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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[Contentious topics - GENSEX]

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

Colin has severe issues regarding GENSEX topics in a UK context.

Oftentimes when a source written by the British government regarding transgender topics is added, some editors will - while agreeing that the source merits inclusion in the article - nonetheless discuss its due weight and neutrality, often citing the UK govt’s record of targeted human rights abuses against trans people (as documented by the UN and the Council of Europe), as well as citing criticisms by reliable orgs against the particular source in question (the widespread MEDORG criticism of the Cass Review for instance).

Colin’s response on this topic is often to come in and deliberately misrepresent anything less than total deference as a personal xenophobic attack on anyone of British nationality, and assert that editors or reliable sources from outside the UK have less right to doubt the British government than British ones do, accusing those who do of being political activists.

March 20 2024 July 2 2024 ‘You, personally, are American, so you don’t get to criticize British government sources’ along with aspersions.

March 19 2024 June 4 2024 Absolute tirades against YFNS, containing pretty much everything but the kitchen sink.

March 19 2024 Telling other editors to save their editorial opinions for a blog, aspersions of bigotry against the British, accusations of bad faith, accusations of editing in service of trans politics.

September 11 2024 Calling the use of the term “trans kids” fringe activist-language and attributing its use to American trans activism.

June 22 2024 Calling everyone who shares YFNS' points amateurs who are so filled with activist rage that they don't even read the documents carefully.

April 9 2024 July 18 2024 July 4 2024 July 20 2024 Aspersions of bigotry against the British + accusations of bad faith against Hist and myself (I was saying that if someone wikilinks “Gender exploratory therapy” and it redirects to the GET section of the conversion therapy page, that’s not a bigoted edit. He considered that me making it personal for some reason? I've never been through conversion therapy)

March 20 2024 Mass accusations of bad faith and bigotry against the British, aspersions of being from (some little twitter bubble):

March 20 2024 April 9 2024 April 25 2024 April 21 2024 Accusations of bad faith.

April 13 2024 July 23, 2024 Miscellaneous aspersions. Please base your arguments on what actually appears in the report and not what twitter feeds, This is political game playing.

March 20 2024July 10 2024 Personal attacks. a matter for clever people, not wikipedians or twitterati, embarrassing themselves on the internet

I don't know what the best solution is. But I do know that this behavior makes it exponentially more difficult to collaborate constructively. I tried saying as much on his page on May 9th, but he quickly turned it into a discussion on our personally held views regarding transphobia in the UK which I abandoned once it was clear this wouldn't change anything.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

NA

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[Participated in this case]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Requesting word + diff extension

Edit @User:Colin YFNS uses she/they pronouns, not he/him

Edit 2 For whatever it’s worth, I would like to acknowledge that my own behavior does need improvement, and it’s something that I intend to work towards.

Edit 3 User:Barkeep49User:Vanamonde93 since this is proving a matter of some discussion, I’d like to note that I intended the use of single apostrophes without tq as a means of paraphrasing, not as a direct quote. Do with that info as you will.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

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.

There's text in quotes and green attributed to me but that I didn't write. And it seems most times Snokalok has confused me attacking the authors of weak sources and claimed those words were directed at editors, which would be clear with careful reading in context. -- Colin°^Talk 08:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review was commissioned and published by NHS England. It in turn commissioned two systematic reviews by NICE and published here. Subsequently seven systematic reviews were commissioned from the York University Centre for Reviews and Disemination. Those were published here in the Archives of Disease in Childhood.

These systematic reviews, which form the evidence-base for the Cass Review, have been repeatedly attacked on the basis that they are from the UK, and thus prejudged transphobic, and should be no more considered reliable than if they were published by the government of Putin's Russia: here, here and here. I have not accused any editor of xenophobia but have repeatedly complained that xenophobic comments have been made to dismiss these top tier sources. As others have noted, this happens elsewhere on Gensex topics. It seems unlikely, does it not, that this British transphobia has infected not just Dr Cass, chosen to chair an independent review as "a senior clinician with no prior involvement or fixed views in this area", but the NICE team, the eight world-class researchers at York and the editor and peer reviewers of the Archives of Disease in Childhood.

This comment repeats internet disinformation that the Cass Review excluded transgender health experts.

This post on YFNS talk page is in response to this post which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it.

It seems, given some of the comments posted, I haven't been clear enough that I'm enthusiastically attacking the authors of an awful source, rather than editors. I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that. YFNS claims I am here to provide a "knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review", and WAID notes that there's a US-politics battle to discredit the Cass Review. I'm not concerned with that battle. I'm concerned that medical matters on Wikipedia stick to the highest MEDRS sources, and don't repeat disinformation and conspiracy theories, from whatever side makes them. -- Colin°^Talk 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt Loki's "ridiculous and inflammatory accusation", I didn't make any of that up. It is all there in the sources YFNS cites above and in in their talk page response. The "ghostwritten" part comes from this post on my talk page by Snokalok where they describe their "side" as "This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence" and later refer to it as "a theoretically top MEDRS source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org". But they are referring to the same conspiracy theory as YFNS. There is no reliable evidence that "SEGM and Genspect were[] involved at almost every step of the process". Every step?

Wrt YFNS accusation of misogynistic language, I recall YFNS told me they didn't do twitter, so may be unaware that Horton's twitter handle is "@FierceMum". Their language. I joined Wikipedia 19 years ago to edit medical articles as "someone's dad". I'm frequently reminded of the limitations of "parent" as a medical qualification. Horton is an activist, with no medical or clinical research background, whose body of research consists of interviewing their social media circle. And yet editors cite their opinion as though stronger than our systematic reviews and all the learned bodies in the UK, as though, at the very top of the MEDRS source quality pyramid, above the nine systematic reviews Cass commissioned, lies "Activist Opinion". -- Colin°^Talk 09:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 I have the greatest respect for you three admins so please take what I say in that light. Have a look at the state of the AE request when I commented more fully. I have 500 words to respond to 20 diffs from Snokalok which, as Barkeep acknowledges, are full of misquotes and characterising my words in the worst possible light. And at the bottom of the page, I have three admins making comments like "some of the diffs I've looked at concern me" and "there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions" and "language raises the temperature" and "need to take a look at their own behavior" and "treating it as a battleground is a problem, and us-vs-them language". Every one of these comments are undiffed, and if made by any other editor at this venue, would be met with stern warning, as Barkeep did to Licks-rocks, of "behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs..". Do I argue with these opinions? No, they are fair. I respond that I would be "more than keen" to have a discussion with any one of you about my tone and language, but at another venue.

I was unaware that it was expected that I explicitly acknowledge my sins vs respectfully listen to what you guys have to say when you examine the diffs, which I certainly have. Of course my post to YFNS about her conspiracy theories was inappropriate in tone and language. You guys have already said as much, in a handwavy way, and I have not disputed that one bit. But Vanamonde93, I had at this point, no intention of seeking administrative action against this user, nor do I think ANI is the first step in dispute resolution or the place to resolve content disputes. If you may allow me to poke you a bit in return: I'm surprised an editor with a decade of experience thinks it is. If by "administrator attention" you believe admins are wiser than other editors, what can I say. Void is testament to the fact that a stern warning can rescue an editor from a topic ban, but there is light and day between the post I made to void and the one I made to YFNS. Did you think I can't see that and need to say it out loud like a child? If you did, I feel insulted and wonder why you think the criticisms you three have made aren't acknowledged and accepted. That simply isn't my character, which I think Barkeep, WAID and Sandy can attest to. -- Colin°^Talk 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I can only repeat what I said earlier "I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that." Wrt my first post, you should consider I woke up to this and posted a brief comment, addressing some of my concerns about the opening post, before I could start my day job. When I could return properly to this in the evening, you had added your concerns and advice. My feeling really at that point is that I had three good admins who would review my edits, weren't fooled by the misrepresentation by Snokalok, and could decide fairly whether this was an editor they want editing in this area, and make a reasoned decision as a result. I was seriously tempted not to write anything more and just let what will be will be.

I am concerned that you think an editor of 20 years should be made to perform a little dance of contrition for everyone's amusement, in order to get a more lenient sentence. Or think this weird forum with our own little boxes to write in, and word counts that seem to have gone out the window, is a sensible place for an editor to engage meaningfully with their peers/superiors about good editing practice and improvement. If you guys think I'm a valuable editor who they'd like to work in this area, if you agree with me there are issues with quality MEDRS sources being dismissed on prejudicial grounds, that disinformation is being pushed and outrageous conspiracy theories credulously promoted, and would like an editor of my calibre to deal with that, then I already made an offer to any of you to join me somewhere else for a bit of learning and improvement. That would be a respectful response I could work with. You have other options too. If you feel this area is not a good one for my mix of strengths and weaknesses, say so as one might to a friend or colleague, and I'll heed that advice. While this particular rabbit hole has rather distracted my contributions, as a fascinating area of medical controversy, I'd be off editing elsewhere. If instead you think a logged warning is called for, and I'm not arguing it isn't a fair, if rather algorithmic, response to a review of my conduct, it will certainly be enthusiastically preventative. -- Colin°^Talk 15:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Aquillionwhat a bizarre post. WP:BATTLEGROUND: "Wikipedia is not ... the place to carry on ideological battles" and yet you accuse me of it ("an approach some some of the comments by others above also reflect") by taking at face value the attacks on me by single purpose activist accounts, who are finding WP:MEDRS inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause. Those editors may view Wikipedia as a BATTLEGROUND, and that surfaces in the way they view and describe me as an editor, and the fact I'm the third editor in this area to be taken to AE in last the couple months, the previous one still on this page. And WP:ASPERSIONS: "a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". This is most ironic as you (and several of the admins below) accuse me of this and other things, without any diffs or quotes, which would be helpful. Your entire post is absent any diffs or quotes of me. And then thirdly, not only am I to be sentenced by credulously accepting complaints of editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy, that sentence is to be made all the more harsh because I have colleagues who can see some merit in my contributions. Both editors you quote praise me as a defender of our core policies, and WP:MEDRS in particular. Neither of them have said anyone should aspire to my writing approach, and Sandy is harshly critical of that. As for whether this or that admin action encourages others towards continuing or worsening behaviour, have you not considered the the admins could close this with very much such a warning to other editors in prose. Why on earth does everything need to be done with the tools? I am an adult human being, Aquillion, not a child to be made an example of in front of the class. -- Colin°^Talk 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat Sandy's request that I be given quotes and diffs to respond to by admins minded to give or log a warning. Barkeep, the "baseless accusations of bad faith" you mention is hard for me to deal with without specifics. I suspect there is a misunderstanding about who I'm accusing of bad faith (e.g. sources that promote disinformation and conspiracy theories). Similarly with the aspersions that SFN mentions without specific quotes. That would help me a lot. I completely get it about the tone and the temperature raising and the saying things that shouldn't have been said. Sandy's comments have been the most helpful so far and I'm committed to fixing this writing approach/style, no matter where I end up editing from now on. Finding oneself here is not easy, folks, particularly when the opening request contains claims I said things I didn't say (which remains unstruck), describes all the diffs in "the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light" and which generally "misrepresent" what occurred... and today I find an editor saying that because I have friends, who admire at least some aspect of my contributions, my head should be stuck on a spike as a warning to everyone else. Sigh. -- Colin°^Talk 16:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, as with so much of this AE, people are putting words into my mouth. "but he still said that calling children who were seeking puberty blockers for gender dysphoria ..." is not what I said. I clearly literally said "the treatment of children referred to CAMHS or GIDS-equivalent centres" and the complaint by Cass referred to "all the young people on the waiting list for services". And "referred", at the time, included self-referral, whereas now it is restricted to a referral by a clinician. Understanding this patient cohort is an significant aspect of the Cass Review, something they commissioned a systematic review to investigate. It is vital that editors on that page, and similar ones, restrain themselves to the careful terminology used in our MEDRS sources (WPATH, Cass, BMJ). -- Colin°^Talk 07:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 I'm concerned that Loki's post, which conveniently misquotes my words in the worst possible light, was made after you guys had discussed the issue of people misquoting and mischaracterising my words in the worst possible light. You can't just write this off as Colin's writing style because it extends to people treating MEDRS sources in the worst possible light, based on prejudice, disinformation and conspiracy theories they have read about in the lowest quality sources. I don't think we can say that the writing style in the Cass Review or the BMJ is to blame for editors making outrageous claims about them. At some point this is going to need examined and dealt with. -- Colin°^Talk 07:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first AE request that's been made against editors trying to follow MEDRS, and it's unlikely to be the last. There is a campaign by users for whom the ideas in the Cass Review don't support their political views, and so they are trying to get it removed from other articles (even though it's the strongest type of MEDRS - an independent systematic review) and to disparage it in its own article. Has Colin been less than ideal in his demeanor? Yes, but this is yet another example of users trying to get "first mover advantage" and remove him from this topic area so they can continue their "civil" POV pushing. The points Colin make about other editors ignoring the actual words of the document and cherrypicking sources/words to support their view are completely accurate, even if not worded ideally. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think the evidence provided by starship.paint and others has come to the point that this should be punted to ArbCom as well. It's obvious that the primary problem here isn't Colin's speech, but those he is speaking to, who are trying to push a POV on Wikipedia. I'd point out the behavior of those Colin was "rude" to here in the Telegraph RfC and the following discussions.. but I'm sure any admin curious can go review those if they aren't already up to speed on that situation. This is a clear situation (just like Israel-Palestine) where the topic area as a whole has editors trying to push POVs civilly, and AE is not equipped to handle cases like this where someone was, admittedly, a little rude, but the behavior they were responding to is extremely damaging to Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, as to There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this. - why would this be a logged warning? If you believe that there's [so] much misrepresentation in this report that [a] good faith [editor] could not produce this, why should a warning suffice? Warnings are for good faith editors that may stray from the desired path (like Colin), not for editors that are acting in bad faith. Someone acting in bad faith should be removed from the topic area, as they've shown they cannot act in good faith in the topic area (or beyond the topic area, but this is AE, not a place that can issue site bans). To be clear, I am very happy that at least Vanamonde is seeing that the root problem is other bad faith editors, not Colin. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Vanamonde backing away from their (correct) claim that there's [so] much misrepresentation in this report that [a] good faith [editor] could not produce this, and we have a valid claim by Colin that another editor in the topic area (Loki) is acting in bad faith also. To close this with the only actual "sanction" (being used liberally to refer to any action taken against an editor) being against Colin would be carte blanche for editors to continue making bad faith reports and literally lie about others in an attempt to get them sanctioned before their own POV can be called out. To Colin, if this report closes with no action against either Snokalok or Loki I think you've been the target of more than enough blatant lies/misrepresentations in this case alone (not to mention their conduct in other discussions) to justify you opening targeted AE cases against them and I encourage you to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind reviewing administrators that misrepresentation (including by the filer of this complaint and others who have commented here) extends beyond just this complaint in the topic area. The RfC on the reliability of the Telegraph was plagued by misrepresentation of that source, in some cases extending to blatantly taking things out of context. That RfC can be found here for any administrator who is not up to date on it, and the close review here. While it may be tempting to review this filing on its own, I think it would be a grave error to ignore the misrepresentation in the topic area just because it isn't "bad enough" here. I'm not saying that Colin doesn't need a warning or similar - but to issue that warning off this request without considering the bigger picture would be rewarding bad faith editors just because they filed a report first.

In other words, if there isn't enough evidence of bad faith/misrepresentation by editors in this topic area now to refer this whole thing to ArbCom, why not? The recent referral of the Israel-Palestine AE cases to ArbCom was quite "easy" for administrators to come to a consensus on... but now rather than looking at the whole picture and deciding to do that, it seems that because a warning against the editor this filing was about may be warranted, everyone's keen to just ignore the rest of the issues and put the burden on Colin to defend himself by either filing AEs against those who are engaging with him in bad faith, or even more difficult, someone to file an Arb request for the topic area.

Barkeep has also stated that all that is needed is just regular attention from AE for a while until (hopefully) things calm back down - they aren't going to calm back down because blatant misrepresentation in bad faith is being allowed to go unchecked and even be rewarded. To put it bluntly, actioning only against Colin here will not do anything useful for the topic area, and I'm pessimistic that even warnings or topic bans for the worst offenders at bad faith/misrepresenting others will do enough here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a plane all day; request at BK49 talk for OP to better refine post using non-mobile diffs.

@Barkeep49 and ScottishFinnishRadish:, I also request that admins on this page strictly enforce the need for diffs; the post by Licks-rocks is replete with undiffed assertions amounting to a diffless personal attack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing Barkeep49's desire for the target not to sprawl, I want to at least say before I head for the airport that #Statement by starship.paint (3) regarding the denigration of highly reliable British sources (and I don't mean The Telegraph) throughout trans-related discussions in favor of less reliably sourced content is also something I have seen at other articles than those raised here; if admins decide they want to explore that aspect further here, then I'll provide diffs, but if this poor sourcing continues to disrupt talk discussions, it would likely be the subject of a separate AE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion:, I acknowledge not having gotten through all of the diffs, but I have yet to see an example of an aspersion, much less an extended history of one. I have pointed out above one example of two unhelpful sentences describing poor sources-- that are nothing like some of the aspersions cast at Colin on this very page with diffs that don't support them. It would be helpful if anyone participating in this thread could give a concrete example of Colin casting an aspersion on any editor so that could be addressed and responded directly to, if there is one. It would at least benefit to understand the standard that Colin is being held to, so that the same standard can be upheld at other articles in the GENSEX realm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I think you could strike "what a bizarre post"; viewed logically, you make valid points explaining why you see the post as bizarre, but the statement only adds heat, and your points are understood without it.

Having looked at the alleged "aspersion" diff, now working back by date, to the next example listed in the original complaint as a "personal attack", I'm not seeing that either. Since this is what I find on every diff I view, I would appreciate someone/anyone claiming a personal attack or aspersion posting a diff that actually shows one of those. We already have Colin acknowledging on this page a post to another editor's talk that was "inappropriate in tone and language"; the continued allegations of personal attacks and aspersions, sans diffs, are aspersions. Aquillion, I'm not defending aspersions; I haven't seen a diff where they have actually occurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 and Vanamonde93 I fully get your latest posts (15:08 and 16:41) in theory, but could we examine the reality in practical terms?

1. As I read it, you (and Berchan) are encouraging others to bring forward other instances affecting GENSEX content on this page. How will that not be viewed as pointy or retaliatory and how will those result in clean discussions, starting off messy as likely being viewed as pointy or retaliatory, with admins having already taken a position with bearing on only one editor? How will you all avoid those editors not having a first-mover advantage? The main reason I ask is because ...
2. As some may recall from the Venezuelan arbcase, even with livelihoods threatened, the initial toxic positioning against one editor at ANI was never dealt with. First-mover advantage stands today, and the content area was gutted, as other editors were left reluctant to participate.
3. And for the third example, consider WP:ARBMED where even though the majority of arbs did not feel Colin warranted a warning, we find on this page that four-year-old history thrown back at him (never mind that I was most certainly left feeling like I had to deal with men peering up my skirt, and that I have since collaborated with the editor who is re-visiting this). Once admins or arbs issue a one-sided finding, that editor is left permanently facing things being thrown back at them. How is that not going to be the case here if any one of us brings forward now the recurring issues in GENSEX?

All I see happening if this closes as it stands now is the same as in three cases: GENSEX continues as contentious as it has always been, Venezuelan editors left en masse, and with the exception of Ajpolino, who hangs in there, FA content production in the medical realm ended because the real issues went unaddressed, while the whole case was framed as related to drug prices, which were never the problem. And then there's the similarity in ARBMED vs GENSEX: at ARBMED, Colin's indignation over edit-warring shone through in his tone, and yet the other party's edit warring was ignored. Here, it's Colin's indignation over really poor sourcing that has led to tone concerns. Colin doesn't edit war and Colin doesn't push a POV, and yet he is to be warned while others get first-mover advantage. I don't see how this can end well. Please reassure me you've considered these factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add ... is it within the remit of AE, as WAID suggested, to remind editors advocating the use of certain sources that they should be approaching WP:RSN? Is there a reason not to enact that suggestion from WAID, so that here and at other articles, we can avoid protracted discussions about dubious sourcing, and solve those issues more globally? Again, because I've seen the same issues on other articles besides those raised in this AE. Or must we go to ANI or elsewhere for that? Sorry for any typos, etc, I am off to the airport again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is helpful. The subject is difficult. There is the expected amount of POV pushing. This AE report feels to me like an effort to "win" a content dispute by banning people who disagree with you.

Consider the complaint described as "Calling the use of the term “trans kids” fringe activist-language and attributing its use to American trans activism."

"Trans kids" was a term I used a current discussion about whether we need WP:INTEXT attribution for a statement that "children with comorbidities did not receive adequate psychological support". "Children with comorbidities" means kids on NHS England who have been referred for gender services and who also have autism, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and other complex needs that are not about being trans. Some editors want this statement to be labeled as merely something "The report claimed". (I disagree; I consider it a violation of MOS:CLAIM and WP:INTEXT.)

This content background is necessary to understand why Colin objected to me using "trans kids" to describe these kids: "getting a referral" isn't the same as "being trans", just like "not getting a referral" isn't the same as "not being trans". I conflated the comorbid population with the trans population. We have sources saying that at the start of the multi-year Cass Review, trans advocates agreed that not every kid who was referred was actually trans, and that this shifted during the last months so that a small portion (that'd be "Fringe", right?) of the trans advocates (otherwise known as "activists", right?) started saying that every single kid who got a referral needed medical transition (e.g., puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) and should be expected to have a lifelong trans identity.[2] Colin asked all of us to be careful and precise, which IMO is fair. However, when you pull Colin's comment out of context, or just glance over the discussion, it can be unfairly twisted to sound transphobic.

Snokalok's contribution to this discussion is to say that the Cass Review is so controversial that INTEXT attribution is appropriate even when it's saying something undisputed,[3] and to say that psychological support may be a code word for conversion therapy.[4]

Overall, I do feel like there are a lot of Americans (including me) involved in an article about NHS England, and I do occasionally feel like one "side" sees it in terms of American politics. There seems to be a fear that if this report isn't criticized as heavily as possible on as many grounds as possible – we even talked about whether to mention a typo in a source that was cited in the final report[5] – then bad things will happen outside of England. This is IMO just to be expected. I believe this article will be a lot easier to write in five years. In the meantime, we have to muddle through as best we can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta comment: Given the propensity to re-litigate content disputes (e.g., is a given person properly described as "an expert on transgender healthcare"? Is this or that source actually suitable for claiming that a different source is wrong or transphobic?), I wonder whether AE has ever inflicted a series of specified RFCs as a sanction.

In the meantime, perhaps you all would try to confine your comments to the I-message format: "I felt ____ when he ____. Instead, I think he should _____" – and if the words you want to put in the second blank sounds anything remotely close to "disagreed with my POV/a source that supports my POV", then don't post it here, because that's not actually what AE is for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @SandyGeorgia, it has indeed been difficult to get editors who are familiar with MEDRS to work on these pages for any length of time. I think this will get better over time, when we will have a greater number, and hopefully better quality, of academic sources to work with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant in many of these discussions, and as someone who otherwise greatly respects Colin, I'm posting here mainly to say that I agree with Snokalok's complaint. Colin especially has a bad habit of casting weird nationalistic aspersions when anyone argues that the British government or media may not be a reliable source, regardless of their evidence for this. I should also point out he does this on non-MEDRS pages as well (those diffs are both from a dispute on LGB Alliance, and they're not the only two diffs like it from that discussion), so it's definitely not just "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS". Loki (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that to say this repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis is pretty obviously the sort of ridiculous and inflammatory accusation that we're here about. What YFNS actually said is that SEGM and Genspect, two anti-trans hate groups (very well sourced on their pages), consulted on the Cass Review (and that therefore the Cass Review's conclusions are suspect for bias). And they did, YFNS gives a source for that too. The Los Angeles Blade is a subsidiary of the Washington Blade, who our article describes as often referred to as America's gay newspaper of record, and so there's every reason to think they're reliable for this information. Loki (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint I stand by my characterization of that source, and in fact knew that from the beginning. We don't usually question our source's sources here. If a newspaper is willing to republish a blog post, it's endorsing the factual content of the post. Loki (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I would like to politely suggest that you're going a little beyond assuming good faith there for Colin and consequently a little below assuming good faith for everyone he's arguing with. So for instance, I'm very aware that Colin's criticism here is technically speaking making a pretty technical argument... but he still said that calling children who were seeking puberty blockers for gender dysphoria "trans kids" is recent and fringe activist-language, not something accepted by reliable sources. Because of the reference to recency (which wouldn't make any sense if this was really about the Cass Review since the whole dispute is recent) and the fact the population YFNS was referring to was just children seeking puberty blockers for gender dysphoria anywhere in the UK, not some restricted local population, he's pretty clearly referring to the use of the language in general, or at minimum for every trans kid in the UK. His technical justification doesn't make the argument he's making narrower.

I could make similar arguments for the other things you've argued are misrepresentations, but I'd go way over the word limit and frankly I think you already get my gist. Loki (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the diffs above by Loki on supposed weird nationalistic aspersions by Colin, as well as some of the context. It seems that there was a discussion where five British sources were brought in to back up a certain point. The British sources, BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, cover a substantial spectrum of British views, and are quite well-rated on WP:RSP (though the Telegraph was temporarily downgraded to marginally on trans issues at the time of the discussion, the rest are generally reliable). Some editors responded by seemingly rejecting British sources altogether and directly comparing them to other countries such as Russia and Hungary, and that pretty much explains Colin's responses for Loki's diffs. starship.paint (RUN) 08:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - it seems that your good example of the unnecessarily inflammatory interactions I am concerned about (and some others of Colin's comments) was prompted by assertions made by other editors in the topic area who are involved in this complaint. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: - you highlighted YNFS' source and stated that there's every reason to think they're reliable for this information, but this source literally republished a Substack blog as a news article on Religious Extremism/Anti-LGBTQ+ Activism. The Substack author is a self-described activist whose tagline is Advocacy For LGBTQ+ Justice. starship.paint (RUN) 13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, so no need to question the Los Angeles Blade in this case, with its relation to the generally reliable Washington Blade. Never mind that editors have questioned the Cass Review, questioned British sources (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Times, New Statesman)… starship.paint (RUN) 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: - I am quite surprised that you consider Void if removed as hounding you when they looked at your contributions to an WP:AE complaint you literally started against them. I would expect every ‘defendant’ at AE to meticulously scrutinise the AE complaint against them, this is not cause for sanctions at all. starship.paint (RUN) 01:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like AE discussions, and I don't tune in to the discussion at issue much anymore either, but I will say that I've grown quite annoyed at Colin's attitude towards the topic. Whenever I get involved with him in a discussion, the first thing I have to do is wade through a veritable river of small and larger misrepresentations about both what his conversational partners have said, and what the sources say. He has a bad habit of assuming the worst in other editors, and thus attacking the worst possible interpretation of their position, rather than the position those editors actually hold. I and others have called him out on this several times already [7] [8]. In addition, as visible in the diffs snokalok already provided, he is consistently extremely dismissive of anything that writes negatively about the cass review, whether that be statements from WPATH, peer reviewed papers of any kind, or anything else, and will accuse other editors of bias when they argue back. Just in this last discussion he dismissively referred to a peer reviewed analysis of language used in the cass revieuw as an "activist's opinion piece" [9][10][11] and berated me for referring to it as anything else, in doing so again repeatedly insinuating that I and YFNS don't understand how peer review works. The paper in question is peer reviewed, not in the opinion section, and consists of a literature analysis. That's just not conductive to productive discussion! And yes, he did indeed berate YFNS for colloquially using the words "trans kids" in a discussion, calling it "fringe activist language", though he later walked it back a bit. This agressive, uncompromising, and accusatory attitude is extremely tiring and grinds discussions to a complete halt.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be. Methodical, precise and absolutely focused on the best possible sources - and we disagree hugely on much of GENSEX, having butted heads many, many times, but always scrupulously fairly. Cass review needs more editors like this, not fewer. After being subjected to AE myself just days ago, I find it very hard to WP:AGF at this attempt to remove an editor of Colin’s calibre. This looks like an attempt to bully and "win" content disputes.

I agree completely with whatamidoing’s assessment of "trans kids" - in this specific context, it is unhelpful language, and its better to stick to the Cass Review's phrasing. There is a dispute in healthcare in this area and sticking precisely to what sources say and how they say it helps navigate, even if editors don’t personally like it.

The descriptions of the other diffs are disingenuous and misrepresented, eg. the "activist rage" comment is directed not at editors, but the authors of terrible sources.

The "Council of Europe" responses also I think need to be seen in the context of protracted cases of WP:IDHT, with several editors on GENSEX UK topics repeatedly attempting to use a partisan political statement from a subcommittee of the Council of Europe as a trump card against UK WP:RS, even MEDRS. See this from Snokalok as part of the chain on July 20th. In the AE request against me, Raladic used it to attack another editor, and disparage the UK legal system. It comes up time and again, in all sorts of contexts, from the same handful of editors trying to use it to exclude or question WP:RS from the UK. Bringing it up again in this AE report is somewhere between WP:IDHT and WP:RGW, and if Colin is fed up with it, he isn’t alone. I'd be glad to see a page ban for any editor repeatedly flogging this dead horse.Void if removed (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the LA Blade article Colin described as an internet conspiracy theory is the same reposted substack article that came up in my AE last week.

This is not a quality source. Both the author and this outlet consistently publish misinformation about the Cass Review.

the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality, applying standards that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric medicine

This claim is completely false, and MP Dawn Butler had to apologise for repeating this myth in Parliament. Void if removed (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've now had two back-to-back reports involving the same editors, in the same articles, with much the same arguments and diffs that are presented with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light. After taking mine on board I was hoping things would settle, but clearly not. Nobody wants another of these, so I would please ask that any decision consider seriously whether it will cool down or further inflame this contentious topic. Void if removed (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Colin that At some point this is going to need examined and dealt with. A result here that does not acknowledge the behaviour Colin was responding to - which has continued unabated in this report - will likely result in further escalation and disruption. Void if removed (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface this with I don't believe Colin should be banned from GENSEX, and I find it funny that multiple editors have called it a POV-pushing attempt to TBAN someone when nobody has said they should be TBANNED...

That being said, I think a logged civility warning and/or bludgeoning restriction are probably for the best. Perhaps also a cool off block from the topic of the Cass Review, but I'd hope that can be avoided.

The tirades on my talk page were particularly tiring -

1. Colin came in to argue I'm heading for a TBAN because I noted a WP:RS reported that the Cass Review denied a FOI about the authors and arguing "if I see the Council of Europe mentioned one more time in a talk page discussion trying to dismiss a source from the UK, and a top-tier source like this, I will take whoever said it to the relevant forum for a topic ban" and accusing me of xenophobia against the British (funny considering I'm half British...). He accused me of trying to put it in a Criticism section (which I never did) and trying to defend PB's bc of my opinion (funny considering I think PB's are a regressive treatment and youth should be offered hormones instead in nearly every case) [12]
2. Colin came in to say I'll be TBANNED and was pushing "conspiracy theory bullshit". When I back the claim I made with multiple RS (saying that Genspect/SEGM were involved), he argues my statement is somehow "typical of the misogynistic nonsense" towards Cass...[13]

Colin also threatened Snokalok with a TBAN for noting the Cass Review's FAQ on their website is hardly WP:INDEPENDENT [14] He has then accused Loki of being in "moon landing conspiracy territory" and threatened them with a TBAN for saying the Cass review is fallible.[15]

Colin has been responding to any and all criticism of the Cass review by handwaving them away as "activists" and etc, repeatedly argued to exclude criticisms of the Cass Review from its article, and generally seems to be treating it like holy writ which cannot be criticized on any basis. The Cass Review is not universally well accepted by the medical community, and in fact has been quite criticized on multiple fronts (by human rights orgs and medical orgs and LGBT RS and etc). I'd like to see a warning to treat other editors civilly and not continue insisting everywhere that the Cass Review is somehow infallible.

I hope this is a wake-up call for Colin, because I think he's overall a valuable contributor to GENSEX, but am frankly sick and tired of his knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review from any and all criticism and his incivility doing so. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note 3 things from Colin's reply:

1. he says I repeat internet misinformation by saying the Cass Review explicitly excluded trans people from the Assurance Group, linking to himself[16]. In that comment, he repeatedly mocks and denigrates Cal Horton, handwaving their peer reviewed criticism as "opinions someone's mum" for the record Colin, that bordered on misogynistic. His comment is 2 paragraphs of insults in response to a quote saying The original published Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Cass Review’s assurance group explicitly excluded trans expertise, stating that it “deliberately does not contain subject matter experts or people with lived experience of gender services”
2. He links to me noting the Cass Review denied a FOI (a very uncommon practice) as evidence of supposed xenophobia, and he continues insisting "they denied a FOI" requires WP:MEDRS (obviously not per WP:MEDPOP) [17]
3. The note on my talk page speaks for itself. Multiple RS say these organizations had some levels of involvement. Colin apparently considers that "misinformation".

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin you keep using "disinformation" and "conspiracy theory". The Cass Review was criticized by WPATH and all of their regional organizations and the British Medical Association. The American Medical Association and Endocrine Society stood by their policies when Cass criticized them. Amnesty International has said the report's been weaponized. More criticisms are in Cass Review. Is there a single criticism from any org or scholar you'd not describe as "disinformation"? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin, you can't accuse everybody who disagrees with you of being single purpose activist accounts, who are finding WP:MEDRS inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause (btw, what exactly is the "ideological cause"?) and editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy. Nobody has called for your ban because even those who disagree with you find you a generally valuable editor, but are sick of being accused of stuff like this by you if we consider the Cass Review anything short of infallible. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment on this, but incidentally, Colin's own latest statement in the AE report here now forced me to. This repeated attacks on Dr. Horton are reaching WP:DEFAMATION levels and may actually require WP:OVERSIGHT. Dr. Horton has several years of research experience and is an expert on transgender healthcare. You're welcome to read the draft User:Raladic/Cal Horton of their experienced and published research on the topic. It also seriously puts into question if Colin is acting in good faith on following MEDRS if he himself isn't actually able to leave his emotions in check and realize that this isn't just a random "activist" as he puts it, but an expert on transgender care who has dedicated several years of their career to it. To show how systemic this repeated denigration from Colin on this has been, admins can refer to [18] and [19] where another user (who appeared to have been an SPA to advance anti-trans points and was recently TBANNED from GENSEX) tried to repeat Colins earlier defamatory comments about Dr. Horton and those were revdeleted due to the defamatory nature by another admin.

One a separate note as it appears Void if removed is still hounding my edits as they are posting a diff to a comment that is not actually in the live comment that I made to another user as I reworded it a few minutes after the diff they linked, as you can see in the archived section, so the only reason they would have this diff is if they are somehow hounding my edits. I request they remove/strike their baseless accusation of me "attacking another editor" (with a diff that's not even live as I pointed out) as I simply linked to an article on Wikipedia, which summarizes the RS view, so calling what reliable sources report an attack is baseless. Since I did point out VIR may be hounding me in the original AE report and this appears to be another case to support this, may an admin advise on this? Raladic (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 - are your or another admin going to address the report I made above in my statement to tell Colin to stop his continued BLP violations/defamation of his misrepresentations of Dr Horton? Raladic (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I know that a single AE case cannot solve the problems of an entire topic area, one thing I would like administrators to keep in mind is the number of responses, above, that describe Colin's behavior as something to be emulated. This report is imperfect but the diffs above still document an extented history of WP:ASPERSIONs and a willingness to approach the topic area as a WP:BATTLEGROUND - an approach some some of the comments by others above also reflect, in a way that shows how that sort of incivility metastasizes and spreads. Colin is experienced enough to know that that isn't how editors are supposed to interact with each other. When that sort of thing isn't met with some form of formal sanction, especially when coupled with a lack of contrition or any recognition that they've done something wrong, it is taken by everyone involved as permission to raise the temperature further, which is part of how the topic area has reached its current unpleasant state. If it's necessary to create reports for other people in the topic area then do it, but in terms of purely preventative measures that might help the topic area become more bearable, statements like Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be and describing him as our finest medical editor are arguments for being more strict with him, not less. Experienced editors whom others emulate should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quietly watching this AE thread, and did not particularly want to involve myself. I want to say right off that I have long disagreed with Colin, and I'm sure that he and his friends would regard me as someone biased against him.

That said, I want to strongly endorse what Aquillion has said in his statement just above. Whatever else may or may not be going on here, and whether or not anyone else has unclean hands in making accusations against Colin, those comments are important for AE admins to consider seriously.

As some have already noted, in the Medicine case, ArbCom made a finding of fact about Colin: [20]. Ultimately, it doesn't mean any less because of how the Arbs voted, because it is still part of the final decision, and Colin should know about it. And look at the first diff of the three diffs listed there by the Arbs, and what he said about me, and most importantly, the way he said it. Based on that experience, here is what I said then on the case request page: [21]. I was near to quitting Wikipedia over how it made me feel (so my reluctance to comment now isn't new). And here is the evidence I provided in that case: [22]. If you go to the second heading of March 30, and the paragraph starting "But Colin then entered the discussion, saying... ", and follow the diffs there, you'll see that the issues raised in the current AE thread have been going on a long time, with Colin issued an FoF back then, and a similar attitude continuing here, with little sign of repentance. Even if he is right on the content issues, ArbCom has correctly determined that being right isn't enough, and that principle should guide AE admins now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know on which side Colin stands with regard to the trans debate? No. This is the mark of a neutral editor. All I see is a respected editor upholding our values such as writing from a neutral point of view and being true to reliable sources against a barrage of biased edits. To say that Colin should be held to a higher standard because of his solid reputation as a valued editor, is ridiculous beyond words. Colin's debating style can come across as blunt, particularly if he disagrees with you, but he never acts in bad faith and never has. Given the false accusations posted at the top of this discussion, the OP should be given a good telling off and this report closed. Contentious topics are "contentious" and we should welcome a lively debate. I don't see anything disruptive in Collin's posts; just a well-argued case for sticking to and respecting reliable sources and not cherry-picking them to push a personal agenda. Graham Beards (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Snokalok this is already a very comprehensive report. I'd ask you to consider what you feel the biggest issues are and the strongest diffs are and use that rather than going much longer. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am completely uninterested in letting this report sprawl. If people have concerns about anyone other than Colin (and for me this includes Snokalok given that the diffs here are not about a 2-party dispute but if another admin feels that's too far, fair enough), they should file their own AE report. @SandyGeorgia the original report was with-in word and diff parameters (technically I count 22 diffs but the extension is granted retroactively) and so I will not be asking them to limit it further. But to your point the exception I'd be willing to make about sprawl are people who don't follow behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs - Lim-rocks your statement could have waited until you had time to support it with diffs) during this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to hear from Colin (and am prepared to grant a word extension if necessary because successful defense takes many more words than successful accusation) but I will note that some of the diffs I've looked at concern me as I think parts go beyond "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS" (though I definitely did see some examples of editors failing to understand MEDRS as well). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like we're seeing, in miniature, the disputes I've now read about in this report and Void's, play out in in this AE report. It starts with a quote (You, personally, are American, so you don’t get to criticize British government sources that isn't actually a quote of Colin's. This absolutely sets the wrong tone for a discussion. Of course supporting that quote that isn't words Colin ever wrote are diffs which show that Colin does indeed have concerns about Americans criticizing British government sources. Why put words in Colin's mouth then? It then continues with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light, to characterize 20 more diffs of Colin's. In the full context of the quotes it becomes clear that Colin is responding to perceived shortfalls of others when it comes to using WP:MEDRS; I won't claim Colin's perception is always right but I would suggest on the totality of diffs at play here that those he's replying to should really think on the fact that many editors who've worked with Colin on medical articles outside this topic speak so highly of his understanding of that guideline.

  But none of that changes that Colin's over the top language - with one example in evidence by SFR below - creates conditions that perpetuate a battleground rather than collaborative atmosphere. The 2020 ArbCom's description of Colin as someone who has degraded discussions by baseless accusations of bad faith and needless antagonism seems to be true here as well. While I'm not necessarily opposed to Vanamonde's suggestion that no formal sanction is needed, my first choice at this time is a logged warning. Admittedly part of my reason for this conclusion is that the most recent GENSEX AE (Void's) closed with an informal warning and so passing equivalent sanctions would understate, for me, the severity of harm to the editing atmosphere in evidence with Colin. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• While some of what I see in the diffs looks to have been misinterpreted, there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions that don't technically refer to other editors need to stop, as does policing the use of terms like "trans kids"on the talk page. I, too, would like to see Colin's response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it is a good example of the unnecessarily inflammatory interactions I am concerned about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to see a more substantive response from Colin. What I am seeing so far is a mixed bag. I am seeing many instances of nuanced explanation by Colin that is being misrepresented. There is some strong language, but not generally beyond the bounds of what I would consider acceptable. I am also seeing allegations of xenophobia from Colin, and conversely some negative references to national character from those he is arguing with. Such language raises the temperature to no purpose. I'm not sure if sanctions are justified, but multiple participants here, including Colin, need to take a look at their own behavior. Editing a contentious topic requires patience and a willingness to examine nuance - treating it as a battleground is a problem, and us-vs-them language is a good reason to remove someone from a topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It bothers me that Colin's reply does not in any way acknowledge that his language was inappropriate, and as such I would support a logged warning, per Barkeep49 (FTR, I use "sanctions" as shorthand for things that materially restrict an editor, rather than a rap on the knuckles). I don't know why a Wikipedian of two decades tenure needs to be told this, but if an editor is bringing sub-par conspiracist sources to a contentious topic, the appropriate response is to bring them to administrator attention, not to post lengthy screeds on their talk page. I'm also seeing that sort of inflammatory language from other editors though. Making over-the-top analogies to other countries isn't appropriate: this is inflammatory. If editors cannot conceive of a position between "X is transphobic" and "X is the gold standard of medical knowledge", this topic is going to remain a disaster and the editors in it are likely to find themselves unable to edit it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I'm much less likely to support sanctions against editors who recognize that they lost their cool and commit to being patient, than ones who insist they did no wrong; and your first post, Colin, contained much deflection and little reflection. I ask you in the future to bring problematic editors to admin attention not because we are wiser - I certainly wouldn't claim to be - but because the community has empowered us to remove disruptive editors from contentious topics. If you believe admin intervention isn't necessary and that you can persuade an editor to see the error of their ways re: sourcing, then you need to do so with temperate language or step away. And like it or not, we're here because someone brought your conduct to admin attention: if you aren't going to discuss your conduct here, where do you intend to discuss it? And as to diffs; we aren't providing evidence, we're assessing evidence other people provided, and by your own admission those assessments are fair. If you disagree, you are free to try to persuade us, or appeal any outcome of this discussion to ARBCOM.

  Having thought on this further, I'm inclined to additionally support a logged warning for Snokalok. There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this. There's other editors whose language I'm not happy with, but many of the diffs I'm looking at are a little old to action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Raladic, if you're talking about this diff, I don't see how it is defamatory, and I don't believe it rises to the level of revision deletion either; questioning the credentials of a source is a necessary part of content discussion. Colin's language is too harsh, but that is something I've already alluded to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will note that I did look at this claim of possible OS when it was first made and found it lacking. I can find no evidence (including on the draft bio page) that what Colin wrote is wrong: Horton appears to have done no clinical or medical research (emphasis added). They have done other kinds of research and have academic credentials in the topic that are pertinent. Dismissing them out of hand as someone who only has the perspective as a parent isn't helpful (which Colin did) but neither is pretending what Colin wrote is defamation requiring Oversight. One disconnect that this does raise is just how much of the Cass Report is biomedical information requiring MEDRS sources and how much are other kinds of science/research. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "Trans kids", I feel like conflict is again being created because of an (understandable) lack of perspective of intent (and failure to AGF). The plain reading of the statement is alarming - I know I was shocked when I first read it. When reading what Colin actually wrote it is 100% about technical definitions from a research paper. I don't think either thing is really sanctionable, that is Colin could have been more tactful and other editors should be attempting to understand technical points but the failure to do so on either end doesn't turn this into a "must act" from AE admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barkeep49 and ScottishFinnishRadish: It's been a few days since an admin commented, and in my view the additional discussion here is not helping resolve anything. I still believe a logged warning is in order for Colin (for inflammatory language) and for Snokalok (for misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith). How do you feel? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there more of a misrepresentation than just the quote? If not I'm not in favor of warning Snokalok. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are other diffs I would characterize as misrepresentation, yes. this, for instance, is very clearly in reference to the patient cohort examined by the Cass review: the report presents the diff as though Colin is dismissing the use of "trans kids" to refer to trans kids in general, which he is not doing, at least not there. This edit is characterized in the report as referring to editors agreeing with YNFS, whereas - to me - it is clearly referring to the twitterati. It isn't a helpful comment, to be sure, and is part of the pattern of inflammatory language - but Colin isn't name-calling other editors in that instance. I'm left with the impression that Colin's contributions are also being read in the worst possible light by the OP, and that's not a helpful approach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer a more general reminder to AGF because I don't think reading Colin's comments in the worst possible light is limited to Snokalok. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree others are also reading them in the worst possible light, but Snokalok filed the report. I think filers in particular should be extremely careful not to misrepresent, because those who come along after may take their word for it when responding. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Colin's communication style makes it easier to assume their snark is targeting editors, and as it contributes to a battleground it makes it less likely that editors will assume good faith. I'm willing to assume good faith that there were some misreadings, rather than misrepresentations here. I don't think general reminders are terribly effective, but I guess that's what comes between nothing and a warning, so I wouldn't object to that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with this also. I just am not sold on warning Snokalok. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can live with a general reminder to AGF, and a logged warning for Colin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I want to say I agree with those editors saying we'll be returning to this topic area soon. There is a lot of built up bad will in the area and so it makes sense that we will see more reports. I don't think we need to solve everything here (as appealing as that might be). The closest place that does that is ArbCom and I don't think the misconduct in this area is such that it needs ArbCom intervention at this point, as compared to just regular attention from AE for a while until (hopefully) things calm back down. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read through the various posts since my last comment, and none of them changes my assessment of what needs to be done. Many editors have failed to assume good faith, and many editors have approached this topic with a battleground mindset. Colin's language has been inflammatory, and he has failed to treat other editors in good faith several times: that those other editors have also done so, does not excuse anything. I don't believe this needs ARBCOM attention at this time. If the editors involved were able to focus strictly on the content, many of the problems would melt away; but I'm not holding my breath. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to close this in a moment. @Valereee if you feel that further discussion about warning Snokalok is needed you can feel free to revert me. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to keep this brief, as this report has sprawled already. Sandy, I cannot speak to what happened at ARBMED, and that history did not remotely factor into my assessment here. I also do not see a first-mover advantage: I will scrutinize any diffs I see, and have frequently declined to take action or supported sanctions on the OP. AE does not make a practice of dismissing reports simply on the grounds that they are retaliatory. I also take source mis-use very seriously, but to do something about it as an admin I need to be given evidence of it. That said, any editor acting within the bounds of policy needs to be treated in good faith: that is the very foundation of Wikipedia, and if an editor is unable to consistently do so they need to be removed from the locus of dispute. Every editor has the responsibility of being collegial. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

This user does not have 500 edits, therefore can not edit any topic in the Arab-Israeli conflict area. Not only have they violated that, they have done so in a POV way.

1. 15:53, September 17, 2024: Removes the death of a child from 2024 Lebanon pager explosions
2. 16:32, September 17, 2024 Removes the death of a child from 2024 Lebanon pager explosions
3. 16:49, September 17, 2024 Removes the death of a child from 2024 Lebanon pager explosions

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15:49 and 16:36, 17 September 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user should not be editing this space.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

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.

Alright thanks, I've started using that template.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It looks like they are communicating about the restriction now, so if that goes smoothly I think that a commitment to follow ECR should be all that is needed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Vice regent, I also created a welcome template, {{welcome-arbpia}} that explains ECR in plain language and bold text. It may be more likely to explain ECR to a new editor than the CTOP alert template, which I also use when leaving that welcome template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Vice regent, keep in mind that they need alert/first to be technically aware. I normally go with

  {{subst:welcome-arbpia}} ~~~~

  {{subst:alert/first|a-i}} ~~~~

  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur. They're only half way to WP:XC's 500 edits, though I did just WP:ECP that page (as WP:PIA WP:ECR) independently of this (diff), thereby rendering their issue, at least with this article, technically moot for the immediate moment. El_C 18:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial 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

Ecpiandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ecpiandy (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Arab–Israeli related article topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&direction=next&oldid=1245054504

I was unaware of recent Wiki rules in relation to 1RR on Palestine articles and was not actively checking my talk page; I am a long-standing good faith Wikipedia editor of more than 10 years now there won't be any more issues on articles related to this (or any) topic going forward, you can see through my historic time here I attempt to contribute to articles in a positive way. If it is possible to get a second opportunity to participate in articles relating to this topic I would be grateful; lots of the time it just for simple things like updating statistics rather than attempting to be involved in any debate.

I warned them for edit warring here and two days later they continued to edit war and then canvassed another editor to help them continue the edit war. Then in early August they violated their topic ban several times, which I blocked them for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Longtime editor runs afoul of expectations in a contentious topic is something I have a lot of time for. I cannot, however, justify overturning this topic ban at this time. Per the criteria, the action followed the criteria (standard 1) and was reasonably necessary to prevent damage (standard 2) given the extensive set of warnings, the number of issues, and the subsequent topic ban violation. For me standard 3, no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption is the most favorable one to Ecpiandy and for that I would want to see 3-6 months of problem free editing elsewhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd tend to agree with Barkeep49. "Not actively checking my talk page" is really not a great idea; if you're in the middle of making a series of edits and a talk page message notification pops up, it is probably unwise to carry on with the rest of your planned edits before you go see why someone is leaving you a message. And if you don't, well, everyone would just say "I didn't see it", so we have to presume that if a talk page message gets left, it will get read. So, I would decline the appeal, with the same note that if good quality editing is done over the next several months in other areas, I would very much consider lifting the sanction at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd need to see a firm commitment to checking your talk page and really any pings, too. Just get into the habit of checking to see if there are notifications at the top of the page. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Mountain of Eden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

1. 2024-09-24 05:23 UTC
2. 2024-09-24 22:15 UTC
3. 2024-09-24 23:54 UTC
4. 2024-09-25 01:30 UTC General bludgeoning, off-topic comments, etc.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2024-08-30 14:54 UTC Partial block from Mohammad Deif ([24])

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2024-07-21 06:11 UTC (see the system log linked to above). Because the template was not placed correctly the first time, when the template was substituted by the bot, it did not generate an abuse log entry.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I feel there is bludgeoning among a couple of editors going on as well as WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC in general. May be useful to take a closer look at the entire RM discussion and issue sanctions as needed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

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.

This is a head scratcher. I'm not sure what I have done wrong. If I did anything wrong, I apologize. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried on multiple occassions to refocus the conversation back to the topic at hand. [26] [27] The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I did not realize that posting on the talk page required the same rigorous citing that is required in the article. The article has the needed references: Reuters says: "Hundreds of walkie-talkies used by the group exploded on Wednesday, a day after thousands of Hezbollah's pagers detonated across the group's strongholds in Lebanon. (emphasis added).
If you think it'll help, I can add the reference to the talk page. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the entire discussion, I am seeing several unhelpful, possibly WP:BLP / WP:BDP / WP:NOTAFORUM posts by the Mountain of Eden without citing reliable sources. Insisting with no source that a nurse who was killed was affiliated with Hezbollah and that's why she had a Hezbollah-issued pager on her. Again insisting with no source that operatives of this paramilitary organization moonlight as nurses. Broadly asserting with no source that Only people with affiliations to Hezbollah would have had access to the Hezbollah issued pagers. starship.paint (RUN) 05:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally, The Mountain of Eden, editors don’t post a source every time they post on a talk page. Nevertheless, editors are expected to argue based on sources. When you post controversial content and are called out on it, you should start bringing your sources. If your reliable source said the nurse was a Hezbollah member, fine. But no, it just said that the pager was (at one time) Hezbollah’s. Perhaps the pager was stolen, perhaps dropped, left at a hospital, passed from a friend, from a relative, or perhaps the nurse was just a bystander. Is it possible the nurse was part of Hezbollah? Possibly yes, possibly no, but you didn’t present a source. starship.paint (RUN) 10:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The Mountain of Eden, not even the source you have provided and quoted here is sufficient to verify the claims you have made, just as "all cats are grey" doesn't verify "this animal is gray, so it must be a cat". I have blocked you from the talk page for two weeks as a normal admin action. As you have been blocked for disruption in this area before (1RR violation at Mohammad Deif), it becomes increasingly unlikely that future reports will lead to anything else than a topic ban or a site-wide block/ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ToBeFree is there a reason you've left this open? Barkeep49 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, I didn't take any (formal) AE action, so I was unsure if doing so unilaterally without action would be appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I'd say an arbitrator showing up to announce a block and a warning is an action one way or another and nothing requires a consensus on orders to close a report. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial 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

Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

36-hour block, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2024#User_sanctions_(CT/A-I)

Administrator imposing the sanction

Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Aware :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I was reverting constant vandalism on the Hasan Nassarala page

Gonzafer001 made four reverts at Hassan Nasrallah in the span of less than 20 minutes, none of which were vandalism reverts (see 1 2 3 4), in violation of WP:1RR. I figured a 36-hour block would be pretty standard, but if there are other ideas, I'm all ears :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

They should have followed the WP:1RR rule instead of engaging in edit warring. They can also continue the discussion. Additionally, while it is true that Israel has alleged the death, it has not been confirmed by any neutral or reliable source; every reliable source is simply quoting the Israeli claim. I believe the temporary block is justified. GrabUp - Talk 10:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I normally go for a week pblock from the page they violated 1RR at, but a 36 hour block is also well within admin discretion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be moot, as the block has expired, but FTR I also don't find the edits you reverted to be vandalism. Wrongheaded, sure. POV-pushing, sure. At a BLP, it would be more defensible to revert edits that said the person had died than that they hadn't died, if there's any possible question. Valereee (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

1. 10:36, April 2, 2024. Their 8th edit on wikipedia. It appears to misrepresent a source. I tried to discuss with them, but they didn't respond.
2. 07:40, September 19, 2024. Removed material that had an entire section in the body under a misleading edit summary. I tried to discuss but they didn't respond.
3. 14:07, September 20, 2024. Added material in wikivoice with two sources: one reliable but misleading quoted, the other apparently written by former IDF member. I tried to discuss with them on talk, and once again they didn't respond.
4. 10:45, September 25, 2024. Restored material that gives Netanyahu's statements undue weight in the lead in an edit with a summary that misleadingly claims consensus. No consensus on talk page[28] for this.
5. 16:05, September 27, 2024. Added "A day after Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel, Even though it was unprovoked Hezbollah[3] joined the conflict in support of Hamas[4] by firing on northern Israeli towns and other Israeli positions." Two problems:

• • "unprovoked" is quite POV (see discussion here).
  • "A day after October 7" (i.e. October 8) Hezbollah didn't attack northern Israeli towns, nor do the sources say that it did. See explanation on this WP:V violation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:05, September 24, 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Repeatedly misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing. The April 2 edit was made before sanctions alert, yes, but no one should be misrepresenting sources like that.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

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.

Hi, sorry for the late reply. There are several users and bots who left me messages on the talk page. VR left me 5 messages on my talk page in 3 days. From the moment I started writing things related to Hezbollah, he started writing to me. It took me some time to build a picture of where he notifies me and answer them all. This whole thing felt a bit strange and even bothersome.

The events in Lebanon in recent months catch me at a sensitive time, and the suffering of my people from the situation in my homeland is unbearable. I apologize if I didn't reply in time. I tried to respond to everyone who wrote to me on talk pages. I'll try to look at my talk page more.EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron can you explain what a logged warning is? I am sorry, yes reverting the last message from my talk page was a mistake. I guess it was bit too much in the recent days, I felt targeted the moment I started writing about Hezbollah, with people (mostly VR) massively tagging me and acting aggressively towards me. Now I see that the same editor who opened the case against me is trying to change Hezbollah's definition on Wikipedia to be a resistance group instead of militant group! that's just amazes me. Anyway, I promise to be more communicative in the future. EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I don't see the issue here. Vice Regent is certainly one of our most serious regulars on the topic, but this is the second time this week they've rushed to AE about a new editor without a solid case, in what seems to be based mostly on different opinion. EnfantDeLaVille seems quite communicative on talk pages (I saw them participating in three discussions [30], [31], [32]). Maybe VR's taggings all around could be sometimes hard to follow? (this link VR shared doesn't seem to be a genuine attempt for discussion anyway [33]). I think Vice Regent should be reminded not to bite the newcomers and to take content disputes, what this complaint is really on about, on talk pages instead of AE. ABHammad (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that I find it extremely odd to see VR here speaking on POV-pushing while also changing Hezbollah's description from "paramilitary group" to "resistance group" in Wiki voice [34]. ABHammad (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice_regent, experienced editors, especially ARBPIA regulars like you, should know that conduct issues and content disputes are different and have their own places, and if you have disagreements with someone, you should take it to articles' talk pages. This is true especially when it comes to new editors, since this is not the first time you have bitten the newcomers recently, making others have to apologize on your behalf [35]. But now it seems even more troubling that you don't see how applying the term 'military-resistance organization' for Hezbollah, in wiki voice, in the article's first sentence is a blatant violation of NPOV, even if you found one source that uses this description (we actually have a name for this, its called Cherrypicking). ABHammad (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have slightly modified my report by pointing out that the first edit in my report is there because I believe it misrepresents a source, which I believe is a serious issue. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the pattern of reverting without discussions continues. Makeandtoss removed Hezbollah's terrorist designation from lead[36] and then started a discussion on the talk page[37]. I also moved it down. EnfantDeLaVille moved it back without any explanation (no edit summary) and without engaging on the talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ABHammad, "military-resistance organization" is verbatim from a scholarly source written by Dr Farida and that is published by Routledge. Additionally, I've made efforts to discuss on the talk page[38], have you? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It looks like only two of these edits are after they were made aware of the CTOP designation. At first blush my largest concern is the lack of communication, which is absolutely necessary on Wikipedia, and even moreso in contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @ScottishFinnishRadish: Despite EnfantDeLaVille's promise two days ago to engage constructively, today they've dismissively deleted a good-faith message about an edit of theirs. I'd recommend a logged warning for failing to communicate. @Vice regent: your initial filing implies that Hezbollah didn't attack Israel on October 8th, and while that's technically true in the sense that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, it is still true that Hezbollah attacked a territory Israelis live in, so it's not like EnfantDeLaVille made that up out of whole cloth. I think an assumption of good faith would put that squarely at the level of a content dispute (along with most of the other diffs you've mentioned), not worth mentioning in an AE filing. It's the continued failure to communicate I'm more concerned about. Perhaps EnfantDeLaVille should scale back their editing if they feel that they have time to edit, but not time to respond to concerns about said editing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @EnfantDeLaVille: see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Warnings :) no formal restrictions are imposed, but it'll be something to note if you ever end up back here or in another user-conduct setting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's more or less where I'm at. Barring any objection in the next day or so I'll probably close it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Baskez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jeffrey R. Clark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Jeffrey R. Clark

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[[39]]

WP:GOODFAITH

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

1. October 1 Explanation: This editor, who has since changed his name, as it was Dcheagle, removed tons of relevant and important information from the Oklahoma State football wiki page, and did not respond to messages on his talk page.
2. October 1 Explanation: User continuing to gatekeep the page, refusing to offer an explaination.
3. October 1 Explanation: More unexplained deletion of information to fit what he deems as right. No attempt at a discussion in the talk page. Just mass deletion of information.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on October 1 (see the system log linked to above).
• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
• Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_State_Cowboys_football&diff=prev&oldid=1248707377Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has also been caught using sock puppets in the past, which he promptly erased from his talk page when warned about. He has proven he’s incapable of collaborating with other users, edit wars, and uses sock puppets when people dare disagree with him. It’s time administration steps in. 

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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