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288. This is also mostly a revert to this version
 * 2) 14:44 8 September 2021 Reinstates the edit despite it being reverted with an edit summary of Undid revision 1043133543 by Mikele99 (talk) WP:BLPPRIMARY, see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#infotextmanuscripts.org. The idea that we're using documents hosting by a Holocause denier to do with legal claims about ethnic minorities is a non-starter for a WP:BLP. The page notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Naz Shah is clear the article is under 1RR and challenged edits can't be reinstated without talk page consensus
 * 3) 14:41, 8 September 2021 Amends sentence adding the bolded parts In a secret women-only ballot in February 2015 for selection as the Labour Party candidate for Bradford West, Amina Ali resoundingly won with 142 votes to Naveeda Ikram's 78 votes and Naz Shah's 13 votes. However, Ali resigned shortly afterwards citing personal reasons, which lead to considerable controversy. There were a few murmurings over Ali stepping down in the references, but nothing that amounts to "considerable controversy" and its clear from the addition of things like "resoundingly" this isn't a good-faith attempt to improve the article

n/a
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Notified, also DS are explicitly mentioned in the page notice when editing.
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Mikele99
''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.''

Result concerning Mikele99

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


 * Even though Mikele99's account was registered in 2009, they are by activity an extreme newbie, and can be assumed to know little about Wikipedia's policies and principles. It's unsurprising, then, that they used court documents as sources here, and perhaps even that they may not have been aware that their primary source at www.infotextmanuscripts.org is hosted by a holocaust denier. But that's as far as my AGF goes. There is no excuse for reverting FDW777's very well-explained revert here, with no explanation whatever, and as for changing the photo... well, that certainly suggests that Mikele99 is trying to present the subject in a negative light. They have changed the official photo, from 2020, to another photo from 2020 that they have uploaded to Commons and claim as "own work" (apparently not true, but a copyright violation from Youtube), with the surprising argument that "Previous picture was tremendously dated, more than ten years old! The subject looks significantly different now." Not really.. the pics are from the same year. The one Mikele99 uploaded is merely less flattering. Taken together, this is clearly tendentious editing. I have blocked Mikele99 indefinitely from Naz Shah. That seems to me an appropriately mild sanction for a very inexperienced user. If they should attempt similar disruption of other pages, we can of course bring out a bigger banhammer. Leaving this open for other opinions. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC).
 * I agree with that thinking and I'll close the request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about Softlavender by ButterSlipper
Hi. u|Softlavender has been extremely aggressive towards me. Softlavender has I tried to tell Softlavender about the personal attacks on their talk page instead of replying because they would ignore my replies and then Softlavender made an entire post on my talk page agitating u|Acroterion to block me again. Their claim was that I exercised "accusations, personal attacks, battleground statements, and quasi-legal threats" citing Please help. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Accused me of a "pro-Communist agenda"
 * Accused me of lying
 * Accused me of a coordinated effort and having an observable agenda-pushing
 * All without evidence
 * me trying to tell Softlavender that they were assuming bad-faith in me but took it out of context to focus on "you're revolting and vilifying assumption of bad-faith is intolerable" when I only insulted their assumption and not them which wouldn't account as a personal attack because it was not personal and it was correct
 * me trying to defend myself from attacks which I was right in saying due to the aspersions being needless and rude
 * me saying that I have had personal attacks thrown at me which I was correct for saying because another user personally attacked me which Softlavender had done before too
 * me pointing out how they have disrupted the consensus and pointing out how they had no reason to remove my edit
 * me saying vulgar mudslinging (like what??)
 * me pointing out how Softlavender sullied the page
 * me saying that they're slandering me (specifying in a non-legal sense)
 * me saying people do not have to contribute if they're going to be derogatory (because they assumed me of arguing based on reddit...)
 * the talk page message I gave them for personal attacks
 * me saying their personal attacks were foulmouthed gossip which was true
 * me rightfully saying their reply was a hatchet job of false accusations
 * a so-called "edit war" where I had reverted disputed information that required a consensus on a BLP and changed the page as to remain neutral and in a middleground between the editor and I from which the dispute began (u|Mikehawk10)
 * This request is malformed, but also it looks like this may be meant for WP:ANI rather than here (unless there is a particular arbitration restriction that is at play). I also think that there's a non-zero chance of a fairly strong boomerang if you do choose to move this there, as a heads up. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi u|Mikehawk10 could you explain a bit? I do not know what's really the difference between ANI and this I'm sorry and how is this request malformed? Also what's the boomerang? Huh? ButterSlipper (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I am not sure why this user is still allowed to edit the English Wikipedia. They have tiny contribution to the article space, all of which have been reverted, and their contributions to talk page discussions, apart from personal attacks, show complete misunderstanding or disregard of our policies and inability to listen to the opponent. Basically, they label all sources they disagree with as unreliable. Unless there are objections, I am going to block indef per WP:NOTHERE, this will save a lot of time of the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I agree they definitely seem to dish out personal attacks over small disagreements. ButterSlipper (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was talking about you, not about Softlavender.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please highlight where I have disregarded Wikipedia policy and how I label all sources I disagree with as unreliable. And how is this related to the matter at all u|Ymblanter when this post is literally about u|Softlavender. ButterSlipper (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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


 * Appealing user : – TillermanJimW (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Reason given was “multiple incidences of disruption in the topic area including violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCACY), Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), and Wikipedia:Civility.” My “previous discretionary sanction block for the same behavior was taken into account when deciding on this topic ban”. Topic ban logged at Gender and sexuality and following “discussion” in the Gender section of my Talk page.
 * Sanction being appealed : “TillermanJimW is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of gender and sexuality broadly construed anywhere on Wikipedia”


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHighInBC&type=revision&diff=1043608358&oldid=1043318970

Think this is sufficient. Please advise if not. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TillermanJimW
I would like to at least see the topic ban modified to exclude my own Talk page but would much prefer it to be entirely removed for the following reasons.

For one thing, I’m asking for a reconsideration of the whole topic ban as I don’t think the reasons HighInBC has given are particularly tenable. More particularly re “Not Advocacy”, I’m only advocating for putting the “controversies” front and center on the Gender page – as stipulated in the Lead Section of WP Better.

And “tendentious editing” is rather much in the eye of the beholder and is largely the result of too many editors involved in this “debate” refusing to consider and properly address those controversies – definitely NOT NPOV. Further, I haven’t actually posted anything further on any actual article topics other than on a couple of user Talk pages, including my own, on the topic since the closure of the “Explicit criticism” section of the Gender topic by user Johnuniq about a week ago. So the “discretionary sanction block” HighInBC referred to is irrelevant and a red herring.

And “Civility” is a bit of a joke and some evidence of bias given that another editor on my Talk page had first dismissed what I’d posted as justification for my arguments as “ anally-derived original research” (strikeouts in the original).

But more particularly relevant to those controversies, and that dismissal of the RS I’ve posted as “ anally derived ”, several such sources (PT, SEP, MP, JP, & MR) have argued that the “social construction of gender” – that’s part and parcel of the topic and of much of the “feminist ideology” that undergirds it – is biologically untenable if not “logically incoherent” (here & here). Further, other RS have pointed to particularly untenable aspects of “gender ideology” – “self-identification” in particular – due to the “magico-spiritual undertone” present in the “merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition”.

But more broadly, many other equally credible RS (here, here, & here) have argued (here & here) that there’s a substantial degree of “ideological bias in the psychology of sex and gender” and that much of that bias is little short of outright and egregious Lysenkoism – i.e., “any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.”

Rather disconcerting that too many Wikipedians, in trying to sweep those controversies under the carpet, seem to be engaged in precisely that “deliberate distortion”. Too many are engaged in Wikilawyering over picayune details & rules - "Wikipedia has no firm rules" - while repudiating fundamental principles. Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, at least when it comes to gender, seems to be listing heavily to port (left), if not dead in the water.

You might consider rectifying that somewhat by removing my topic ban. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

To HighInBC: Not quite sure that you qualify as an "uninvolved editor" as you were part of that earlier DS fracas. While I appreciate that you DID post my appeal, you were clearly less than sympathetic to my arguments.


 * As for the link between gender dysphoria and autistism, you might consider some factual evidence of it:


 * "There is increasing clinical evidence of an association between gender variability, gender dysphoria (GD), and autism spectrum disorder (ASD)"; Frontiers in Psychiatry --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But neither I nor FIP nor many others making the same arguments are saying that everyone with GD are autistic. Just that there's a strong correlation. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( moved from HighInBC's section)

To GoodDay


 * Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here or to respond to your question - if not then you might ask for clarification in a section where I can respond.
 * But to answer your question briefly, the discussion on my Talk page Gender was all about a decidedly non-NPOV structuring of the Gender article. And the "language" I had used was - somewhat risibly - deemed beyond the Pale. But I think that's just an excuse to avoid answering the non-NPOV nature of the article. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( moved from uninvolved discussion section, reply to GoodDay)


 * What makes you think that I think it is? Your evidence for that bogus accusation is what?
 * You might actually try looking at the evidence I've posted. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( moved from uninvolved discussion section, reply to GoodDay)
 * Haven't the foggiest idea what you're getting at. Doubt you do either. The article is several thousand words long - if you can't state your point in a few words then it's a waste of time talking to you. --TillermanJimW (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No you didn't; you tried to impose your way of looking at the issue. You have some biases and some preconceptions and an unwillingness to look at the facts on the table, to actually consider what I've said. --TillermanJimW (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

To Newimpartial


 * What makes you think that Peterson doesn't qualify as a "subject-matter-expert"? [SME] Clinical psychologist, professor of psychology, PhD McGill University. A raft of books and publications in reputable journals. You might try reading it in some detail.


 * And as I said before, I'm not saying Quillette is a reliable source; I'm saying that the author of the article they published does qualify as one.


 * And likewise with the Nature article, and the authors of it. I'd sure like to see your proof that they - Stephen J. Ceci & Wendy M. Williams - also don't qualify as SMEs. But if you'd actually read the Nature discussion then you might see that they explicitly say, "Yet the spectre of Lysenkoism lurks in current scientific discourse on gender, race and intelligence."

To GeneralNotability:
 * That's what I'm trying to show, that the "ban was made in error" because of manifest evidence that virtually everyone I interacted with has an egregious bias in favour of the orthodox position in the Gender article and absolutely refuse to consider the controversies surrounding the issue. That bias colours the accusations that they've all leveled at me.


 * You might note that GoodDay more or less agreed with me (thanks) about the bias in that Gender article. They agreed "with some things I tried to add", that "there's a wall there" - AKA, an egregious bias, a decidedly NPOV non-NPOV perspective [correction]. That's the problem.


 * I have to discuss the topic of Gender to show the bias, to show that a great many "reliable sources" accept the controversial nature of Gender which is not being addressed in the Gender article. That controversy is part and parcel of the entirely bogus and untenable accusations that have been leveled against me.


 * You really think Newimpartial's " anally-derived original research" is "civil", is "rational", is anything other than a manifestation of that too common bias? You might look at their unwillingness to consider the sources I've posted. You seriously think they hold water those sources are "fringe", are not worth considering in the controversies surrounding Gender? [corrections, additions] --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Corrections & clarifications above as noted; sorry about that.


 * But one thing further GeneralNotablity, something to emphasize as you brought it up: I am NOT arguing for anything in particular in the Gender article; I really don't know how to fix it though that was what the conversation on my Talk page was intended to address. What I am arguing is that there is a decided bias against addressing the many controversies on the topic, a bias that is manifestly evident in the discussions on my talk page and which undergirds and motivates this topic ban. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

To Firefangledfeathers:


 * And I “explained” to you that getting offended, making a big production out of being butthurt – “playing the victim”, doesn’t and shouldn’t carry a lot of weight. Which, as I also explained to you, is also the position of Wikimedia about people being offended by various uploaded images. You might try reading this Atlantic essay on the “Left-Wing Infatuation With Taking Offense”.


 * Although, as it is clear that those comments of mine have not succeeded in “persuading you to change your approach”, I doubt that that article will have much if any effect either.


 * However, somewhat more pertinently, you seem incapable of considering, or are simply unwilling to consider the evidence I’ve posted that what you consider as “disruption” is simply me trying to defend one of Wikipedia’s foundational principles, that of a neutral point of view. You seem incapable of understanding that there’s a great deal of controversy surrounding the whole concept of gender. And that much of the orthodox view – more or less exemplified and peddled by the Wikipedia article on it – is so much errant and “logically incoherent” moonshine. “Nonsense on stilts” as Massimo Pigliucci suggests.


 * Methinks you’re less bent out of shape at my so-called “disruption” than by me challenging what is, to no small degree, little better than a religious belief, an article of faith that “self-identification”, as a central tenet of gender ideology, is a coherent and useful concept - it ain’t.


 * But all of that is a large part of the reason why I’m in this particular docket. Which you apparently refuse to take some responsibility for. --TillermanJimW (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

To Deepfriedokra:


 * Another one who apparently thinks that defending and insisting on the unbiased application of the NPOV policy qualifies as “disruption” as that was pretty much the entire substance of my discussions on gender on my talk page.


 * Sure hope that you never wind up on a jury as it’s “pretty obvious” that you didn’t read or give much thought to my argument and to the evidence that I’d posted in support of it. --TillermanJimW (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To Equivamp:


 * “Interesting” summary, though a rather egregiously biased one. Rather typical of most editors when it comes to gender – almost as if it’s a religion or an ideology. But more specifically:


 * ”modified to allow him to discuss on his talk page”:WP:TBAN clearly and unambiguously says, “Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages”. On my Talk page I had explicitly asked the editor applying the ban to exclude that talk page with the idea in mind of being able to at least continue the discussion there.


 * ” He does not believe he violated the policy Not Advocacy”: How does arguing for the NPOV policy qualify as “advocacy”?


 * ” as he believes the guideline WP:BETTER advises”: Not a question of belief but of fact. The document explicitly says, “The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies”. Where’s your rational for why that “principle” should go by the wayside? But even the Wikipedia article on the “anti-gender movement” refers to the existence of “significant controversies and disagreements” within the “academic discipline of gender studies”. Where is the discussion of that within the lead of that gender article?


 * ”limited his jeremiads to user talk pages for an entire week”: I had been explicitly excluded from posting anything on the Gender Talk page unless I came up with an “actionable proposal to add/remove/change specific text”. Not much point in doing that if there was no consensus at all as to what needed changing, was there? And, as several editors have noted, the chances of that were slim to none.


 * “policies against incivility”: what bloody hypocrisy, what a sad joke, particularly after you more or less turned a blind eye to another editor’s comment on my Talk page about my supposedly “ anally-derived original research”. Further evidence of egregious bias when it comes to the topic of gender.


 * ”the viewpoint he is opposing as the orthodox position”: Wiktionary defines “orthodox” to be: “Conforming to the accepted, established, or traditional doctrines of a given faith, religion, or ideology” Seems entirely applicable as many people (here, here, here) see much of gender as more akin to ideology (“doctrine, beliefs”) than to science. Although, here again, there seems to be conflicting uses of the term probably due, in part, to the common use of “gender” to describe or refer to what many others define as “sex”. Many sources have deprecated that use but clearly many haven’t gotten the memo.


 * But relative to beliefs and religion, as I mentioned in my opening statement - though you seem unwilling to consider that, there’s the “magico-spiritual undertone” present in the “merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition”. Jefferson’s quip about the Trinity – and about the “priests of gender” – seems apropos as I doubt anyone has a “distinct idea about gender”:


 * ”Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”


 * Rather doubt that the Wikipedia article on gender is helping much to promote anything close to a "distinct idea" of the concept - more "unintelligible proposition" than not.


 * ”As a general note, I have seen WP:NOTHERE indefs for a lot less”: As a general note, I’m not sure that that says much that is flattering towards those involved. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To GoodDay:


 * ”Indeed (IMHO) a NPOV template should be placed at the Laurel Hubbard & Gender articles.”: Thanks. :-)


 * Quite agree, but I expect you mean the POV Template though I see that the article has half-a-dozen redirects.


 * ”But it ain't gonna happen, because you're not going to get a consensus for it.”:


 * Definitely like pulling teeth to even get a discussion going on why one might be justified.


 * But not sure that it is entirely a matter of consensus. As that template notes, the tag can only be removed once there’s a “consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.” But it seems that any individual editor – in good standing – can apply the tag, and it has to remain on the article until the cows come home, or pigs fly, or the stipulated conditions have been met – whichever comes first.


 * Although there is a bit of a precondition to placing the tag in the first place in that a talkpage section has to be created more or less simultaneously to justify the application, and to create a place for that discussion to take place. See “How to initiate an NPOV debate”.


 * But as a point of reference, you may wish to take a look at what I’d done on the Hubbard page, main & talk (NPOV Dispute: Career). You may even wish to consider reverting those pages yourself and commenting in the latter section. :-)


 * "You don't need a weatherman, to know which way the wind blows": “Rome” wasn’t built in a day, and it won’t be torn down in one either. :-) --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To Equivamp:


 * ”what would be the point of that?”: hadn’t thought much about it at the time I made the request, though I think I had wanted to continue the discussion on the details while this kangaroo court “hearing” took place in the background.


 * ”all the disruption currently seen at User talk:TillermanJimW”: you keep blathering on about “disruption” while studiously avoiding my argument that NPOV challenges can’t reasonably be seen as that. --TillermanJimW (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To Seraphimblade:


 * ”I see nothing here that convinces me ....”: I see nothing there that convinces me you’ve given any due consideration to anything that I’ve said here. Par for the course methinks. --TillermanJimW (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To GoodDay:


 * ”Allow him access to only the talkpages of said-topic”: Thanks; sounds like it might be a workable suggestion and solution. However, I’d ask that that include my own as most of those commenting on my own page & on the Gender & Hubbard ones are clearly less than enthusiastic about any substantive changes re NPOV.


 * ”… wouldn't go around those two articles”: I can sympathize – gender is clearly a contentious and convoluted topic. Though I was somewhat amused to see the range of topics under various sanctions and protections. Mountains, molehills.


 * But much of the controversy over sex and gender seems due to using various words in quite contradictory ways. As I frequently like to quote Francis Bacon, “Shoddy and inept uses of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways”.


 * Somewhat apropos of which, you might like this Imgur depiction of “There are three sides to every story”. Somewhat similar to the Spinning dancer, the leading OVG file in which I had fixed up some 15 months ago. Perspective really does tend to colour our perceptions and misperceptions.


 * ”I got enough insulting responses, concerning my stance on userboxes”: Clearly, “civility” is the watchword around here ... ;-)


 * Hadn’t had time to take a close look at your “Userboxes” link before; somewhat shell-shocked & pressed for time – sorry about that. But can sympathize with this: “It's frustrating to see Wikipedia moving more & more to the extreme of censorship, concerning user pages. What's next? You can't express your support of the Yankees, as it might offend Red Sox fans?” Or support for a Canadian Republic ... ;-) But a rather too common problem these days. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To Callanecc:


 * ”… perfectly reasonable exercise of administrative discretion .... I believe, evidence enough that the topic ban is not only perfectly reasonable but the minimum necessary to prevent disruption”:


 * “believe” whatever you want, that Jesus walked on water, that calling a dog’s tail a leg makes it one – rather pointedly applicable to much of “gender ideology”. But where’s your evidence and reasoned argument that these “disciplinary sanctions” are justified, are not evidence of egregious bias and trumped-up charges?


 * These “hearings” are looking less and less like dispassionate and unbiased evaluation of evidence and arguments, and more and more like a Star chamber – “social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of ... power” – all the time. --TillermanJimW (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To Firefangledfeathers:


 * ”manufactured a straw man version of my argument”:


 * How so? Where’s your argument and evidence for that case? Something else you’ve pulled out of your arse? “anally-derived” in Newimpartial’s lexicon. Which I didn’t notice you asking him to apologize for – why might that be the case? Bias? Thumbs – to the shoulders – on the scales? What a bloody joke.


 * But since you quoted my “madder than hatters” comment, I have to assume that what you’re calling my “strawman argument” is my subsequent reference and link, here in this “hearing”, to an article on “self-identification”. Which has to qualify as one of the most incoherent and “unintelligible” concepts in all of Christendom – outside of the Trinity in any case, and certainly under the rubric of “gender”.


 * You may not have noticed a conversation on my talkpage between &  about “identifying as an attack helicopter” as a gender. Of particular note is Newimpartial’s more or less sensible argument about someone’s “internal feeling of gender identity [as] an attack helicopter”, and their “perhaps delusional” state of mind.


 * However, I think he subsequently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by papering it over with the fig leaf of “sincere conviction”. Rather large number of people have had “sincere convictions” that they were Jesus or the Mahdi or Napoleon. Interesting and informative, if rather long-winded, dissertation of a man – something of a “subject matter expert” on a number of topics including epidemiology and "detransitioning" – who also had a “sincere conviction” that he was a woman for some 13 years before “snapping out of it”.


 * The problem is that if what it takes to qualify as a member of a particular gender is entirely subjective then the concept and categorization is worthless, if not worse than useless – profoundly and fundamentally unscientific and anti-scientific. Interesting if rather biased review and analysis here of a CBC interview of Jordan Peterson.


 * But of particular note relative to that is the interviewer’s assertion that, “In Ontario, the law states that gender is a person's sense of being a woman, a man, both, or neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum." Entirely subjective – methinks Peterson was entirely justified to argue in response that that statement was “logically incoherent to the point of dangerousness”. Makes the whole concept little better than kids playing dress-up: “I’m Captain Kidd! I’m Superwoman! I’m Peter Pan! I’m Cinderella!” Yeah, yeah, sure, go play in the traffic kids ...


 * Though I’m not entirely sure that Peterson is entirely justified with his “binary gender” argument. “feminine” and “masculine” might reasonably be seen as two halves of a gender spectrum – as suggested by the lead sentence in the Gender article; somewhat analogous to the red end and the blue end of the visible colour spectrum – with a myriad of named colours between the extreme ends. Although, as with infrared and ultraviolet, that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be other “genders” – however the concept might be defined – that are outside of that particular binary. And that’s apart from all of the possible subdivisions of feminine and masculine.


 * But that’s why I’ve suggested that a “taxonomy of gender” is required or would be useful as some have attempted to do. However, absent that and some objective correlates for the myriads of different subdivisions, the concept is little better than pseudoscience: astrology and phrenology - "nonsense on stilts" in spades. And a large part of the social, political, philosophical, and scientific controversies that bedevil it. Which really should be “front and center” in that gender article.


 * ”uncivil remark”:


 * What pretentious twaddle. Rather like many transgender activists with their “invalidate the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us”.


 * ”attention to the over 2,200 words TJW's statement”:


 * false accusations tend to be easily and simply stated, but often require a great deal of time and effort to show that they’re predicated on untenable premises if not on so much ignorant moonshine or worse. I see the statements by other editors here – so far – total about 1700 words; what makes you think I shouldn’t be allowed to respond to them in sufficient detail to show that? --TillermanJimW (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To Acroterion:


 * "I must question this editor's fitness to edit Wikipedia in any capacity”: And I must question whether you have a clue what my argument is, whether you actually did any due diligence and spent any time at all to evaluate it and the evidence provided.


 * And whether you bothered to even look at my Contributions tab. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

To Shibbolethink:


 * ”I do not believe they are right”: You might note the rather large correlation between gender dysphoria and autism – here, here, here, and here. I rather doubt there’s much discussion of that in the Gender article; wonder why that might be ...


 * ”Research has shown ...”: Which research might that be? Where? No doubt some are “happy” with the results, but many others are clearly not. See here, here, here, & here.


 * ”From the evidence above, I do not believe they are”: Where’s your explicit review of the evidence I presented? Where’s your argument as to how the accusations against me – “advocacy”, “tendentious editing”, & “incivility” – aren’t anything more than trumped charges to avoid facing my argument that the Gender article is badly biased and is anything but NPOV?


 * ”Wikipedia deserves better”: It is certainly ill-served by far too many editor’s abrogation of NPOV policy. --TillermanJimW (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by HighInBC
I will expand on this later. For now in addition to the disruption that resulted in their first DS block which was appealed here, there is this gem where they suggest that sexual reassignment surgery is an "egregious euphemism" to "pander to the delusional" and turning "dysphoric and autistic children into sexless eunuchs". Given that this subject area is under a stricter standard due to discretionary sanctions I don't believe they are capable of meeting those standards. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Responding to TillermanJimW's concerns about me being involved. Prior involvement in an administrative capacity does not make me involved such that I cannot act as an administrator afterwards. That sort of involvement means involved in the underlying content dispute.

As for being involved in this current DS action, that is another type of involvement where I am involved as the admin making the action. That is why I am posting here instead of the below section for uninvolved administrators.

I was going to post more but between what others have posted, and what you yourself have posted, I think it is covered. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial
It would be difficult to formulate a more impressive worked example of WP:NOTTHEM than is found in the first four (!) paragraphs of Tillerman's statement above.

And the subsequent section, beginning with But more particularly relevant, is in fact particularly relevant as it offers an illustration of Tillerman performing original research (intended to support their POV on their principal interest of so-called "gender ideology") by citing non-expert sources (such as Jordan Peterson and Quilette) and even FRINGE sources discussing other topics (such as Race and intelligence) to argue that the actual reliable sources on Gender are all wrong "Lysenkoist" and untrustworthy.

If this isn't an object lesson in editing that is disruptive in the context of a DS area, I have trouble imagining what would be considered disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
This user, while talking to a non-binary editor, said the following: I suggested they retract their comment, and explained that it was uncivil. They refused and ranted instead about "offense". The last diff was twenty minutes after their TBAN notification – not, I think, a violation of the TBAN, but also not evidence that they learn from blocks/bans. A one-week block and a TBAN have not succeeded in persuading this editor to change their approach. I urge the denial of this request, and I submit that either an intermediate-term or indefinite block is needed to prevent future disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TillermanJimW has manufactured a straw man version of my argument, and they are going ten rounds with it rather than acknowledge and apologize for an uncivil remark. I share Equivamp's analysis of this soapboxy situation, and I would like to call attention to the over 2,200 words TJW's statement has ballooned to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TillermanJimW, the straw man is that you think I asked you to retract your "madder than a hatter" comment because I was offended. I asked you, still am asking you, to retract a statement that was obviously a violation of WP:CIVIL. TJW's statement is now at over 3,700 words. I apologize to the clerks and admins for bringing this up repeatedly, and I am not sure how I would clerk this if I were in your place. I mention it because it's further evidence of TJW's disdain for process and policy at Wikipedia. Since GeneralNotability's warning that "this is not the place for you to continue to push", TJW has not stopped soapboxing about gender. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra
It's pretty obvious from the dif's here that the TBAN is needed. I urge appellant to find areas in which to contribute where they can do so less disruptively. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 08:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm getting that, too. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 01:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TillermanJimW
''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 GoodDay

 * Exactly what is it that's being appealed. What does the editor want added into the Gender article? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll discover, this ain't no Ben Shapiro site. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( reply to TillermanJimW)
 * Take a look at the restriction discussion at WP:USERBOX & you'll understand what I'm alluding to. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( reply to TillermanJimW)
 * Tried to help you, but to no avail. You're on your own. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( reply to TillermanJimW)
 * You're wrong. I do agree with some of the things you tried to add to the Gender article. But, I'm aware that you're not going to 'ever' get a consensus for those additions. Rightly or wrongly, it's a wall that you'll not be able to break through. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ( reply to TillermanJimW)
 * TillermanJimW. Indeed (IMHO) a NPOV template should be placed at the Laurel Hubbard & Gender articles. But it ain't gonna happen, because you're not going to get a consensus for it. "You don't need a weatherman, to know which way the wind blows". -- GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Recommendation to arbitrators. Allow him access to only the talkpages of said-topic, for 1-month. Allow him the chance to make his arguments & gain a consensus for his proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I personally wouldn't go around those two articles or any articles bio or non-bio, that covers gender, transgender, etc etc topics. I got enough insulting responses, concerning my stance on userboxes. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Re-start editing articles outside your current topic-ban. It would be the best way to show others, you aren't gonna be creating a commotion. It's been a whole week, now. You've talked the talk, now walk the walk. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Equivamp

 * This appeal appears to merely be utilizing WP:BANEX to continue advocating for your POV more than anything else, as it discusses a content dispute of the related matter more than it discusses the behavior for which the TBAN was given. If I were to give a suggestion it would be to retract this entire request and try again.... --Equivamp - talk 00:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * To anyone looking for a summary of this appeal at this time:
 * TillermanJimW believes his GENSEX DS topic ban should be lifted. Or, barring that, his TBAN should be modified to allow him to discuss on his talk page (for some reason) topics he is not allowed to discuss or make edits to anywhere else. Specific reasoning for this offered by TillermanJimW is as follows:
 * He does not believe he violated the policy WP:NOTADVOCACY because he believes that including "controversies" in the lead section (front and center) of the Gender article as he believes the guideline WP:BETTER advises.
 * When later asked what specific changes he wanted made to that article, he demurred, and stated he actually just wanted to argue about the existence of controversies on the topic.
 * He does not believe editing could have been tendentious, because he has limited his jeremiads to user talk pages for an entire week.
 * TillermanJimW's personal attacks directed at other contributors do not matter (is a joke) because someone else said that TillermanJimW's contributions were pulled out of his ass.
 * Beyond these less-than-convincing stated rationales, this appeal has been used as another soapbox for TillermanJimW to continue the content dispute, to escalate his use of personal attacks, and to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of why Wikipedia has policies against incivility. Amusingly, he has repeatedly referred to the viewpoint he is opposing as the orthodox position, clearly demonstrating that he knows that his statements are not representative of a consensus viewpoint on which all Wikipedia articles are meant to be based, even as he abuses the concept of NPOV to argue for undue focus on other views.
 * As a general note, I have seen WP:NOTHERE indefs for a lot less. --Equivamp - talk 00:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, TillermanJimW, I am aware that you want to be able to continue the "discussion" on your talk page. But what would be the point of that? If you cannot make changes to the articles, so the discussion would have no benefit to the project, and the only result is that you would continue to violate userspace guidelines in addition to all the disruption currently seen at User talk:TillermanJimW. In case you were concerned about it, you were not singled out when Johnuniq closed the section on Talk:Gender that you started. That's just basic talk page practice. Please spare yourself the time attempting to further the content dispute I wasn't involved in - I won't be participating in your gravedigging. --Equivamp - talk 04:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink
I have not much to say except that I think this user's appeal demonstrates even more why the block and TBAN were a good idea. I would support an indef. This user has said: society has a right if not an obligation to ask whether they're madder than hatters - ie., many if not most of the transgendered - or not. I do not believe they are right.

In medicine, we define mental illness based on the impact it has on the patient's life and their relationships with others. Research has shown, time and time again, that transgender persons are healthier, happier, less likely to commit suicide, and better members of society when they transition. And especially when we help them transition in a safe and supportive environment. Of course there are risks of hormonal therapy, but these are typically outweighed by the massive benefits. To label this solely as a mental illness which needs to be "solved" is a gross misunderstanding of how medicine works. And, for whatever reason, especially in our current climate, everyone seems to think they know more about medicine than doctors and their patients. A troubling state of affairs.

To echo the user's sentiment, I believe Wikipedia has a right if not an obligation to ask itself if this user's contributions are a net positive for the project. From the evidence above, I do not believe they are.

Wikipedia deserves better. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by TillermanJimW

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


 * Speaking as an arbitration clerk: I have refactored the above discussion so that everyone has their own sections - apologies, the AE appeal template should have made it clearer that the "uninvolved editors" section should follow the normal section-per-editor format we normally use at AE.
 * Speaking as an uninvolved administrator:, while WP:BANEX does allow you to discuss the area you are topic banned from while appealing, it is not a blank check. This is not the place for you to continue to push what you want added to Gender, it is the place to explain why the topic ban is either unnecessary or was made in error - and that does not require four paragraphs of argument about why your position is the correct one (to be frank - most people who are topic-banned are just as convinced as you are that you're in the right, and are just as happy as you to provide sources proving it). You are getting quite close to being blocked for violating your topic ban. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see nothing here that convinces me that the topic ban was either improperly imposed or is no longer necessary, and would therefore decline the appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And given the editor's conduct at this appeal itself, I'm rather inclined to just indefinitely block for NOTHERE at this point. and, any thoughts or comments? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with that at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection here, . GeneralNotability (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a perfectly reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and I would, therefore, decline the appeal. TillermanJimW's responses above are, I believe, evidence enough that the topic ban is not only perfectly reasonable but the minimum necessary to prevent disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This appeal does an exemplary job of highlighting why the topic ban was necessary to begin with, to the point that I must question this editor's fitness to edit Wikipedia in any capacity.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan
''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 CorbieVreccan

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:3RR


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


 * 1) 22:45, 13 September 2021 CorbieVreccan refuses to give explanations except by the vague reason of "Indigenous identity is not defined by DNA.", previously using an high tone.

User:CorbieVreccan appears to be closed-minded in this dispute about American Indian DNA section in History section because is personally against the, according to user, against the idea of "Indigenous identity is not defined by DNA.". He not gives any explanation about re-remove that section by are an "History" sub-section in the article and justs sends Warning template messages in a potential high tone, anyway, in the summary of the first of that "Warning" template messages user puts this: "/* September 2021 */: article talk is preferable.", this is a truly high tone and a repetitive behavior in the user:.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning CorbieVreccan
''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 CorbieVreccan
User is a disruptive edit-warrior, fighting three established editors, currently at the 3RR board. See the edit history at, specifically all the warnings the user has blanked. And the current case at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. This is a retaliatory filing in response to us stopping this user's disruption.

Also, I don't think this user is paying attention. They're accusing me of things that didn't happen. The content they blanked (mostly photos) has been re-instated. Other editors removed unrelated photos they added, for the most part. (Multiple, established editors are reverting this user.) The DNA section they moved up top was simply moved back to it's original place further down in the article, where it's been for years. No one deleted the DNA section. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 23:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning CorbieVreccan

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



TheGunGuru73
''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 TheGunGuru73

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 09:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control


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


 * 1) 08:12, 9 September 2021 Adds claim that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, this apparently refers to a lower court ruling that was struck down by the Supreme Court
 * 2) 09:00, 9 September 2021 Edit warring to reinstate the prior edit
 * 3) 09:03, 9 September 2021 Edit warring to reinstate the prior edit
 * 4) 08:35, 9 September 2021 Adds selective claim to lead, there are numerous stats cited at AR-15 style rifle regarding their use in mass shooting
 * 5) 08:58, 9 September 2021 Reinstates the edit despite it being a violating of the page restrction at Template:Editnotices/Page/AR-15 style rifle
 * 6) 09:04, 9 September 2021 How about just leave it alone? I know more about gun laws than you do

n/as
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Notified
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

Editor was given two opportunities at User talk:TheGunGuru73 to self-revert, but refused. Their username is obviously problematic.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Note that since their block the editor has continued their disruption at a new article, claiming that the Firearm Owners Protection Act was unconstitutional here then edit warring after that change was reverted. FDW777 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning TheGunGuru73
''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 (slatertsteven)
I agree we should not bite the Newbies, but their edits, their attitude and their user name all scream wp:nothere. So I agree we should wait, I also think they will end up getting sanctioned or leave when they do not get their way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning TheGunGuru73

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


 * I'm reluctant to sanction a new editor (account created 9 September 2021) but something will have to happen if similar problems continue. It should not be a surprise that the topic is controversial. At Wikipedia, that means disagreements must be calmly discussed on the article talk page with arguments based on reliable sources. If there is any continuation of edit warring or original research you will be sanctioned. That might be a topic ban or possibly just an administrator's indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the editor in question received a two-day edit-warring block earlier today from . GeneralNotability (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm rather concerned that came off of a block for edit warring and went immediately back to the same edit warring, and seems to have ignored the advice of other editors in terms of reviewing policy. I'm also rather concerned by this diff in particular, as it seems TheGunGuru73 seems to think it is acceptable to edit the article based upon one's personal knowledge or views rather than the best available sources. An inability or unwillingness to listen to other editors combined with a rather aggressive attitude may indicate a poor fit either in that particular topic area, or with Wikipedia in general, but I hope that can be moderated. I certainly would encourage this editor to comment here at some point to indicate if any of this is getting through (if you're unsure how to do that, leave the comment you'd like to make on my talk page and I'll move it here). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see where anyone educated them about unsourced/poorly sourced edits. I'll see what I can do. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 01:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did what I could. They do look WP:NOTHERE. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 01:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat
''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 Boodlesthecat

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality (primarily)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 (secondarily)


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

All times provided for diffs are in CDT, not UTC
 * 1) 15:47, September 7, 2021 first disruptive talk comment, claims individuals using the term TERF to describe others as "people who barely have a clue what they are talking about and know nothing about feminist history". Then compares situation to Palestine and Zionism. (Note, reasons for previous blocks in how they relate to Israel-Palestine.)
 * 2) 18:02, September 7, 2021 reply to admin, beginning escalation in harsh, disruptive tone
 * 3) 19:42, September 7, 2021 accuses other editors of pov-pushing due to reverting their contentious edit
 * 4) 19:51, September 7, 2021 again, comparison of those who use "TERF" to "Iranian government propagandists often attack anyone who criticizes them as 'Zionists'"
 * 5) 21:28, September 7, 2021 calls into question reliable sources because based on initial information, they reported on the possibility that the incident was a hoax, which they refer to as an "apparently false narrative". Goes on the mock radical feminist and right-wing group comparisons despite reliable sourcing discussing the two groups in tandem (both online and in-person). Accuses other editors to trying to perpetuate "the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur", trying to setup opposition to Christianity and cisgender women.
 * 6) 00:11, September 8, 2021 harsh slippery-slope response to good-faith question regarding the usage of the term TERF
 * 7) 09:19, September 8, 2021 continued harsh replies from previous diff
 * 8) 09:33, September 8, 2021 continued harsh strawman arguments not conducive to constructive discussion
 * 9) 09:49, September 8, 2021 personal attack against me after unrelated reply to who I was thanking for agreeing with my proposal and noting, as he did, how the talk page could use less WP:SOAPBOX/WP:FORUM, accusing me of trying to own the page and rigidly-control editing to suit my own biases
 * 10) 10:15, September 8, 2021 purveying a strawman argument in response to a reply of mine to another user for why I don't really think we should try to utilize/cite specific subsections of a social media platform which the article's RS state contributed to the spread of the incident itself, again calling our RS fabrications and calling a deprecated source more credible than our current ones
 * 11) 11:35, September 9, 2021 calls this AE request itself "gratuitous", claims current wording based on RS pushes false narratives, ignores RS, tries to pin blame to a specific group ("the Antifa camp") while ignoring we have RS specifically discussing that faction's actions, claiming it's probably related to the groups who stormed the Capitol, specifically calls me (Gwennie-nyan) out and casts aspersions (added 02:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC))
 * 12) 16:28, September 12, 2021 claims this AE is "specious" and a personal attack alleging that I am trying to trick them into edit warring (added 23:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC))


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 2008 AE Block Boodles was blocked (at 04:11, December 23, 2008) for 1 year due to "heavily flaming and creating a disruptive, uncivil environment"
 * 2) 16:07, October 13, 2008 they were previously blocked for personal attacks and incivilty
 * 3) User has other blocks due to edit warring, disruptive editing, and hostility


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


 * 16:53, September 7, 2021 informed them of WP:GENSEX D/s on user's talk page
 * 13:36, September 7, 2021 At time of first post on Talk:Wi Spa controversy, D/s alerts for both GENSEX and AP2 were clearly visible
 * 17:22, September 7, 2021 admin commented in-section to make everyone aware of D/s

Boodles appears to be an editor that used to be primarily active in 2008. After review of considerable complaints logged against them on talk pages, ANI, and eventually AE, of which resulted in multiple blocks and restrictions, I felt in the community's best interest to file this report. Since their return to active status, it appears to me, as much as I try to assume good faith, that the prior behavior patterns have not changed. ~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

22:51, September 8, 2021 (CDT) - Notified. ~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 03:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Boodlesthecat
''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 Boodlesthecat
Happy to have all my cited edits reviewed in this specious complaint, as well as any review of my actions 13 years ago when I (practically single-handedly, and successfully) battled a cabal of antisemitic editors who had turned multiple articles on Eastern European Jewry into cesspools of Jew hatred. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Despite poring through my every utterance, where I've never once ever stated or hinted at my gender, managed to misgender me in this jeremiad. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Above, quite clearly. "19:42, September 7, 2021 accuses other editors of pov-pushing due to reverting her contentious edit. I wonder what led you to the conclusion that I was a her. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply to : Seems you and a few others equate "I disagree with you" with WP:SOAPBOXING. Oh well.
 * You say most academics don't consider "TERF" a slur. Therefore, some do. As well, many non-academics consider it a slur. Academics aren't the arbiters of what is or isn't considered offensive by a group of people. My argument that some who it's directed at consider it a slur is reason for not using it as a descriptor. If I had to keep repeating that, it's due to the WP:IDHT attitude you accuse me of. And if TERF is considered a slur against a group of people, by definition, it's entirely valid to compare it to other slurs.
 * I 100% stand by my comment that this entry was "subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints."
 * No one asked me for sources. Feel free to ask.

reply to : What exactly is "inflammatory rhetoric" about giving an example of "an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be"? How you would phrase her POV? Is she to be treated as a racist for having an aversion to penises while she is naked? Even is she has PTSD from rape? Is she to be considered mentally ill, the way some try to treat trans people? Is the problem saying "biological woman?" What should I call her? Would a different term make her a different person? She's still who she is. Or are we trying to erase her? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Google TERF SLUR. It's a lively debate in the real world. It wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't opposing camps. It's not for academics, WIKI, you, or I to decide for some women what they consider to be a slur when directed at them. That's ugly patriarchal authoritarianism. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply to You write ''I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both''

I find this attribution to some supposed emotional state on my part offensive. I have made fact based arguments for every edit I have made, discussed at length on the talk pages, and have engaged with editors who are obstinate in preferring their POV rather than simple facts.

My offending "penises" comment, if you read what I wrote in |in the talk page, was in the context of the use of the term "TERF" as being seen as a slur by some. I gave the example of it being tossed at an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be. Are you saying such women don't exist? Or if they exist, we cannot describe them in simple English because the very words used to describe this woman is somehow offensive to some? How would you describe such a woman? Perhaps one who is a rape survivor who is triggered by penises/male genitalia?

Similar, ideological/personal biases of other editors insist on blocking simple, factual mention that the LAPD has both considered the suspect to be a male, and cannot confirm their gender identity. So, due to biases of editors, we supposedly cannot say something like "the LAPD has described the suspect as male" even though it is a naked fact, and entirely pertinent to the police claim that the suspect pretends to be trans to commit sex crimes in women's spaces, and likely hints at what the prosecution will be claiming. I've simply countered, through discussion, the reality that we can't change actual salient facts (LAPD is claiming the suspect is male) simply because someone doesn't like that. That's something to take up with the LAPD. Changing facts in WP is not the way to for these "emotionally engaged" editors to deal with their feelings. I would appreciate it if people commenting on this case and recommending some sort of sanctions would deal with the facts, rather than their own "visceral" "emotionally engaged" responses before supporting arbitrary, one side actions. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Gwennie-nyan
A reply to. Regarding the facts of the incident, as our sources say, the spread both online and developments of ensuing protests of the incident were specifically noted repeatedly as right-wing and trans-exclusive feminist spaces online. The explainer, which you said you felt is gratuitous, was supported by a few other editors in lieu of directly linked trans-exclusive feminists to TERF, which was seen as insulting by Boodles and a couple others, so it was changed. In interests of NPOV, the akas are include specifically to link and explain common synonyms for the ideological group. TERF and gender-critical feminists are the two WP:COMMONNAMEs for the group. ~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 11:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Re on misgendering. Where? I default to they/them pronouns. The people in your last AE referred to you as he. However I don't know your gender or pronouns. I did mention "he" in regards to Crossroads, however. ~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah I see that typo. Has been fixed. <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 16:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also submit the uncivil behavior of Boodles at this venue, specifically at 23:31, September 9, 2021 (CDT) in which they assert that a fellow editor is not living in the real world and does not in any way AGF in said editor's comments. Also, in the same keystroke to negate the role of academics in understanding things is expressly contrary to a foundational aspect of the wiki, that is quality, reliable sourcing, as well as a NPOV, which academics often provide as secondary and tertiary sources. <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 00:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

given it has been a few days, I am curious if your current comment is your final word on this matter. Boodles has taken your initial comment as permission to begin modifying the page to suit their wishes over the current page consensus, calling this request "without merit" and claiming I filed it for the purposes of "harassment and intimidation", claiming I've made no responses or modifications in light of your comment. I find the continual aspersions being cast very hurtful. <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 21:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

(Responding to 's request for feedback regarding proposed sanctions.) I feel that currently the page would be served best by individual user sanctions (per this request) and also page-based sanctions at Wi Spa controversy. Regarding user sanctions, I support the proposed topic ban, broadly construed. Regarding the page sanctions, I think to minimize battleground and edit-warring, 1RR should be implemented and, should that not work, GW's proposed consensus-only modification can be then put in place. <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting,Verdana;color:darkorchid">~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 10:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TheresNoTime
Responding solely to acknowledge the mentions above - I am probably involved at this point, so I will make no further comment than to remind everyone that civility is required and expected ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Isabelle Belato
continuous WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:IDHT attitude have turned the talk page of the article into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Despite most participants agreeing on suggestions to improve the wording (first by removing TERF, then by adding "a.k.a."), Boodlesthecat continued on their WP:SOAPBOXING. The diffs cover mostly the parts of the conversation where I was involved. After the last diff, I decided to bow out.


 * Despite two users (myself and ) agreeing with the removal of TERF while maintaining "trans-excluding feminist", Boodlesthecat decides to keep WP:SOAPBOXING with anecdotes about the usage of TERF.
 * Boodlesthecat complains about false equivalences to TNT, while doing the same themselves: equating TERF to "nigger" and "tranny" and to any number of slurs against non-straight, non-white, non-male folks;
 * Boodlesthecat cites the TERF article to affirm that, ignoring that the article also says most academics do not believe the word can be classified as a slur, which I pointed to them (as well as explaining terms like this need to be sourced, which is the case), and they ignored for the remainder of the discussion;
 * Boodlesthecat proceeds to question the reliability of the sources and begins casting aspersions on the major contributors (mostly Gweenie-nyan) by saying that, ignoring the fact that those are all supported by sources (and is no different than pointing any other group of a person in the case of a hate crime or similar cases);

At no point do they provide any sources to whatever it is they are trying to argue. Isabelle 🔔 21:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:FRINGE and Talk dos and don'ts, specifficaly . Repeating "many people think this" is not evidence. Isabelle 🔔 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WanderingWanda
Note this inflammatory rhetoric from Boodlesthecat about trans women in the restroom: an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be.

Slate magazine once wrote that scaremongering about trans people in bathrooms echos racist rhetoric about how Black men supposedly pose a sexual danger for white women in bathrooms.

The new Universal Code of Conduct forbids discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Colin M
I just want to respond to 's comment about the reversions on this article. I think the recent work on the article has fallen in line pretty well with the pattern of WP:BRD, and editors have been good about voluntarily bringing disputes to talk rather than edit warring (though some incivility has sometimes crept into talk discussions, which is unfortunate). I guess there have been a lot of reverts, but each one has generally been concerned with a different piece of content, rather than there being any specific content that's being repeatedly added and removed back and forth. I don't personally see a CRP restriction as being necessary at this time. Colin M (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by FormalDude
Boodles disruptive behavior is growing and they need to be banned from gender related topics as they clearly cannot maintain a neutral point of view with their editing in those topics. This is evidenced by their numerous WP:BATTLEGROUND-like disputes at Talk:Wi Spa controversy where they refuse to get the point. –– FormalDude  talk  04:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Boodlesthecat

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


 * Possibly I need to be re-educated but I find it hard to understand the concerns raised in this request. The lead at Wi Spa controversy currently has a completely gratuitous "(a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not going to comment on the "TERF" vs. "gender critical" vs. [whatever other options were suggested] dispute, since that's a content question that should be left to the article talk page.There is definitely some WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from Boodlesthecat here, which appears to be worsening over time. I am also somewhat concerned with Boodlesthecat's attitude towards source reliability shown in the 10:15, September 8 diff and edits like . However I'm not sure anything here rises to the level of sanctions, so I would just warn Boodles to try not to let their personal opinions influence their evaluation of sources, encourage them to provide reliable sources for any content arguments they're going to make (specifically avoiding unsourced comments like 11:35, September 9; no one should have to ask you to provide sources on Wikipedia as you've suggested above), and ask them to stop with the accusations of dogmatism and bad faith against other editors on the page.Besides the specific conduct complaint here, I am seeing a lot of reverting happening on that page —nothing passing 3RR as far as I can see, but certainly getting close. I am inclined to introduce a consensus required discretionary sanction there to try to force discussion over reversion, but would be interested to hear from both the involved parties and any other admins about whether they think that would be beneficial. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see Boodles was actively editing the article as I wrote that, and I note two instances where they appear to be attempting to insert references to the suspect as male wherever possible:, . Perhaps a gender topic ban would be in order. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am placing a 24-hour partial block on Boodlesthecat to stem the ongoing edit warring, since they don't seem willing to discuss changes and achieve consensus first before reimplementing contested content. This is just a temporary action while I wait for more admin input here, and should not be taken to be the final outcome of this AE. The pblock applies to the Wi Spa controversy article, but does not prevent them from participating at the talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have noted at User talk:Boodlesthecat, it concerns me that the battleground conduct appears to be escalating (including bad faith and aspersions against the AE filer, against ColinM, and now against an uninvolved admin who weighed in here), and with no apparent understanding that there are any issues with their own conduct. I'm still thinking that a topic ban might be most appropriate here, though I am concerned that the battleground behavior might just reoccur in whichever topic area they find next. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Boodles has been here a long time and has thousands of edits. She should be fine in areas that are less upsetting. We can always revisit if needed. But I'd like not to lose a constructive editor if possible. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 01:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, the last bit is more of a musing—I don't think a broader sanction is justified at this point. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing this with an indefinite topic ban from the standard gender topic area ("all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people", broadly construed), given general agreement among the admins who've weighed in. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think  Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. IMHO, a lot of emotional engagement about the subject in question. Again, might need to try editing in other areas. I'll defer to the judgement of other uninvolved admins, but this is how I see it. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 19:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason they copied that message to my talk page just now. Just noting that I've advised them to leave any AE-related comments at AE: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Their behavior in this area is clearly well below the standards an area under discretionary sanctions is held to. They have been on Wikipedia long enough to know this is not appropriate so I don't think education is going to change the situation. I suggest that they should avoid this area so that they may focus in area that they are less problematic in. I agree with Deepfriedokra that they will not be able to do this without outside help so I think a topic ban for at least some duration is in order. As to the scope of that ban, I am not entirely sure how broad it would need to be. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 10:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Xoltron
''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 Xoltron

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA


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


 * 1) 16 September 2021 WP:1AM
 * 2) 16 September 2021 WP:IDHT


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Here

Discussion concerning Xoltron
''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 Xoltron
I am not sure what the purpose of this on-going attack, mostly on my talk page, against me is. All I did was start a discussion on a talk page in the Indo-Aryan Languages article: A long mislabeled article for a language group known correctly in Linguistics studies around the globe as Indic, as also mentioned in the same article. The next thing I know, several Indian editors start attacking me on my talk page instead of continuing the discussion on the article's discussion page and then this Arbitration request, for what? I do make a point to respond to editors that make personal attacks and threats (like , and numerous others)  meant to intimate. Is that what this is about or ?Xoltron (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TrangaBellam

 * , see this. As you said, their combative nature spills out of ARBIPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , they (Xoltron) self-reverted a duplication. HistoryOfIran would remove the message and warn them (Xoltron) to not write on his talk page again. August 20 was less than a month ago. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Xoltron

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


 * Researching. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 14:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reveiw of Xoltron Account attached 2018-10-04T14:52:13; 264 edits. User has been sporatic. Went active in September 2021. Prior warnings for conflict in August 2019. EdJohnson's explanation about DS alert. Feels bullied  and here.      wow!.
 * Preliminary assessment User is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are instead attempting to peddle some form of revisionism. User is not compatible with a collaborative project. Just too much lack of WP:AGF and too combative
 * Preliminary proposed remedy Not sure Talk:Indo-Aryan languages falls within IPA, except for user making it so. I'd go with some sort of topic ban, but there's a lot of spill over. And the previous problems back in 2019. I don't think it would work. It's either fashion a topic ban or a block. No prior blocks, though. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 15:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To HistoryofIran they said this? The mind reels. More inclined than ever to indef as regular admin action. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, August 20 of this year and self reverted. Thanks, but that's old. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed. They edit in spurts, and have not edited since this discussion began. On the one hand, I'd like to give them an opportunity to respond. On the other, I don't I want to read the response. I like the way they lecture other users on "the way we do things". Or is that just a form of intimidation? Be happy to block w/o a response. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 07:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinite block as regular admin action.. User has been far from WP:CIVIL throughout their Wikicareer. They have made personal attacks and cast aspersions, and offered threats, while treating Wikipedia as a battleground.  They attack other users who try to communicate with them, and see attempts to help them edit constructively as harassment and intimidation. I was waiting to give them a chance to address their behavior as my initial impression was unfavorable. Their responses in this AE thread, on my talk page, and on 	their talk  page do not inspire me with the hope that their incivility will cease. A topic ban has been proposed, but their edits actually fall outside WP:ARBIPA. And nothing in their interactions suggest they would adhere to a topic ban. A time limited block has been suggested, but their editing is sporadic with inactivity periods up to six months long. When they return, they resume where they left off. They might not even notice a time limited block, and they  could simply out wait it and resume their unacceptable behavior after it ends. Because we have a history of incivilty and battlegrounding going back for years, I believe an indefinite block is the best alternative.  Indefinite is not infinite. They could be unblocked the day after they are blocked if they addressed their behavior. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 01:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * When a user like Xoltron is so aggressive right out of the gate an indefinite block has to be an option to consider. I think they must be oblivious to the trouble they are causing. They appear to see long time contributors as a set of horrible POV-pushers that they need to combat. From what they said on Kautilya3's page: I don't see how this situation turns around without some kind of a block. A time-limited block would suggest we are optimistic for a change of heart in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am struck by how many times in a short editing history Xoltron has accused people they disagree with of harassment, bullying or similar behaviours    . Some of their editing has also been rather tenacious, e.g. here they assert that academics "have always designated this class of languages and ethnicities as Indic, not Indo-Aryan", only to be shown a long list of sources of academics using "Indo-Aryan". I'm not sure how much of this relates to ARBIPA, as most of their editing history concerns Iran, but this kind of behaviour is likely to lead to an indef block sooner or later.  Hut 8.5  11:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will echo what Hut says, this user very quickly jumps to accusing people of harassment. Just now in their statement they repeated this behavior towards Deepfriedokra in response to a simple question regarding their purpose on the project. I feel that while connected to the topic, this behavior goes beyond the topic. I am not sure a topic ban will resolve the issue. I am leaning towards something between a DS block for 1 month for combative behavior at the least, and a regular admin action WP:NOTHERE indef block at the most . <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 00:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given this rubbish I am going to lean heavily towards the indefinite block for battleground behavior and not being here to write an encyclopedia. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 00:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)