Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive298

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

Request concerning Barecode

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement :


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAP2

doesn't seem to know how to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop WP:FORUM. Source      There's a difference between civil, useful conversation and WP:CANVASSING with long rants. He also shifts blame when someone tells him to cool it Lmharding (talk)

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

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

Replying to Neonate ) A topicban might be a valid option, if the WP:CIR, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOPOV, and other issues hadn't been pointed out. Those would have to be addressed first. That only works if Barecode won't be back here in a couple weeks with other core issues. A WP:TOPICBAN would 100% be required either way. Lmharding (talk) Recinding due to possible meat and other questionable stuff User:Barecode did, pushing again for a site ban see this may count as WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK Lmharding (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC) ''(Link fixed, per typo comment below. -- Valjean (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC))''

Apparently I made a typo in the link this proves that Ivan and Barecode are WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK User talk:Ivan VA. Lmharding (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


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

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

Hey everyone, I wanted to get an update. What are we waiting for? Can we give the ban to ivan and barecode, or do you need more info? What do we still need to do? Lmharding (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I would still suggest an indef for both Barecode and Ivan, both seem to be WP:NOTHERE. Both seem to grasp understanding of rules and civility and WP:BEYOND. If you disagree, then your resolution is fine. Lmharding (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Barecode

 * - Of course it was a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. It is my error and I admit it. When I made the edit I knew that SPS can be used as sources in the articles about SPS when they describe themselves and their activity. But I did not know the exception about the third parties at that moment. It is a serious violation because: The WP:BLP says For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured - Therefore my violation of the Wikipedia is a serious one. It was also a violation of the WP:SPS (item 2 - "it does not involve claims about third parties;" - of which I was not aware at that moment). In the rest of my replies here I answered to the accusations against me, which in my view, most of them are baseless. The justification for opening this section/reporting incident was that I somehow "don't get it" after I declared that I understand the policy and I am willing to respect it - therefore an outlandish accusation. Also I exposed the origin of this incident to be somewhere else - the personal dislike certain editors have against me. I also exposed the reasons of that dislike (it started with my disagreement that Glenn Greenwald is a traitor working for Rusia and having no credibility at all). I edited this section to be more specific.  - Please observe the fact that  called for banning me and for opening this incident because the OP is just not getting it - which is a absolutely false and absurd, since I already left that conversation (at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability) saying that I understand and I am willing to respect the rule.  stated that I claim to understand the policy and then deliberately violated it - which is false because I made the wrong edit before better knowing that policy and not after that. And  claims that I am doing forum shopping because I was asking clarifications at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (which I got and where I actually got the point) and based on a previous false and absurd accusation that I was forum shopping - at Reliable sources/Noticeboard the editors ignored my call for stopping the conversation there and for starting a RfC and they kept pouring messages there. Because I answered and kept calling for stopping that conversation, after that I was accused of extensive debate even though it was me asking for closing that debate. I honestly believe that piling on a previous false accusation should not count as a valid accusation. Because repeated lies should not count as the truth. -- Barecode (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC) -- Barecode (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - please also consider the later behavior of - After opening this incident based on fabrications, he keeps fabricating stuff saying that I am a an obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet of, and he is rushing everyone to ban both of us, he claims that I support fringe theories without any trace of indication for such a thing. I did not repeat claims of QAnon or Alex Jones, I don't claim the Earth is flat, what is he talking about? It doesn't matter, his point is to throw as many accusations as possible, to make it look like there is a serious issue here and wants to burry all this garbage as quick as possible. He provided a link to an nonexisting section - this to "prove" that I am pushing for a site ban. After the reply to  he said That is a personal attack which is also not allowed. Maybe you aren't here to build an encyclopedia since you seem to keep being uncivil Barecode. - so it's not even clear if he talks to Ivan VA or to me or maybe he thinks that by talking to Ivan VA he is talking to me. He said that I admitted that me and Ivan AV are a pair of socks of each other, which I never admitted. I knew that Ivan AV has the same point as me about Glenn Greenwald, he asked me before to call him if I talk about this topic therefore I asked him to come comment the discussion about blocking me so I won't be alone against editors who dislike me. Unfortunately Ivan VA's comments were not helpful at all. What is wrong to notify someone else that you actually feel harassed? Isn't this just another attempt to intimidate and to bully? If you feel harassed and you ask someone else for support then you are guilty of sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting - in the view of this distinguished editor. This horrible show based on fabrications makes me remember the phrase "Manufacturing consent". -- Barecode (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - Until now, the editors who accused me either came with false and absurd accusations or they just repeated a previous false accusation of forum shopping or they simply ask for banning me without actually bothering to mention any reason. Nobody called for blocking me for the only valid accusation about my reverted edit at Project Veritas - for which I already admitted that I was wrong. If that's a good reason for banning me - so be it. But they built a lot of noise on top of that in the hope of making it look like it's far worse just one error. I moved the rest of my answers to the accusations other editors made about me at User talk:Barecode/AE -- Barecode (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Statement by Ivan_VA
Barecode just rebelled against a quite clear violation of standard editing rules, where a group of editors decided to ban a credible article source just because the sources political views didn't match their owns'. It's a screaming injustice, violation and deterioration of editing standards. All the user did was trying to have a meaningful debate. Now the incriminated are trying to ban the messenger. This process here will be kafkaesque. --Ivan VA (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Ivan VA (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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


 * Content issues are very much the issue here. I say so, and there is a proven record of putting the content issue of this case under the rug. I dont see how u, as an en.wiki admin, can, given that u have to be biased free in this, say this without checking. It puts a bias on your judgement here. If this question stays unanswered i dont see how u can be taken as an impartial arbitror here, given your role given to u by the community. --Ivan VA (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Greenwald is a credible source, like Hilberg is for holocaust studies. An he is credible because of his credentials. No matter where he publishes. His take is encyclopedia stuff. B4 u can dismiss him as such, there needs to be a paper trail on this wiki, a process. And the guys who are banning his opinion from articles havent done that. Havent done their homework. Thats why its abuse. --Ivan VA (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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


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


 * Admittedly, I only suggested you were a likely POV warrior on the basis of your contribution to this AE. But now I check out your slender contribution to the Project I see you condemn yourself:
 * So it seems what we may be seeing, from both these editors, is an attempt at WP:SBA so they can whine about their Wikipedia martyrdom in some other forum. But it's not martyrdom, it's just boredom for the rest of us, tired of predictable AP2 silliness. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So it seems what we may be seeing, from both these editors, is an attempt at WP:SBA so they can whine about their Wikipedia martyrdom in some other forum. But it's not martyrdom, it's just boredom for the rest of us, tired of predictable AP2 silliness. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Statement by Valjean

 * Barecode, Johnuniq asked two questions ("Do you now think it was? Briefly, why or why not?"). You have answered the first one, but we'd like to see your answer to the second one: "Briefly, why or why not?" was your edit a "serious BLP violation". We need to know if you actually understand the BLP policy. -- Valjean (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Barecode, above, on 17:46, 20 December 2021, you replied to my comment immediately above. Good.
 * You wrote: "I understand the policy..."
 * Then why did you violate it?
 * You wrote: "I think Wikipedia is the place where you are not expected to simply obey the rules without any question."
 * Whether you question a rule or not (that can be done at the right place), you must obey the rule until it is changed. Period. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point or because you do not agree with a rule. Regardless of your motives, it's still blockable disruption. By this time, you've done this enough that it's become a bannable offense. Even a topic ban may not save you as it reveals serious CIR issues, and even worse, since you claim to understand the policy and then deliberately violated it, your actions are insurrection against our policies, and we cannot allow that to happen. Wikipedia must be protected from people like you.
 * You wrote: "A media outlet is not allowed..."
 * We have rules here, and we are not bound by the rules of other media; We just have other ways of reaching similar results. In fact, in some ways we are better than other media, and yet you deliberately violated BOTH our BLP and SPS policies AND the media rules you mentioned. In fact, you did even worse:
 * You libeled a person by name in an article.
 * You used Project Veritas as your only source. They are a horrible source.
 * You didn't even bother to do a basic Google search to see if actual RS mentioned the issue. They do not. BLP requires that we use multiple high-quality sources for negative claims about a living or recently dead individual, yet you posted pedophilia claims based only on Project Veritas.
 * Then, to make matters worse, you added content that wasn't even in the source. You editorialized a serious and libelous claim. If that CNN person sees what you did, they could sue you personally. Thankfully the very offensive content was revdeleted.


 * BTW, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, you should have provided an answer there, but you never did. -- Valjean (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Barecode, above, on 18:06, 20 December 2021, you replied to my comment immediately above. Good.
 * You wrote: I think anyone can actually understand that I want to respect the Wikipedia rules. The context was the section at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. It can still be read, but the really bad parts had to be revdeleted.
 * No, we can't "understand" that you "want to respect the Wikipedia rules", because you had just violated the rules in about as bad a way as can be imagined. BLP violations are very serious matters.
 * Then you proceeded to attack Alexbrn when he said you "don't get it". Nothing you had done indicated that you "got it", and we don't care what you say when your actions say otherwise. Alexbrn was right and didn't deserve for his comment to be labeled an "absurd and violent approach".
 * CONCLUSION: Indef siteban is needed. This was not ignorance, but deliberate insurrection. -- -- Valjean (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to reply to all the claims I'm lying or bullying, because that's all a failure to AGF, itself a blockable offense, at least when it's on this scale. I'll just deal with a few points to save space here.
 * That part where I assumed you hadn't performed "a basic Google search" was an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now you're implying that you did perform such a search. Okay, I'll AGF and believe you performed such a search, but that just makes things worse for you. When you did that search, you must have seen that no RS commented on the allegation from Project Veritas. So you knew that and yet persisted in calling out a CNN person for pedophilia, backed up with only that single terrible source. That's worse than I had imagined. If you were ignorant of the fact no RS had commented on it, well....ignorance could assuage a bit of your guilt, but since you knew....Wow! -- Valjean (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Moving on to another point.
 * You wrote: "I was using the source in the very article about the source. If you only did that, there would be no problem, but you are now doing exactly what you falsely accused me of doing: ("removing the relevant context in order to frame your nothing-burger accusation...". You left out the part about how SPS must not be used "about third parties". You know about that part because you started a whole discussion with that in the header: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. That you claim to previously have not understood that part is one thing (I'll AGF), but now you're arguing as if you were still ignorant of it, at least you left out the part you did wrong. No one has accused you of doing anything wrong by using a PV ref in the PV article. We have accused you of using an SPS about a third party. Focus on what we said you did wrong; don't try to divert attention to something no one found fault with. To quote you: "Embarrasing, isn't it?" -- Valjean (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Another point:
 * I wrote that you added content that wasn't even in the source. Your defense is that "the content was correct because it was found in another source on a different day (The source was an article which continued an article published one day before.). That's not how it works. That's why Verifiability, not truth is good to remember. The libel might well be found on other sources, but the source you use as a ref must back up what you write. You failed there. Unfortunately, I can't provide any diff because your BLP violation in two different locations was so serious it had to be revdeleted. In fact, revdeletion was used at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Project Veritas. -- Valjean (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ValarianB
"You transform Wikipedia into a North-Korea-like place, in your woke fight for righteous justice." --Barecode.

This was never about Wikipedia editing, this entire affair with this user has been theater, summed up by one sentence above. We're all going to be grist for an upcoming blog entry, most likely. ValarianB (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias
I'm being proposed for topic-banning in another case up the hall, so I've got some experience in this regard... and if I were to offer some free advice (worth every penny!) it would be to say if you're accused of making long rants, the best way to defend yourself just might be something other than to make some more long rants about it. But what do I know? Can I even follow my own advice? &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WaltCip
Never before have so many words been used to say so little.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Barecode

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


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


 * Support an indef not here block for Barecode. I'm open to one for Ivan VA as well., did you mean to comment about Dtobias in the Maneesh section? --RegentsPark (comment) 16:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, go ahead and TB Barecode. And indef Ivan VA. I didn't want to say it, but parsing their comments was headache inducing. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I've corrected that. please use your own section - content issues aren't relevant here.  Doug Weller  talk 16:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you're new to en-wiki and sr-wiki probably has different policies and procedures. At the top of this page it says "For all other problems, including content disagreements...". This page is to enforce WP:Arbitration Committee sanctions, and the Committees role is basically deal with conduct disputes. I'm not an Arbitrator (although I was for two terms) but am acting here as an Administrator, and it would be wrong for me to comment on whether something is a reliable source that isn't WP:UNDUE or whatever the content issue is. If you think someone is misusing sources there is WP:ANI, if you want to argue a source is unreliable or reliable there is WP:RSN, etc. Doug Weller  talk 11:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , your statement is more than double the 500 word limit, and, yours is more than ten times over it. Please trim them down to the important points. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Barecode, thanks for trimming that down. Since they're the responding party, I granted an extension to 1000 words for Barecode. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , different wikis absolutely do not have identical rules and standards. Each has its own, created by the editors of that wiki. Some have similarities, but do not assume that the rules at sr.wiki apply here. They do not. —valereee (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that things are at a more manageable size, I think has made some serious misjudgments, but is at least willing to hear and consider corrections regarding those mistakes. Given that, I would more favor a topic ban than an indefinite block, to see if they are willing and able to make constructive contributions in less fraught areas. On the other hand,  seems to have just doubled down, and their reply here being full of lulztxtspk ("u", "b4", etc.), certainly contributes to the impression that they do not take this issue seriously in the slightest. I would not object to a NOTHERE indef in that instance, unless they show some willingness to change course very quickly indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Any objections to this being closed shortly, TB for Barecode, NOTHERE for Ivan_VA? Doug Weller  talk 13:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Crossroads -talk- 00:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Article regarding which enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

(There does not appear to be a standard template for page restriction requests despite AE being for those too, so I did my best to follow the structured format.)

I am requesting page restrictions in the form of WP:Consensus required. This article in the last 2 days has been host to no less than 3 edit wars each with multiple editors on each side, all of whom are as far as I know extended-confirmed. Similar issues extend back further in time. Whatever changes to the article end up sticking has to do with whoever is more willing to revert than with any actual consensus.


 * Edit war 1: Paper author encouraging wide distribution of survey: (then another editor saying that if included we need to include their added material - where a primary source, the study itself, is being used to rebut a secondary source, the Wadman article in Science. ) Current result: kept but with rebuttal sentence just mentioned.
 * Edit war 2: Science describing the "most explosive" finding of the paper: Current result: removed.
 * Edit war 3: Describing the websites surveyed as "anti-trans": Current result: label added.

There is no way any of these changes can be said to have true consensus; each result is from revert-warring. So, while consensus required going forward is vital, it should also be applied to the changes which caused the report and the sanction, meaning that all changes since the last stable version should be reverted.

Admins may also be interested in WP:1RR, which I have no opinion on other than that it is clear that 1RR alone will not solve the problems here, since someone else can just revert. "Consensus required" is necessary.

Let me know if giving out any notifications is required.

Crossroads -talk- 00:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren: No, it is not at all just me, and dismissing Pengortm like that is a WP:Personal attack. In edit war 2, I was uninvolved, and was on Pengortm's side for that one in favor of the text. The text was forced out anyway. No talk page consensus exists for any of these edits. I was hoping this wouldn't get bogged down in behavior discussions, but the problem here is WP:FACTION-style reverting being used to force through changes. If "consensus required" isn't for this sort of situation, what is it for? And it is common for the stable version to be restored per WP:NOCON in such heavy controversies, because there is no consensus for these changes, while a new, actual consensus develops. Crossroads -talk- 00:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors should not be claiming a talk page consensus exists that does not exist. The quotes here by Loki in no way specify support for that addition of "anti-trans", despite their claim here that those editors do. By no means is that a clear consensus. (And if those editors do later support that new wording, that doesn't resolve this issue.) Crossroads -talk- 00:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial's claims are unsupported and untrue. A consensus required restriction on the page restricts me as much as anyone and I would still want it even if "anti-trans" stays or even if all three edit wars stay unchanged. Loki's claim that I am saying there is still no consensus is not true. I can only guess they are referring to this, where I listed quotes from sources for an explicitly open-ended purpose and inviting others to find more, Sideswipe9th accused me of being tendentious, and I replied that it was too soon to declare it settled since the discussion had started less then 3 hours before. That isn't denying the pattern there at that moment. Crossroads -talk- 05:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial's claim that this was a consensus-required violation is not true as I explained there. Disagreeing with them is not wikilawyering. It was WP:GAMING on their part to force a reversion to their version which had never been stable or had consensus. Newimpartial tried using this same talking point at an AE report at the same time, and around that time they sided against another editor being reported who admins unanimously sided with, and a few days later they reported that same editor for a consensus-required "violation" that was shown to not be a violation.

Everyone who has commented here so far except for XOR'easter is heavily involved either with this article or in the gender topic area, with some of the commenters even making the reverts mentioned in the report, so admins should evaluate accordingly. Crossroads -talk- 17:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sideswipe9th (ROGD controversy)
I've just placed a template notification on the article talk page about this filing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Aside from a brief contribution in, I've not been involved on this talk page until this evening. Reviewing Crossroad's provided diffs, I concur with the statements by Silver Seren, and Loki. This is a very clear example of Two against many. This filing seems somewhat vexatious, and I'd suggest Crossroads removes it. Otherwise I think Loki's suggestion of Consensus Required restrictions being imposed against Crossroads as well as Pengortm is worth considering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Silver seren
I'm not sure what "multiple editors on each side" that Crossroads is referring to. If you look at the article history, it is just multiple users (6 by my count including myself?) reverting Crossroads' changes and telling them that they're incorrect on the talk page. The only account that has been recently agreeing with them reverting alongside them is User:Pengortm, whom seems to be a clear POV editor that is edit warring across multiple articles with a number of editors. Consensus seems to be working perfectly fine on the talk page. The issue is just that the consensus is not on Crossroads' side and so they've been repeatedly claiming that no such consensus exists, as they have just now done again in the latest section on the talk page. Silver seren C 00:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I re-read their statement above, I can only assume that the "all changes since the last stable version should be reverted" request is an attempt to revert the article back to before the consensus made changes were done, since it is those changes that Crossroads disagrees with. Silver  seren C 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pengortm
I am not sure what the best solution is to the issues on this page, but we could certainly use third party admin perspective here. We are not doing a good job of productively collaborating to build something better. Update: reading up on Wikipedia:Consensus required, this seems like a good solution, but I also hope an independent admin can take a look at edit history/talk page and perhaps might have other suggestions. -Pengortm (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by LokiTheLiar
I agree with a consensus required restriction, but mostly to restrict Crossroads themselves. As I've just pointed out on the talk page of that article, they are reverting edits supported by six people (five on the talk page + me who made the edit) as "no consensus" when the only opposition is themselves. In fact, since the restriction in question may be imposed on a user rather than a page, I'd rather it be imposed on Crossroads as a user rather than the page in question, since really nobody else is trying to edit against consensus but Crossroads. Loki (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: we're now up to 9-2 in favor of this most recent edit and Crossroads is still claiming there's no consensus for it. Loki (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
This is wildly premature; there's extensive, ongoing discussion on the talk page, with multiple perspectives and a wide variety of sources being presented. If Crossroads does not feel that consensus is being properly created here, their next step should be to open an RFC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial
I have no intention of investing much time in this filing, one way or another. However, I feel that I would be remiss by not pointing out that Crossroads has a history of WP:GAMING consensus-required restrictions in particular and claims to consensus in general. He has insisted that text under active dispute at, and before, the time a consensus-required restriction is placed, is deemed (by him) to have consensus for his preferred version, so the restriction does not apply (to him). However, he will not accept a clear consensus in favor of a change if he is the one editor (or one of a small minority of editors) who dissent. Given this dynamic, a "consensus-required" restriction serves Crossroads merely as another STICK - diffs available on request, but this is very easy to demonstrate so I don't think they're really necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads - are you suggesting that any the other editors commenting here are more INVOLVED on the page in question than you are? If so, why? If not, then what are you saying?

And as far as your account of the Kathleen Stock disputes are concerned, I believe the Admin can read for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

And since I have been asked for evidence, above, this discussion documents Crossroads insisting that his preferred (but contested) version was not a consensus-required vio, and for wikilawyering about consensus, see for example this section, notably this edit (check the summary) - there was a fair amount of FILLIBUSTERING by Crossroads (and ) before Crossroads grudgingly (almost) admitted what the consensus actually was. The parallels between Crossroads' behaviour after the consensus required restriction was placed at Kathleen Stock (per the links /diffs I just provided) and his behaviour and expressed intentions in relation to this filing show a remarkably consistent pattern - deny that (or "question" whether) consensus exists for edits he doesn't like, and insist that old versions have consensus even when they have been explicitly contested by other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
If this is based on a content dispute. Have an RFC on it. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
Not a fan of consensus required restrictions in general, since I feel they encourage WP:STONEWALL behavior - obviously reaching consensus on every edit is ideal, but in order to get to that point, people need to be encouraged to come to the table and negotiate. If too much force is given to any one default outcome then it encourages people who support that outcome to refuse to engage or compromise beyond the bare minimum necessary to say no, to reject any consensus short of a formal RFC, and so on. This isn't a problem specific to any one article or subject (it is why there are an absurd number of RFCs for every minor detail on Donald Trump, which had consensus-required restrictions for ages), but the already-torturous nature of talk-page discussions on that article makes me particularly skeptical that such a restriction would help there, especially given that the entire reason it's being brought here is a refusal to accept a less formal consensus on talk. GoodDay's suggestion of an RFC for this specific case is reasonable, but it would be unreasonable to insist that every contested change go through an RFC even when there is a broad, general consensus for it on talk, which I fear would be the result of any such restriction. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by XOR'easter
This seems the wrong forum to resolve whatever might be happening on the Talk page in question, and I'm not sure how imposing CRP would help things. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DanielRigal
Really? It is bad enough that we have to have an RfC on a minor element of well referenced and uncontroversially valid content (what is being referred to as "Edit war 3" above) but we also have to have this as well? Is this really a good use of our time on Christmas Day? Anyway, this is venue shopping at the very least. In the interests of peace on earth and goodwill to people of all genders, let's just close it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink
Speaking as someone pretty new to this topic area, but not new to this topic, it seems any restrictions would be unnecessary. Talk page discussion/RfCs/consensus formation appears to be working as intended here. If, as some editors suggest, there is an issue with users continually pushing back against consensus or acting against consensus, that is a matter that should be brought up in a different venue/capacity: WP:EWN, WP:ANI, or back here to WP:AE as fits the particular context. But such venues do not take kindly to content disputes, so it should be very clear that the issue is editor behavior. At this time, I don't see much reason for the admins to do anything here.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

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


 * Procedurally, there is certainly nothing wrong with requesting page-level sanctions here, as that's certainly an available arbitration enforcement remedy (and maybe we should have some standard way to do that). That does raise the question of who should be notified about this request; I know I would at least like to hear from anyone involved in major edits to the article recently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at this now that people have had a chance to weigh in, it appears that these are content disputes which already are being extensively discussed, and one is the subject of an RfC in process at the time of this writing. Given that it does not seem that lack of talk page discussion is a problem, I see no need to impose a remedy enforcing it at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While I'm mindful of this request occurring over a holiday, there seems to be little need for enactment of a remedy here. Unless another uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this request with no action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with on all points, including AE is fine for requesting Arb related page sanctions.  As for the request, someone is always going to be on the short end of consensus, which itself is not a reason for page level sanctions.  As for his question re: who should be notified, I would tend to think that an article talk page notification is the most neutral way to notify, instead of trying to hand pick editors.  Not sure how we codify that, but I'm guessing via Arb clarification, since that is where the authority comes from.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)