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

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nomoskedasticity (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

Gender and sexuality, specifically the consensus required restriction imposed on October 24

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

1. 14:03, 25 October 2021 Nomoskedasticity makes an edit to the lead of Kathleen Stock
2. 14:21, 25 October 2021 The edit is reverted by Newimpartial
3. 15:17, 25 October 2021 Nomoskedasticity restores their edit, without building consensus, thereby violating the consensus required restriction

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on October 16, 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

I'm not sure why Nomoskedasticity continues to hold their view on the definition of gender self-identification. I am not sure I've ever seen anything other than the standard definition of the term. The first few pages of Google, Google News, and Google Scholar results for "gender self-identification" all use the standard (only?) definition. I worry that the CR restriction, implemented to avoid disruptive editing, would be weakened by allowing exemptions when an editor feels some content is "very arguably inaccurate", as Nomoskedasticity does here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below, Newimpartial is trying again to get Nomoskedasticity to recognize the definition of gender self-identification. They are not the first user to try. It has been deeply disruptive to have a user who disputes that terms mean what they mean, with no evidence. I encourage those uninvolved to review Talk:Kathleen Stock#"opposition to gender self-identification". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t recommend comparing just the one source quote with the three word summary. The summary applies to the whole article, including multiple sources, especially the “Views on gender self-identification”. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Johnuniq: does that satisfy your request for verification? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown, Seraphimblade, and HighinBC: I am presenting in-article verification of the claim. Can this still be considered a BLP violation? I note that through this whole discussion, the article has continued to state that Stock opposes self-ID in the body, including a whole section dedicated to this view and the responses of others to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: thank you for responding. I don't suppose I can make my case any stronger than this. I continue to feel that no synthesis is happening, with sources, and Stock herself, saying directly that she opposes self-ID. I urge the admins to take a fresh look at the existing evidence. That said, I get the sense that I should be dropping the stick, and I'll only be responding if prompted out of respect for the process here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

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.

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

Newimpartial's post just below is really worth paying attention to. (Note as well that it was added to the article talk-page after this AE request was made.) It refers to an article from the Economist, with the following quote from Stock: "They want to change the law to allow gender self-identification via an administrative process of self-certification as the only criterion for legally changing the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate." That passage is effective in indicating what Stock's real objection is: use of self-identification "as the only criterion for legally changing the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate." We risk severely misleading our readers if (as proposed by Newimpartial) we try to convey that idea in prose indicating that Stock "opposes gender self-identification". I can't imagine this sort of thing being condoned by admins/arbs: it amounts to misrepresenting the subject of a BLP.

This sort of thing is exactly what has been happening at the Stock article (and no doubt at other related articles as well). It merits close attention.

Now, if admins/arbs tell me that what the other editors are doing is in fact okay per BLP, then of course I'll have to accept it. As things stand, I think a revert rooted in a concern about our BLP policy was exactly the right thing to do -- in fact required. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Other editors are convinced they know "the definition" of gender self-identification. But the article (and in particular the lead) isn't for them. It's for readers who don't already know things. Most not-well-informed readers will not know "the definition" of gender self-identification. We should not risk misleading them by using a term that could easily be taken to refer to the idea that someone might want to adopt a preferred gender identity. It is far from obvious that Stock opposes someone adopting a different gender identity, for themselves. If we use language that potentially gives readers this impression, we misrepresent her -- a BLP violation, surely. And once again there's no need for it: we can (and indeed should) convey a more accurate meaning, especially in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the doublethink in Bilorv's posts. In this AE request, the editor's concern is that we're putting words in Stock's mouth by using that quotation -- a BLP violation!! In the article talk page, on the other hand, we're admonished that "we're not a press release platform", and the editor is wrought up about the notion that the quote from the Guardian is unduly self-serving because it's rooted in how Stock expresses her opposition ("it's not the newspaper's own voice" -- but rather Stock's!). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nomoskedasricity, if you don't understand what gender self-identification means, first maybe read Gender self-identification. The term doesn't give rise to any of the problems you seem so vexed about as to pre-empt an Arbitration Enforcement sanction (consensus required). Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown and Johnuniq: the stable text that Nomoskedasticity was warring against was wikilinked to gender self-identification, the first sentence of which explains it as the concept that a person's legal sex or gender should be determined by their gender identity, without any medical requirements. How is this different from the source cited within the article at the time, or the quote Nomoskedasticity inserted from that source? Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, Johnuniq and HighinBC, you are completely misconstruing the relationship between Stock's writing and gender self-identification. This is not a term that WP editors are somehow imposing on her views; it is a term that she has been using and promoting in her writing, since 2018, in exactly the signification given. Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I'd like to address one point that Dennis Brown made. The "institutionalisation" quote is not from Stock. It's sourced from an interview in The Guardian where it is a summarisation of what Stock says she opposes in the words of the interviewer. What Stock is criticised for is wider than this, or the simpler gender self-identification, which I've now raised on the article talk page. What Stock is criticised for is different from what she says she is criticised for. Sideswipe9th. (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC) edited for clarity/new information Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: I've just replied to this "doublethink" issue on the article talk page. @Dennis Brown, Johnuniq, Seraphimblade, HighInBC, and Jayjg: I would like to re-emphasise what Bilorv has said, the quotation from The Guardian was a paraphrase of what Stock told the interviewer she was being criticised for. To use it in the article as it was added would be a BLP violation, because we were saying Stock said that quote, when we know from that source that she said something similar but different. And regardless of the paraphrase, we also know that what Stock is actually being criticised for is different to what Stock says she is being criticised for, per the sources listed by Firefangledfeathers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeating Sideswipe9th, really, but the quote in the article, which could only reasonably be understood by an uninvolved reader as being a quote by Stock herself, is not a quote from Stock at all. I was just reading the lead and assumed the quote came from Stock until I checked the source and the talk page. Nomoskedasticity claiming exception to 1RR in order to introduce a BLP violation (attributing a direct quote to someone who did not say it) is a strange move, and stranger that it seems to be met with approval by the commenting uninvolved admins. — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Which are clearly two different things. They simply do not mean the same thing, period. To infer she is against "gender self-idenfication" seems improper synthesis, and a legitimate BLP concern given the current state of sourcing. Claiming you saw it once in a book isn't how WP:V works with BLPs. It probably needs to go to the BLP noticeboard, as it may appear to some, that words are being put in her mouth, instead of using her own. Regardless, without citation, it looks like a potential BLP violation, which is an exception for reverting, so I'm not inclined to take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers This isn't a board that ultimately decides content questions, under most circumstances. Speaking solely for myself, I see the shortened version as a BLP violation. I get the feeling that is universal down in this section (although to differing degrees), but I can't speak for others. As it stands, it is an unsourced synthesis of sources that is in conflict with sources we do have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the given diffs and believe Dennis Brown's statement above. Unless someone can show verification in the article at the time of the disputed edit (verification contradicting Dennis Brown's statement), Nomoskedasticity should be thanked for removing the synthesis. Johnuniq (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a closer look at the edit and read through the four (four!) references. I also skimmed article talk but I probably missed anything relevant. I see that ref 3 has the quote that Nomoskedasticity put in the lead rather than "Her opposition to gender self-identification". Perhaps someone added the quote to footnote 3 to explain how an editor arrived at the conclusion that Stock opposes gender self-identification. I don't see why it needs to be explained that such a conclusion would be fine on Twitter but is improper at Wikipedia. Either you find a really reliable source using those words, or you use the words chosen by the professor of philosophy. A complication is that whereas gender self-identification would be well known to a small number of people in the past, it is only in relatively recent years that the term has become widely used. The problem is that there is no guarantee that a source talking about gender self-identification would be referring to exactly what is documented in Wikipedia's article. The BBC ref uses these words: Professor Stock, who recently published a book questioning the idea that gender identity is more "socially significant" than biological sex, completely rejects the claim that she or her work is transphobic. My guess is that there is an intractable problem at the article and a solution would be to topic ban all those who support the use of WP:SYNTH to disparage a living person. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a legitimate BLP concern, as it is certainly a potentially controversial claim and the concerns about it being based upon synthesis are well founded. I would give a mild caution to Nomoskedasticity that the snarky tone sometimes exhibited in the discussion could well be dispensed with, and to others here that BLP concerns should not be handwaved away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• At the time of these edits I had made it clear in the talk notice, edit notice, and a mention on the talk page that BLP still applies and that these exemptions do not override BLP. I agree with the other admins that there was a legitimate BLP concern being addressed here and as such do not see a violation.

Editors are cautioned against synthesis and BLP violations. I will point out that the general nature of discretionary sanctions is that the topic is held to a higher standard, and that even if a specific restriction is not violated that the higher standard restriction is in place for all topics under discretionary sanctions. Please be careful, especially in articles about living people. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Silverseren, taking the definition of gender identity in our article on the topic and then mixing it with what a source says is a perfect example of the type of synthesis of sources we need to avoid. Not only is it synthesis, it is treating Wikipedia as a reliable source which it is not. Even if both sources were reliable it is not okay to combine them in that fashion. It certainly cannot be used to attribute an opinion to a person beyond what they have actually stated, subjects don't need to adopt and be held to our definitions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised; this appears to be obvious synthesis and a serious WP:BLP issue. I'm also surprised that editors feel they can use Wikipedia articles as a reliable source. I see no issue with Nomoskedasticity's actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 27 October 2021 (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

Crossroads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Newimpartial (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

Gender and sexuality, especially, but not only, the consensus required restriction imposed on October 24

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

I need to include background edits to properly explain:

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

Violations:

1. [4] Newimpartial reverts N and falsely claims that B's version is the "consensus version", though it had only been in place for 3.5 hours. This is also clearly a reinstatement of a challenged edit, violating the restriction.
2. [5] Again falsely calls it a "stable version".
3. [6] Again falsely claims that very same new text without any consensus behind it is in fact "stable text", and does so while at another AE report trying to get another editor in trouble for behavior they themselves had done.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [7]
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 25 October 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Black Kite, I never even asked for that. Warnings exist too. But I intended to leave it up to the admins. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion below makes baseless and unsourced accusations about me. I don't see the "trending" consensus being claimed. This section was about an entirely different issue where an editor reverted back in an IP's edit that was an egregious BLP and consensus-required violation. Sideswipe9th is heavily involved on the Kathleen Stock page, and cherry-picks comments where I was brief despite lengthy explanations by me elsewhere on the page on those same issues. And this diff (at a different article) is claimed to be "egregious" because "constructive feedback", in their view, would require agreement with their push to add a contentious WP:LABEL to the first sentence to that article. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Newimpartial's response to Pyxis Solitary, I addressed their bogus claims against me here (permalink). Newimpartial there engages in blatant WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAMING to try to get me to self-revert to their favored version by claiming that the version to which I and another editor very recently had reverted to as the stable status quo was a violation of "consensus required", even though their version has zero claim to consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC

The version I reverted to did have support from other editors earlier on the talk page and in the article history, as I explained on the article talk page. Sideswipe9th, this is not an objection. And I have not doubled down on insisting on the current version; I have been defending myself from bogus claims about me and the consensus required restriction. I collaboratively started this section (permalink) with an array of sources - some of which support language different from the status quo - to help build a new consensus on what that sentence should say. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

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.

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

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

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

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

Crossroads, why are you now referring to my favored version? The version you reverted from was the product of edits by four editors with different perspectives; the version you reverted to has no support on Talk from anyone but yourself. I don't have a "favored version". I asked you politely to revert according to the "consensus required" restriction, and then invited you to make new changes that would comply with the restriction, and you accuse me of GAMING? You are the one OWNING the article, it seems to me, and bending or breaking policy to do so (as noted in the Pyxis section below; all of this is presently visible on Talk) Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis Solitary - the passages you quote are out of context. They were all written after Crossroads apparently violated the "consensus required" restriction by reverting (after multiple constructive edits by editors with different perspectives) to a version whose language was contested since October 7 and where no stable consensus has emerged. He invoked SILENTCONSENSUS to justify his actions, in spite of repeated questioning of that specific text on Talk throughout October; he claimed that the text lasted from October 9 until October 25 (presumably as a consensus version) in spite of repeated alterations to the text proposed in article editing while discussion continued on Talk; and then he ignored diffs when other versions of this text were presented to him - this was where my colour of the sky comment came from, which I think was fairly game and CIVIL in the face of the determined BATTLEGROUND editing I have come to expect from Crossroads when he believes he is right. For that matter, my posting right here at AE (to which Crossroads has responded) documents my understanding - which other editors have supported, here and elsewhere - that there is no consensus to "views on self-identification", so Crossroads' insistence this is a "stable, consensus version" rather than a consensus-required violation seems like gaslighting to me.

What I suggested we might have to take ... to AE was a question about AE works, namely, whether language under discussion (without consensus) at the time a "consensus required" restriction is placed is deemed to have consensus for purposes of reverting. By removing the context of my question, Pyxis makes it seem like I was "threatening" Crossroads with AE, or something, but in the diff I think my meaning is quite clear. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish hasn't even bothered to get the basic facts right - I acknowledged the specificity of my (mainstream) Canadian POV in my reply to him on this page in an earlier section[9], where I pointed out the problems arising from his misconstrual of his own POV in relation to gender and sexuality. Any examination of my edits in this area will find no evidence of WP:RGW, stubborn as I might sometimes be in adhering to site-wide consensus and sensitive application of our WO:V, BLP and NPOV policies. And I think any reference to an out-of-the-closet Canadian as an American is a pretty clear BLP vio. :pNewimpartial (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I suggest that anyone curious about the larger context of this case examine the discussions surrounding it in-depth - it is mostly comparatively civil, and which seem to be trending towards a consensus that approximates the version Newimpartial reverted to here, albeit with a few key tweaks from people concerned about being fair to Stock (ie. it includes the contested term "self-identification".) There are some clear points where people are unhappy with each other, but on the whole never becomes uncivil or aggressive; ultimately, the discussion is constructive.

Now read Crossroad's section, which immediately comes out the gate with multiple aggressive accusations and a pile of sweeping policies and essays. No indication of any hint of a willingness to compromise or even discuss, just a flat aggressive threat to drag his ideological opponents to AE (which, as we see, has been followed through on.) I am not saying all his concerns are completely without value, but they were better-handled in the other section, mostly by people who approached them much more constructively, from a perspective of assuming good-faith, and without a battleground mentality. The goal should be to constructively resolve the dispute, not to defeat your opponents.

Crossroads has repeatedly and clearly said that they see their activity in that topic-area as holding back a horde of ideological POV-pushers on the other side; and this fundamentally battleground approach is at the root of the problem here. It is also why, for example, a simple disagreement over whether something has consensus or how to properly resolve a BLP / copyvio issue metastasizes in his mind into something that requires AE attention, because he has no willingness to assume good faith for anyone who disagrees with his POV on gender issues. And what is worst about this is that other people see his strident battleground approach and assume that it is necessary - it spreads, on all sides; because of course it's always seductive to define everything you believe (and therefore your own readings of the sources, of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and consensus and everything else that requires a degree of subjective assessment) as neutral and all disagreement as tendentious editing that must be fought tooth-and-nail. But it's not a workable way to approach topics that have such serious real-world disputes, especially ones that spread into the sources themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aquillion. To add to what they've said, I've been party to this same battleground behaviour from Crossroads, of being combative with links to lengthy policy, and offering no constructive feedback on content in order to resolve the perceived issues. This diff is a particularly egregious example, where constructive feedback would have been to select a source to use for which we had several to chose from. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: the diff for the question about AE has been taken entirely out of context. There is a confusion about how consensus required works. While there is an essay to refer to at WP:CRP there is no easily found policy point to refer to. Raising it to AE, or another noticeboard is a logical step in this circumstance.

As for the battleground over the last few hours, I have to agree with Newimpartial. Crossroads is being unnecessarily antagonistic in their actions. I've already said that we should focus on the new content instead of this CRP issue. The version that Crossroads has reverted to has been persistently objected to since its introduction, and has four editors objecting to it at present. It does not have consensus, and instead of proposing or working towards a new consensus Crossroads has doubled down on keeping an unsupported version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's gotten to the point where the Kathleen Stock biography has become a land mine. Comments in the last 24 hours by Newimpartial:

• 23:43, 28 October 2021: "Consensus required restriction - Crossroads, [this revert] ...will you self-revert your violation of the consensus-required restriction".
• 23:55, 28 October 2021: "Crossroads, your opinion that this PinkNews piece can be dismissed as highly partisan in the dispute seems to be, well, just your opinion. Care to back that up with anything, or should we take this to RSN?"
• 00:08, 29 October 2021: "your proposed future course of action seems to violate WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY principles, as your practice of dismissing highest-quality, more specialized sources that you don't like in favor of The Times and The Telegraph violates our sourcing policies."
• 01:34, 29 October 2021: "FFS, Crossroads, this version and this one were different from the one you claimed to have consensus, and so were this one and several previous ones. Do I have to offer diffs now for the colour of the sky?"
• 01:36, 29 October 2021: "Do we have to take this question to AE, too?"
• 03:54, 29 October 2021: "If you mean to imply that all of these are actually about self-identification, that is OR, and you should snap out of it."
• 04:10, 29 October 2021: "FFS, again;...If you need to know exactly when they were added, how long they lasted and who reverted them, you can do that on your own time...."

Not only is it WP:BATTLE -- it reeks of baiting. This needs to stop, one way or another. What open-minded, even-handed, neutral person on the outside, looking in, would even think of trying to edit this biography right now? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Utada Hikaru#Feminine pronouns should be used, and the threads leading up to it. And the Flyer22 RfArb, and most everything else Newimpartial gets involved in within recent memory – it's usually in the orbit of human sexuality and gender. This editor has been incrementally creeping over many years into essentially becoming a WP:SPA who now does little but stir socio-political drama around trans issues. This subject area needs a great deal more neutral-minded input and following of sources, and a lot less great-wrongs and language-change advocacy (most of which is from a very American viewpoint).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve avoided this topic like the plague, precisely because of individuals such as Newimpartial. There is a level of “iron fist in velvet glove” baiting that goes on here that effectively shuts down reasoned discussion, creating at times a false “consensus”, that, such as in the Kathleen Stock article mentioned above, could result in a hatchet job on what should be a neutral BLP. Words have great power, and edit-warring to subtly engage in POV-pushing, particularly where it misrepresents the nuances of an individual’s position, is not acceptable. Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For context: I'm the B in the original post, and I do like to be pinged to a party when there's one going on, as I've somewhat missed the chance to comment on a conversation about my edit. Reading the parts of this discussion (Ctrl+F "Bilorv") in which Crossroads and Newimpartial argue over why my edit was correct is at once one of the most pointless discussions I have ever observed, and some of the strangest flattery I've ever received.

Crossroads does nobody any favours by handing a stick to AE rather than dropping it, and needs to know when a matter is not worth escalating, and how to engage in a discussion in a more positive and less abrasive manner so as not to escalate tensions. (Referring ceaselessly to past discussions and endlessly accusing others of attempting to "right great wrongs", as though they are free from personal opinion themselves, is not the way to do this. You'll notice many others in this AE and the broader topic area do both of these ceaselessly.) Newimpartial does themselves no favours by digging and digging and digging in their AE statement, mirroring Crossroads' negative behaviour; fortunately for them, Crossroads mirrors it with a wall of text seemingly designed only to get the last word on everybody. Nonetheless, Aquillion and Black Kite see the situation pretty clearly here.

No sanction is needed against Newimpartial, though the matter of both editors' styles of communication is pretty clearly negatively received, and is only going to escalate until they change their priorities. Crossroads, why spend so much time on these matters when you can be making more edits like this? Similarly, Newimpartial, creating content (e.g. GURPS Steampunk) is not an occasional necessity in order to best facilitate the much more important activity of dispute resolution, but the converse. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Setting aside(but not dismissing) the BLP concerns and consensus required restriction for now, I am seeing the removal of the text "gender identity is all that matters, that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex" twice within 24 hours[10][11]. This appears to be a 1RR violation. Newimpartial, can you explain how this is not a 1RR violation? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Silverseren: A short attributed quote is not a copyright violation. Our non free content criteria says "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, {{Quote}}, or a similar method". The text is within quotation marks and directly followed by the attributing reference. The copyright violation exemption from the 3/1RR rule does not apply. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is not a 3/1RR exemption. I am going to wait for other admins to give their opinion, as well as to allow Newimpartial to respond. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take the claim that the 1RR violation was inadvertent at face value, it is easy to accidentally violate. The self reversion is appreciated. I am going to wait for more admins to respond before deciding on what response if any this needs. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the self revert the case as presented does not call for action in my opinion. However the back and forth bickering and accusations of bad faith tempt me to remove several editors from both sides. Rather than take such a drastic action I suggest it be closed as no action, and I may revisit this urge this continues in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the reasons I've avoided gender issues until yesterday, never editing or admin'ing those areas, is there is a lot of "Righting of great wrongs" and politics involved, and I have no interest in politics or getting tangled up in them. What we need is more objectivity and less advocacy in a great many articles on Wikipedia, including gender related. As for the merits, they speak for themselves and I offer no opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I certainly agree with Dennis Brown that advocacy does not have a place in any article, and even less so in a BLP. I am willing to accept the explanation that the 1RR violation was unintentional, and given the self-revert, I do not believe any action is required in regards to that. However, concerns that the subject of a BLP is being misrepresented absolutely must be taken seriously. We cannot put words in someone's mouth, especially when those words would be extremely controversial. If use of a verbatim quote is necessary to avoid potential misrepresentation, use the quote. BLP does not cease to apply because an individual is controversial; indeed, that is when strict adherence to it is most necessary. I would not apply sanctions at this time, but I also certainly would not rule it out if this type of problem continues. We must always be cautious and conservative when editing BLP articles, and ensure to always accurately represent the best available sources in a neutral fashion. If anyone is too invested in the underlying matter to be able to do that, don't edit the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There certainly was a 1RR violation which I agree was almost certainly inadvertent; the rest of this is a standard attempt to remove an "opponent" from a subject; no action needed. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be agreement that it was inadvetant. this should be closed as no action needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 03:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. October 26, 2021 Changes "Armenian occupation" to "Republic of Artsakh", which is meaningless, because it is not clear what is meant by that name, while we have an article Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, and there is a consensus to refer to those territories as Armenian occupied
2. October 26, 2021 Adds "because the Azerbaijanis had previously pillaged 23 nearby villages", but the source (Seely, Robert (25 May 1992). "Armenian looters burn down village". The Times) quotes an Armenian policemen making the claim, needs attribution.
3. October 31, 2021 Removes attribution, completely removes a report by a Canadian journalist.
4. October 29, 2021 October 31, 2021 Removes Armenia as an occupying party, even though there is a ruling of European Court of Human Rights, see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, and Armenia signed 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, agreeing to withdraw its army from the territory of Azerbaijan.
5. October 26, 2021 Removes all the description of looting and burning of the town, witnessed by independent British journalists, again changes "Armenian occupation" to "Republic of Artsakh".
6. October 29, 2021 Same as above, plus again completely removes a report by a Canadian journalist.
7. October 31, 2021 Same as above. Claims to revert to the last consensus version, while in fact he reverted to his own version which never had any consensus, i.e. this one.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. December 9, 2015 Indefinite topic ban from topics related to Armenia
2. June 13, 2016 Blocked indefinitely
3. 18 November 2020 Indefinite topic ban lifted

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on December 9, 2015 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18 November 2020, logged here: [12]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe lifting topic ban from this user was premature. As is evident from the diffs provided above, this user edit wars across multiple pages, and does it in the same manner that resulted in his topic ban and indefinite ban. He makes POV edits, removes sourced information, as well as sources that he disagrees with. For example, the reason he provided for deletion of an article by a Canadian news magazine was that "There's no information about Brock anywhere; his reliability cannot be verified". But I don't think that Wikipedia rules require that every news reporter must have information about him available on the Internet. The information provided above is only the very recent examples of such behavior. In fact, if you check his edits, most of them appear to be edit warring over Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. Grandmaster 13:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of POV editing by Steverci is this discussion at Talk:Shusha: [13] Steverci changes the text to say that Armenian historian Mirza Yusuf Nersesov was Azerbaijani: [14] [15] In the lengthy discussion at talk I provided a source to confirm that Nersesov was Armenian, while Steverci did not provide any source to attest to the contrary, but continued to insist that Nersesov was not an Armenian, engaging in WP:OR, despite other editors agreeing that Nersesov was Armenian. Steverci stonewalled all attempts to reach consensus, and the article presently lists Nersesov as Azerbaijani, despite the lack of any source to confirm that. This is just one of the many examples of POV editing by Steverci in violation of Wikipedia rules on verifiability, stonewalling, consensus, etc. Grandmaster 09:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that it was me who took it to WP:DRN to resolve disputes with Steverci. Despite multiple third party sources being provided to attest to the fact that the town of Shusha was mostly destroyed by Armenian forces after they captured it in 1992, including cultural heritage sites, Steverci rejected them all. You can find those sources at User:Grandmaster/Shusha destruction. In fact, there was a number of disputes at Shusha, involving aforementioned Nersesov, foundation of the town, destruction of the town in 1992, and separately destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. All of them involved Steverci, and it was not possible to find a compromise solution to any of them, because Steveci would not agree to any compromise proposal. Chipmunkdavis kindly offered to mediate to help resolve the dispute. When Chipmunkdavis offered to write that "most of the town was destroyed", instead of 80% estimate provided by one of the sources, I agreed, but Steverci refused to accept it, and the issue was returned to WP:DRN. The discussion could be found here: [16] So I don't see how I can be accused of exhibiting battleground behavior, when I made every possible attempt to resolve the disputes with Steverci by compromise and dispute resolution. But when Steverci started another edit war on Lachin corridor related articles, and Armenian occupation, it was obvious that I cannot take every dispute with Steverci to DRN, as there are too many of them, and we cannot waste community time on so many Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. It is obviously much more than just content disputes. Grandmaster 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ZaniGiovanni's comments. Repeatedly removing information based on multiple third party sources is not acceptable. It is clear by the content removed and added that what Steverci did was tendentious editing. Removal of all details of looting and burning of the town, and presenting statement of an Armenian policeman as a fact is not constructive editing. As for replacement of "Armenian occupation" with "Republic of Artsakh", "Armenian occupation" was a long established version before Steverci changed it. For his own edits, he did not require any consensus on talk. Regarding RFC, I certainly don't mind it, and the reason that I took it to DRN was that I wanted a larger community involvement to resolve stonewalling at talk of Shusha. As for comment by LouisAragon, he proposed either to delete ethnic origin of historians, or to write "writer of Armenian origin". Both were acceptable to me, and you can see that I proposed at talk to simply write "19th century sources", [17] [18] and even introduced that wording into the article: [19], but it was reverted by ZaniGiovanni himself: [20] Steverci also rejected simply writing "19th century sources", without any mention of ethnicity, and he never provided any source to attest that Nersesov was not an Armenian, so no consensus was possible due to uncompromising attitude of these two users. Grandmaster 20:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, your interpretation of LouisAragon's comment is not the same as how others understood it: [21] Grandmaster 21:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon, thanks for the comment and clarification. I agreed with your proposal to not mention ethnicity of any authors. But I should also note that we go with what the sources say, and according to the sources Nersesov was an Armenian: [22] This is not my POV, but what the sources actually say. I was ready to look into alternative versions, but no sources were provided to support alternative versions of Nersesov's ethnicity. In any case, I was willing to make a compromise, and agreed to not to mention Nersesov's ethnicity, but as I explained above, it did not happen. Grandmaster 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the comment by Armatura in the report about me, since it is more about me than about Steverci. Grandmaster 10:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding claims that I filed this report to win a content dispute, it is certainly not so. Whatever disputes we have at Shusha are now being handled by the Wikipedia community, after I followed the dispute resolution procedures, and took it to WP:DRN. So it is up to the Wikipedia community now to decide what the best way is to arrange the sources, and my or Steverci's involvement or non involvement do not get in the way of the process. But Steverci's tendentious editing in other Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, in particular his edit warring over things such as Armenian occupation, control over locations, removal of information about looting and burning of towns and villages, etc shows a pattern of POV editing, and battleground attitude. Taking every dispute with this user to DRN is simply impossible, as there is a problem with Steverci's way of editing in general, which requires the community intervention. Grandmaster 15:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. The region was still controlled by the Republic of Artsakh, not Armenia. It is POV pushing to portray them as synonymous.
2. Grandmaster only adds MOS:ALLEGED to this specific part of what the journalist reported, which went completely neglected by Grandmaster originally.
3. I rewrote the journalist's report to be more evenhanded. Grandmaster had already previously been informed why the pop culture magazine Maclean's is not a good source here.
4. There is no reliable non-partisan source of the article that supports what Grandmaster wrote.
5. The detailed descriptions were an excessive undue amount of weight for the overall subject of the article. I kept mention of the looting, but removed the primary source journalists because they added nothing but soapboxing.
6. Same as above, I already explained the issue with Maclean's.
7. Grandmaster has edit warring his recent addition this entire time after being reverted by multiple editors instead of discussing it on the talk page. --Steverci (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, trying to portray the discussion as being about whether Nersesov was an Armenian is very dishonest. The discussion was about whether Nersesov should be considered an Armenian source, and you were told by multiple other editors that wasn't appropriate since he is essentially an assimilated Iranian. After all, you wrote "some Armenian 19th-century sources" to describe just Nersesov and Raffi. But when the Raffi source turned out to (huge surprise) not actually verify what you cited it for, "Armenian 19th-century sources" came to only refer to an Islamic Iranian of Armenian descent. Thus, it was rightfully removed. --Steverci (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC Saying I've resumed old patterns would be objectively false because the primary reason for my topic ban was sock puppeting. You can be especially sure I haven't been doing that, because Grandmaster made a failed sockpuppet investigation against me just a month ago.

The exact same claim about the topic ban removal being "premature" was made in a AE request a couple months ago that had no action taken. The user that made the AE request was later blocked and topic banned. Grandmaster was supportive of their sanctions being removed.[24]

Clearly this is a WP:WITCHHUNT. Grandmaster is the one edit warring in these diffs because he is the one trying to change the last consensus version.

If you think I still have edit warring patterns, I'd like to point out the current issue with the Vrats dasht. Essentially every source on the article has failed verification for everything but the name. The article was recently created and the article creator is now indefinitely blocked. However, another user keeps trying to keep the content up. Rather than continue edit warring, I tried to inform the noticeboard but no one commented.

Another example of proof of no old patterns is this RfC discussion I created. I never even tried to make the changes on the article, despite having strong sources, because I knew they would be contested. I immediately created an RfC and I'm still patiently waiting for outside input.

So if you're going to support a topic ban based on the notion of old habits, I would very much appreciate an explanation for how these diffs reflect that. Because Grandmaster is reverting other users as well.[25]

This also could be an attempt by Grandmaster to eliminate the competition because of this ongoing dispute resolution. Notice that in the discussion, Grandmaster has demonstrated such a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that he completely ignored Robert McClenon's request for no back-and-forth discussions on the statements. If either of us should be given a topic ban, it is Grandmaster. --Steverci (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC Where did I ever say I was banned just for sockpuppeting? I said primarily. And further down my second statement, I showed how I've been avoiding edit warring in other articles since the topic ban has been lifted, and how Grandmaster is the one edit warring in these articles.

Here is where the topic ban is addressed in the AE link: "it is clear to me that the previously imposed topic ban did not give the desired effect". And now Grandmaster claims "I believe lifting topic ban from this user was premature". This is just another witch hunt.

I had already addressed recent behavior in my first statement, where I point out Grandmaster's descriptions of the diffs are not accurate. --Steverci (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Robert McClenon/Shusha Dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank User:Chipmunkdavis for efforts to mediate the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated two Requests for Comments at Talk:Shusha. I have not researched whether there are any other topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan that are involved in this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the DRN was closed today, and followed the discussion to here. Wanted to add my 2 cents for clarity and context.

These are content issues to be resolved in the respective talk pages. Almost all of the diffs come from the pages Zabux and Lachin. Grandmaster fails to mention that in both of the articles, he is the one adding new information and changing the longstanding one, see diffs:

• Zabux – [26], [27], [28]
• Lachin – [29], [30].

The issues stem from these changes/additions to the longstanding version by Grandmaster, and certainly his changes were shortly challenged by Steverci, and logically, Grandmaster's version is the contending one in both of the articles. Moreover, it's not like Steverci doesn't engage in talks pages, he explains his rationale in both of the articles: Zabux discussion, Lachin discussion.

The discussion for Grandmaster to achieve consensus for his changes/additions is still ongoing in those pages, and I don't see how this report is helpful or productive. Content issues are resolved by communicating and reaching consensus in talk, which is being done at this moment. Furthermore, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, Grandmaster being the one in this case. Steverci seems to be doing BOLD reverts and discussing later, WP:BRD cycle applies here.

Lastly,

1) regarding Shusha: Even the mediator, Robert McClenon, proposes an RfC for both the foundation and destruction claims. I could go on and on about weak sources, like Grandmaster trying to use passing mentions as contentious claims about deliberate Azeri heritage destruction by Armenian forces, when the article itself covers Armenian heritage destruction. Again, not as clear-cut as Grandmaster wants it to be, and Steverci's concerns are valid enough for it to warrant an RfC.

2) regarding Nersesov comment that Grandmaster added recently: They (again) somehow fail to mention that even an established third-party editor, LouisAragon, also opposes Grandmaster's version. Here are their thoughts, fully:

• I believe assigning Nersesov the label "Armenian author" would result in giving credibility to the same sort of fallacy which one often sees at problemating topic areas on Wikipedia, including WP:AA2. I.e. "because he was of X origin, he must have represented X interests". The label Armenian author should remain reserved for historic figures such as Eznik of Kolb, Arakel of Tabriz, Khachatur Abovian, etc. I fail to see how Nersesov, although of Armenian origin, could possibly represent an Armenian narrative on such a contentious topic, given the WP:RS that describe his life. It would put him on equal footing with guys who are solidly known to represent the Azerbaijani narrative like Mirza Adigozal bey. This, in turn, would violate WP:NPOV. Indeed, its probably best to remove mention of "Armenian". Another option could be: "Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, a writer of Armenian origin who grew up in Iran, served there as a civil servant, and converted to Islam (...)". Or something along those lines. In short; one needs to give due attribution, or provide a WP:RS which states that he was an "Armenian author" [diff]

Closing thoughts: I would appreciate for Grandmaster to show the full picture instead of what seems like trying to get their fellow editors/competition banned. And probably assuming good faith would be beneficial here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for comment by LouisAragon, he proposed either to delete ethnic origin of historians, or to write "writer of Armenian origin". – Not sure if you didn't notice that I delibriealy put the full quote by LouisAragon above. They explicitly said, quote:

• "I believe assigning Nersesov the label "Armenian author" would result in giving credibility to the same sort of fallacy which one often sees at problemating topic areas on Wikipedia, including WP:AA2. I.e. "because he was of X origin, he must have represented X interests""
• Indeed, its probably best to remove mention of "Armenian".

They also suggested another alternative wording:

• Another option could be: "Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, a writer of Armenian origin who grew up in Iran, served there as a civil servant, and converted to Islam (...)".

And btw, my edit was done before the third-party editor, not after, like you try to present in your comment. And at that time, the discussion wasn't finished (and as apparent by subsequent comments), just like I stated in my revert.

But this is what's the issue here, and LouisAragon pointed out it as well: We have 4 sources, 3 of them being Azerbaijani and Nersesov. We need to give due attribution that those are obviously Azerbaijani sources, and Nersesov is far from being the Armenian point of view as LouisAragon pointed out too, including other in the talk discussion. Moreover, saying "19th century sources" gives the impression that it's supported outside of Azerbaijani sources. And one of the 4 sources, being far from the Armenian view, doesn't suddenly make it correct to put it that way. I don't oppose saying:

• Azerbaijani sources, and Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, a writer of Armenian origin who grew up in Iran, served there as a civil servant, and converted to Islam, attest to the foundation of 1750-1752...'

Or other editors would think of a better attribution, but he needs to be attributed nonetheless. And again, saying "19th century sources" makes the false impression to the reader that those 4 sources are somehow mainstream, when 3 are Azerbaijani authors, and the last is far from the Armenian view on the subject. And again, that is what I got from reading LouisAragon's comment, and not what you're trying to present here, leaving out context and cherry-picking what you prefer from a comment. so no consensus was possible due to uncompromising attitude of these two users. – So far all you did is to show a diff of me reverting you before any consensus or third-party editors being involved, and that makes you assume that "consensus wasn't possible"?

Regarding the diffs, as I showed above, again you were the one introducing new content in these articles, or at least in most of the cases. Regarding replacement, I can't comment for other editors. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't look to how others interpret a comment, I look at the comment itself, which I fully quoted and provided above, I fail to see how Nersesov, although of Armenian origin, could possibly represent an Armenian narrative on such a contentious topic, given the WP:RS that describe his life.. My interpretation seems to be correct, as even LouisAragon suggested removing "Armenian author" when referring to Nersesov, and also suggested second option, with due attribution. Either is fine to me. Nersesov's point of you isn't the Armenian one, and as LouisAragon said himself, it isn't different from those 3 Azerbaijani authors and not even close to the Armenian view. Saying "19th century sources" doesn't cut it either, it gives reader the false impression that somehow 3 Azerbaijani sources and Nersesov, who supports the same Azerbaijani position and more importantly, is different from the Armenian one, somehow these are just "19th century sources" or "Armenian author". That's not how one attributes sources with this kind of context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna be honest here: I don't understand what Grandmaster is doing. Does he think that editors can't read what's said in diffs/comments, or does he think that his misrepresentation of said diffs will go unnoticed somehow?

LouisAragon, thanks for the comment and clarification. I agreed with your proposal to not mention ethnicity of any authors. – i'm sorry, where was this? The comment I'm seeing clrealy states only not mentioning Nersesov's ethnicity or an alternative due attribution to him.

I was ready to look into alternative versions, but no sources were provided to support alternative versions of Nersesov's ethnicity. In any case, I was willing to make a compromise, and agreed to not to mention Nersesov's ethnicity, but as I explained above, it did not happen. – Presenting him as just "Armenian author/source" is the problem, because he isn't your regular "Armenian author/source" and giving his view UNDUE attribution is also the problem, not necessarily mentioning or not mentioning his ethnicity. As I said, I'm also fine with the alternative version, stating that while he may have Armenian origin, he was raised in Iran and brought up as Muslim, being also a civil servant. What is not fine tho is saying "I was willing not to mention Nevserov's ethnicity", by which I hope you don't mean your "19th century sources" compromise. Because if we're not even going to attribute contentious claims of 4 sources, of which 3 are Azerbaijani and 1 Nersesov, who's clearly not a representative of the Armenian view, and is pretty much identical to the Azeri one, then how we're even going to keep the due WP:WEIGHT of that sentence? This would be nothing short of a misinterpretation to give them the UNDUE attribution by referring to obviously biased sources as just "19th century sources" which was your “compromise” apparently.

And to think that you brought up Nersesov as some sort of something against Steverci, when clearly the discussion was/is noway near as clear-cut as you presented in that comment, one might think that this is just a WP:WITCHHUNT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear any possible misconceptions; ZaniGiovanni's interpretation of my comment at Shusha is the correct one. At least, how I intended it to be. I didn't notice Jr8825's comment; if I had I could've replied to him/her. My suggestion consisted of basically two proposals. One being the removal of the label "Armenian author", as Nersesov doesn't represent a mainstream Armenian POV due to his biography which sets him apart from the vast majority of Armenians at the time. The other being the proper introduction of Nersesov in text, explaining that although being of Armenian origin, he was brought up and raised in Iran as a Muslim and civil servant, etc. I never intended to describe him as an "Armenian author/source", as it, in my opinion, would tantamount to putting him on part with historic figues like Eznik of Kolb, Khachatur Abovian, Arakel of Tabriz, etc., who are solidly known as "Armenian authors", serving historic Armenian POVs. Imagine describing Mehmed Ali Pasha (marshal) as a "German author" or Mahmud Pasha Angelović as a "Serbian/Greek author"; it just doesn't sound appropriate IMO. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Grandmaster is trying to resolve a content dispute but chose a wrong platform for that - which may be perceived as an attempt of neutralising the opponent. I suggest he does not shoot himself in the foot per WP:BOOMERANG. He is problematic editor himself, a hardliner who likes pushing till the end, and when it is pointed out to him that what he says / does unequivocally violates WP principles he resorts to combative behaviour. A couple of recent interactions with Grandmaster:

• When he pushes Wiki Commons photos for evidence of destroyed Azerbaijani heritage sites and when it is pointed out to him that he violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH he carries on the same song.
• He pushes article after article 123 as evidence base for Zangezur corridor and when it is pointed out to him 12 3 4 5 6 7 that he is trying to connect unrelated things thus abusing WP:SYNTH and other principles he ignores/resists and carries on the same song 1, 2 and resorts to accusing the opponent in bad faith, not knowing the language of the source (despite the language competency stated on the opponent's page) and so on.
• Looking at Steverci's talk page, it looks like Grandmaster keeps pinning him to various noticeboards, this being the next one. Accusing another editor constantly in various wrongdoings, he forgets that his conscience is not clear and that he was the organiser and inspirational leaders of the pro-Azerbaijani Anti-Armenian off-wiki coordination on Russian Wikipedia. and that he 100% promotes and supports pro-Azerbaijani edits and votes on Wikipedia.

In summary, this appears just another attempt of silencing an editor whose point of view is opposite of the initiator's point of view. Grandmaster has been on Wikipedia for long enough to know that Wikipedia does not work like that. I suggest someone neutral and experienced explains this to Grandmaster so he does not think it is some Armenian plot against him. I suggest Steverci to work on his diplomatic skills and be more discussant on article talk pages and use constructive tools like 3rd opinion request when he gets into the situation when 2 editors disagree with back and forth edits. I suggest no ban against either of these users, it may discourage both from coming to boards with similar cases. --Armatura (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is clearly a return to the old pattern of tendentious editing, so I'm inclined to reinstate the topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree the topic ban should be reinstated. I also don't think that the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive326#Topic ban appeal II (re-restored from archive) constituted the "clear and substantial consensus" needed to reverse an arbitration enforcement in the first place. A clear consensus yes, but not enough participation to be substantial. Regardless you can't change history. This user got a very lucky second chance, unfortunately they have resumed the pattern that resulted in their original ban. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As can be seen here: [31] you were not just topic banned for sock puppetry. You were also topic banned for POV editing and misrepresentation of sources. Perhaps you are thinking of your June 2016 indefinite block for sock puppetry. While the correctness of removing your prior topic ban is now moot, I do not see it being addressed in the AE link you gave. Your response in no way addresses your recent behavior and instead seems to amount to "hey at least I was not sock puppeting". HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:47, 1 November 2021 (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

Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nomoskedasticity (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

Gender and sexuality, specifically the consensus required restriction imposed on October 24

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

1. November 3 Revert of a change to the short description. I had just made the (non-revert) change, there was no discussion (much less consensus) in Talk, and no 3RRNO rationale was offered.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on October 25.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The previous AE filing found that Nomoskedasticity was justified - in an unrelated revert to the same page - because of BLP concerns. The diff presented above does not offer any such BLP rationale; WP:3RRBLP clearly states If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. My edit, which Nomoskedasticity reverted, was not itself a revert - my edit directly reflects the (sourced and stable) text about the subject in the article's first sentence (as short descriptions are intended to) and cannot reasonably be construed as a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity appears to have interpreted the result of the previous AE discussion as meaning that the "consensus required" restriction does not apply to their edits, so they can resume their prior approach to editing this controversial article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity - there isn't 0RR, but there is a consensus required restriction which, as far as I know, applies to all reverts (including yours). Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee - I am fine for an admin to close this section without action, then, if I misunderstood the scope of "consensus required". It might have been helpful if you had provided that succinct explanation when we were flailing around in the Newimpartial section, above, since it might have led to a more rapid resolution of that section. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads - I agree with you. If I could retract the filing, I would. If I had understood in the Newimpartial section that "consensus required" applied only to reverts of reverts, my writing in that section would have been much more parsimonious. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

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.

Newimpartial seems to think there's a 0RR on this article. There isn't. That's likely all I'm going to have to say here. Well -- except that this request strikes me as showing some real WP:BATTLEGROUND... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the merit in this ARE. Nomoskedasticity reverted a change that NewImpartial just made. As far as I can tell the article is subject to a 1RR limit. Nomoskedasticity has made their 1 revert and I think their justification is certainly within reason. Springee (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, that notice says a change can be reverted (1RR) but if that change is to be restored it would require consensus. Editor A makes a change. Editor B reverts it (1RR). Editor A can't restore it and claim 1RR nor could Editor C restore it and claim 1RR. To restore that change would require talk page consensus. Springee (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a discussion on the disputed topic, at the article-in-question. Best place to iron out content disputes, is at the talkpage of the article being disputed over. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This filing is utterly without merit. As noted, the article is not under 0RR but 1RR. 1 revert is acceptable and indeed WP:BRD would be impossible without it. The filer is misunderstanding "consensus required"; per the notice: all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged. Nomoskedasticity challenged Newimpartial's edit via reversion, which is how it works. A violation would then be if someone reinstated Newimpartial's version. If it worked the way the filer thinks, then it would be impossible to revert any changes to the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Is any other admin starting to lose their patience with a significant number of editors on both "sides" in this area? We've been here before with ARBIPA, ARBPIA etc. Anyway, the filer has commented that this can be closed, so unless there's anything else that needs to be raised, it can be? Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 9 April 2021 directly attributed to "RFE/RL experts" a claim made by Azeri/Turkish sources that RFE/RL had only reported on
2. 13 September 2021 blatant WP:CANVASS
3. 7 October 2021 trying to pass off photographs as sources when he couldn't find a real source confirming what he wanted to write, no self-awareness of WP:OR
4. 21 October 2021 removes any mention of the Republic of Artsakh and replaces it with "Armenian occupation". In Azerbaijan, it's illegal to even acknowledge the existence of the Republic of Artsakh and everything about it is attributed to Armenia instead. Outside of Azerbaijan, this is undue, however.
5. 26 October 2021 adds MOS:ALLEGED to only a part of what the journalist said, clear POV pushing
6. 29 October 2021 continues edit warring recent changes without discussing them on the talk page, and WP:SOAPBOX use of a WP:PRIMARY source. The source, Maclean's, is a pop culture magazine and not even very reliable. No other information is known about the author, impossible to verify credibility.
7. 29 October 2021 again attributing the Republic of Artsakh to Armenia without a reliable non-partisan source
8. 26 October 2021 continues soapboxing use of primary sources that don't contribute anything to the article besides agenda pushing
9. 29 October 2021 same as above, now edit warring instead of discussing their recent changes on the talk page
10. 30 October 2021 reverts another user for the same changes, claims "there is no agreement to removal of sourced info" despite multiple users now reverting his changes

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2006-2007 Various blocks for edit warring
2. 29 May 2010 blocked on the Russian Wikipedia for meatpuppetry with multiple other Azerbaijani editors, some of which he frequently collaborates with to this day on the English Wikipedia.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 June 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Given that Grandmaster has been an editor for for 16 years now, it is concerning that he still gets into the same kind of edit wars as when he first started editing Wikipedia. I had reported Grandmaster's April edit to AE back then, and although no action was taken at the time, Grandmaster still displays a habit of twisting the words in sources. His recent canvass attempt is also concerning, given that he has a history of meatpuppetry spanning over a decade on the Russian Wikipedia for articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the awareness evidence. My apologies for the oversight. --Steverci (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

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.

Some of this has already been addressed by admins after the previous report by Steverci on me. In particular, the first diff, about RFE/RL, is a repetition from previous report that could be found here. Back then admins did not find any problems with my editing. This here [33] was a fix of POV editing by Steverci, because according to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement the Lachin corridor, where Zabukh and Lachin are located, is controlled by Russian peacekeepers. This could be seen from this map too: [34]. Steverci repeatedly tried to change this to claim that the village was "under the de facto control of the Republic of Artsakh", using sources that did not support the claim: [35] This was discussed at Talk:Zabux. Maclean's is not a pop-culture magazine. And it was not the only source to describe looting and burning of Lachin and Zabukh, which is what Steverci was persistently removing from the articles. Steverci is accusing me of edit warring instead of discussing, but it was me who started the discussion at Talk:Lachin in order to resolve the issue. The rest I addressed in my report on Steverci. Just to note, this goes beyond simple content disagreement. On part of Steverci, we see a pattern of persistent POV editing and edit warring, which was the reason for his original topic and indef ban. Grandmaster 09:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information provided by Armatura is inaccurate. I never proposed to use the photos as sources. As is evident from the diffs that he supplied, I proposed to use those photos as illustrations, and I actually did insert them into the List of damaged Islamic and Azerbaijani sites during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to illustrate condition of each monument. As one can see, those photos are not used as references, but as illustrations, which is in line with Wikipedia rules.

Regarding Zangezur corridor, what's happening there indeed deserves the attention of wider Wikipedia community. Zangezur corridor was nominated by Armatura for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zangezur corridor, the result was to keep. A few months later Armatura proposed to merge Zangezur corridor into 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, [36] which appears to be another way to have the article deleted, despite no consensus at AFD. One can see that it is the same users voting for deletion, using the same arguments that have nothing to do with WP:N, as significant coverage in reliable sources is the main criterion for article's existence. Also, the proposed merger was not listed at WP:PM, while according to WP:MERGE, controversial mergers should be taken by the nominator to WP:PM. I listed the proposed merger myself: [37] I followed the advice of another experienced user and tried to get the attention of wider Wikipedia community to this, [38] because I think we need outside opinions to finally resolve the issue, but unfortunately it did not generate any interest. So users reading this are invited to join the discussion to help build a consensus. Regarding other diffs, I provided a couple of new sources in the discussion that were not available previously, and did it in a very concise manner, to which Armatura responded with starting a lengthy argument, and accusing me of "constant stonewalling to frustrate the discussion opener": [39]. I reminded him to mind WP:AGF: [40], but he continued to throw accusations of irritating him, stonewalling, etc: [41]. As you can see, my comments at that discussion were very short and to the topic, with no personal comments towards other editors. So I don't find personal comments by Armatura towards me to be justified, and to be in line with the rules. Also, I see no evidence that I keep "pinning" Steverci to various noticeboards. When exactly did that happen? And lastly, I don't see how an incident from 12 (!) years ago from another language wiki has anything to do with this. Grandmaster 09:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the content of this request. Note that Grandmaster has been formally aware of DS in this area since 4 June 2021. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Robert McClenon/Shusha Dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated two Requests for Comments at Talk:Shusha. I have not researched whether there are any other topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan that are involved in this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied my this statement from the Grandmaster vs Steverci case above. It looks like Grandmaster has tried to resolve a content dispute but chose a wrong platform for that - which may be perceived as an attempt of neutralising the opponent. He himself is problematic editor himself, a hardliner who likes pushing till the end, and when it is pointed out to him that what he says / does unequivocally violates WP principles he resorts to combative behaviour. A couple of recent interactions with Grandmaster:

• When pushes Wiki Commons photos for evidence of destroyed Azerbaijani heritage sites and when it is pointed out to him that he violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH he carries on the same song.
• He pushes article after article 123 as evidence base for Zangezur corridor and when it is pointed out to him 12 3 4 5 6 7 that he is trying to connect unrelated things thus abusing WP:SYNTH and other principles he ignores/resists and carries on the same song 1, 2 and resorts to accusing the opponent in bad faith, not knowing the language of the source (despite the language competency stated on the opponent's page) and so on.
• Looking at Steverci's talk page, it looks like Grandmaster keeps pinning him to various noticeboards, this being the next one. Accusing another editor constantly in various wrongdoings, he forgets that his conscience is not clear and that he was the organiser and inspirational leaders of the pro-Azerbaijani Anti-Armenian off-wiki coordination on Russian Wikipedia. and that he 100% promotes and supports pro-Azerbaijani edits and votes on Wikipedia.

In summary, the above AE case appears just another attempt of silencing an editor whose point of view is opposite of the initiator's point of view and Grandmaster has been on Wikipedia for long enough to know that Wikipedia does not work like that. I suggest someone neutral and experienced explains this to Grandmaster so he does not think it is some Armenian plot against him. I suggest Steverci to work on his diplomatic skills and be more discussant on article talk pages and use constructive tools like 3rd opinion request when he gets into the situation when 2 editors disagree with back and forth edits. I suggest no ban against either of these users, it may discourage both from coming to boards with similar cases. --Armatura (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this area, and have contributed mostly to the following articles: Zangezur corridor, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. I have not seen any indication of pro-Azerbaijani coordination on English Wikipedia in the relevant period. Transparently pro-Azerbaijani/Turkish–anti-Armenian edits that randomly occur seem to come from throwaway accounts and don't look like they fit in a scheme. On the other hand, I have seen a tendency emanating from a repeating aggregation of usernames to edit in a way which I gather is fairly consistent with official Armenian positions, and not particularly accordant with normal processes here. This would be the case with same users repeating the same arguments expressed in a deletion discussion and a merge discussion, where in the latter case comments start appearing truly artificial and detached from a relevant context. What Grandmaster says about the Zangezur corridor merge effort sheds light on this (the same concerns on my part were already expressed in the merge discussion). So, in this climate, when he is depicted as a coordinator of a pro-Azerbaijani effort, it appears to me as deflection. This would be in line with an already made observation that there is a retaliatory and abuse-of-process dimension involved. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Without yet commenting on the case itself I will point out that your evidence of Grandmaster being aware of the discretionary sanctions is dated Oct 31st 2021, after the evidence being provided. However they did in fact receive a discretionary sanction notice in this area on June 4th 2021. (Edit: Just noticed Firefangledfeathers already pointed this out). HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the clearly retaliatory nature of this filing, it looks like nobody seems to want to take action here (me included). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would concur. I'm non-plussed by the filing itself, which is bordering on abuse of process. Btw, Maclean's is considered a reliable source. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN but I wouldn't recommend it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:52, 3 November 2021 (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

Ezlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dtobias (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/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Relevant diffs in chronological order, which are also included in the below explanation, are [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51].

The conduct I take issue with starts on October 1 with Dtobias' creation of a new section with the comment that The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or Sorting Hat), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. After several replies by other users, Dtobias commented that "observed" should be used instead of "assigned" because it would make more sense. But that wouldn't accomplish the ideological objective of forcing everybody to think of it as if it's an arbitrary assignment instead of a biological fact. At this point, I replied and noted that Dtobias had been involved in previous discussion of the same issue on the same talk page and had even used the same reference to the Sorting Hat, a clear appeal to ridicule. I asked them to stop repeating the same argument and accusing unnamed editors of having an ideological objective. However, Dtobias continued to make comments that used the talk page as a forum while adding nothing constructive to the discussion, and in one comment that was relevant to the discussion put scare quotes around the term gender identity.

Around this time I left a message on Dtobias' talk page asking for a change in behavior, and after Dtobias commented a couple of days later that Anybody who uses biased terms like "TERF" and "transphobic dog whistle" has absolutely no business judging what constitutes NPOV on this subject I left another message pointing out that Dtobias' behavior was uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. Dtobias replied accusing me of applying double standards, so I explained why I didn't think a double standard was being applied, and asked a question to which they did not reply. I was subequently asked by another user to message Dtobias again, at which point Dtobias commented on my talk page and expressed an intent to stop participating in these discussions. However, just yesterday Dtobias made another comment on the article talk page, this time linking to a self-written and tangentially relevant essay (Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander) and commenting that Incidentally, the thing that distinguishes a goose from a gander is, of course, biological sex, but it's a "transphobic dogwhistle" to say so!

This user's WP:NOTFORUM violations, assumptions of bad faith, and general conduct at Talk:Irreversible Damage makes me doubt their ability to contribute constructively on the talk page in question and within the gender topic area as a whole.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see diff.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am opening this AE request after being advised to do so at ANI. The explanation above is an edited version of my original comment at that thread. This is my first time opening an AE request; I apologize for my lack of concision and hope any mistakes on my part will be explained so that I can correct them. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Dtobias for noting below that the edits in question took place at Talk:Irreversible Damage. That got lost in the move from ANI. I object to the implication that I am attempting to "remove an 'opponent' from a subject" – I do not think of and have never thought of Wikipedia as a battleground. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

Since the opener of this request didn't indicate the page where the edits in question took place, I'll state for reference that it is Talk:Irreversible Damage, the talk page for the article on the book Irreversible Damage.

This request seems overblown. I'm accused of "offenses" like putting "scare quotes" around a concept, and for saying that I believe some terminology is inaccurate and ideologically loaded. I'm not accused of doing any questionable edits to main article space, but merely of not writing in the talk page in the manner the complainants like.

I'll admit that the tone of some of my comments went a little bit on the snarky side, so I apologize for this and will try to do better. I don't and won't apologize for holding viewpoints on the issues being debated that don't always agree with those of other editors, and I pledge to do my best to keep such views from causing me to violate WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies in my edits.

Another recent enforcement request involved people who have been editing this same article and its talk page (though that request pertained to their activity on a different article), and concluded with no action needed and an admin comment that it appeared, in part, to be 'a standard attempt to remove an "opponent" from a subject'. Perhaps this request deserves to be resolved in the same vein. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: I struck out part of my notes on the past case as inappropriate to this one; I should have assumed good faith here, and not implied that the originator here is culture-warring when that doesn't actually seem to be the case.) *Dan T.* (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilov: There would be a lot for me to disagree with in their comments, such as using scare quotes around such things as "ideology" (just the sort of thing I was criticized for in this request), and implying that it's my rude style that is problematic and makes people uncomfortable when this topic is such that even very polite statements (e.g., by J. K. Rowling) that take the disfavored side get met with a strong reaction of distaste.

But all of this is beside the point; Bilov is right about describing my attitude being inappropriate for Wikipedia, which is not supposed to be a venue for culture warring. The stuff that gets "likes" on Twitter or "upvotes" on Reddit is often totally wrong for discussion here. So I was wrong in that regard. Hence, I pledge a high standard of conduct where I will stick to facts and logic and not sarcastic quips and the like.

I definitely do not make any claim to be "free of personal opinion" myself, but I will stick scrupulously to WP:NPOV in any editing I do to this or other articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, I'm both the editor that Dtobias directed the comment about dog whistles to, which was based on this talk page contribution, and the user who asked ezlev to speak to Dtobias again. As I hope the contribution makes clear, I was commenting on proposed content, and not the editor proposing it.

With respect to Dtobias' latest contribution, I have tried to make clear that the term "biological sex" it is only contextually a transphobic dog whistle, and I am fairly certain Dtobias was aware of that as they commented on the same thread a couple of hours later.

Otherwise, I agree with ezlev's analysis with respect to civility and lack of assumption of good faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe9th (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was literally yesterday that I last wrote at AE, in reference to the topic area of gender and sexuality: Referring ceaselessly to past discussions and endlessly accusing others of attempting to "right great wrongs", as though they are free from personal opinion themselves, is not the way to [engage in a discussion positively]. You'll notice many others in this AE and the broader topic area do both of these ceaselessly. Dtobias says above that they are willing to pledge to try to avoid overt rude sarcasm, which is not helpful. I should have assumed good faith here, and not implied that the originator here is culture-warring when that doesn't actually seem to be the case is a little bit better. I would go further and say: it will never help to accuse anyone of "culture-warring", because if they are then it should be very easy to disagree with them based on facts and references, not personal attacks, and if they aren't then all you're doing is creating a toxic environment.

Dtobias's comments on gender make me quite uncomfortable, so I can only assume they make people with gender dysphoria very uncomfortable. (And this is, of course, an article in the topic area of gender dysphoria.) They may not mean to be referring to transgender people when they rudely dismiss a "movement", side of a "culture war" or "ideology", but their comments come across very much as attacks on people with gender dysphoria and other transgender people. However, I gather that they are unaware of this, and this AE is really the first time it is being pointed out in so many words. I hope Dtobias will make a commitment, in their own words, to a much higher standard of conduct. Otherwise, a topic ban from the article Irreversible Damage and its talk page should be the minimum action to prevent continued disruption to the encyclopedia. — Bilorv (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the user has apologized and promised to do better and be more careful in the future when commenting on such topics, so I think this can be closed as moot. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Dtobias has admitted that he has a problem with tone and snark, apologized and promised to communicate in a more appropriate manner going forward. I don't see any reason to doubt his sincerity. Barring any new evidence, I don't see an issue with cautioning the user to be mindful of how he communicates and closing this request with no further action. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking a contrary opinion is not an offense. The snark is not appropriate but falls short of an actionable offense. Please be reminded that verbal jousting more often than not prevents people from considering your point of view rather than the intended effect of having it considered. Assuming this advice is taken at face value then I recommend closing without action. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dtobias has already agreed to moderate the snark and other rudeness, so I think an informal caution to remember to do that is sufficient here. Hopefully that will happen and be the end of it. I agree with HighInBC that we should not be considering sanctions simply because someone raises a contrary point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 5 November 2021 (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

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

74 observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Amendment (February 2019)

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

1. 18:45, 30 April 2021 Removes the Irish name from the Provisional Irish Republican Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) aticle
2. 18:55, 30 April 2021 At the same article, amends the sentence In 2005/6 some Provisional IRA members defected and formed Óglaigh na hÉireann, which became active in 2009 to read In 2005/6 some Provisional IRA members defected and formed the Real IRA splinter group, which became active in 2009. This is a nonsensical change, since the Real IRA are also a splinter group from the Provisional IRA that formed in 1997
3. 19:14, 30 April 2021 At the Bojayá massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article adds WP:SYNTHESIS, using references that don't mention that incident
4. 21:34, 23 September 2021 At same article reverts without explanation despite their edit being challenged as synthesis
5. 19:06, 28 October 2021 At the Proxy bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article amends a sentence from In December 2013, Óglaigh na hÉireann, a Real IRA splinter group to read In December 2013 a Real IRA splinter group, despite the organisation's only name being Óglaigh na hÉireann.
6. 19:35, 28 October 2021 At the Óglaigh na hÉireann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article reverts to reinstate challenged edit, claiming This was put in to chronological order despite the section they have moved to the bottom stating The name has also been used by several other paramilitary groups calling themselves the Irish Republican Army since 1920. It is a strange kind of chronological order where 1922 and 1924 come before 1920.
7. 17:13, 2 May 2021 At Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Provisional IRA and other subversives calling themselves Oglaigh na hEireann (the entire discussion is probably worth reading) says of Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group) thatg ZIf this group requires a name then 'Real IRA Splinter Group 2005' abbreviated 'R-IRA-SG-2005' is more than sufficient which is clearly absurd.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 4 May 2021 Blocked for edit warring at The Troubles in Rosslea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (article since deleted)
2. 20 June 2021 Second block for edit warring over the same content at the above article

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

74 observer appears to have a bee in their bonnet about the use of the term Óglaigh na hÉireann (abbreviated as ONH), despite the fact that in relation to the group formed in 2005 it's their actual name (and the ONH abbreviartion is used by the media), and made their absurd suggestion in the seventh diff their name should be 'Real IRA Splinter Group 2005' abbreviated 'R-IRA-SG-2005'. There was zero support for their idea or article change at the talk page discussion, with the most telling reply being this stating Óglaigh na hÉireann is the name of any organisation that calls itself Óglaigh na hÉireann, just as Engelbert Humperdinck's name is Engelbert Humperdinck, even though he apropriated it from a 19th-century German composer. The fact that an individual thinks such an organisation is evil does not take from that simple fact. Wikipedia is not the place for righting great wrongs.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

As background, Óglaigh na hÉireann is the name of Ireland's national army - during and since the War of Independence (1920-1921), into the Civil War (1922-1923) etc. Whilst formally legislated for in 1924 that does not mean the name attached to them then (that would be a very biased conclusion).

However, since the 1923 Civil War end subversive and armed terrorist groupings in Ireland have tried to self-legitimise by calling themselves 'Óglaigh na hÉireann' instead. An issue to this day.

Unfortunately, as was always going to be the case, there are editors on Wikipedia highly motivated to legitimise that terrorism and whitewash the violence. FDW777 is one of these - check the number of articles edited, his contentious and aggressive approach including the initiation of user bans and arbitration, his time spent on this platform - this is the work of an activist.

As I have said, using the name Óglaigh na hÉireann by Irish terrorist organisations is part of their legitimisation process. They seek to normalise that usage in all aspects in society including on Wikipedia (very much so). There is a political agenda behind this and such activity is extremly against the WP:NPOV ethos of Wikipedia.

The few edits I've made have diminished the normalised usage of 'Óglaigh na hÉireann' for subversive/terrorism purposes and this has triggered FDW777.

Regarding FDW777's 'points':

1. The Irish language term (Gaeilge) for the Provisional IRA is actually 'An IRA Sealadach'. As above they are not Óglaigh na hÉireann and there is a discussion on the relevant talk page.
2. The Real IRA splinter group description is adequate here - it is linked text.
3. Not related to the term Óglaigh na hÉireann here so why include?? Nevertheless, the text was legitimate information and supported by the reference: "Colombia rebels used IRA technology, says ex-FARC leader". Irish Times. FDW777 takes a deliberately narrow view to exclude it.
4. See 3.
5. See 2.
6. I placed the chronological order correctly. The "since 1920" in the IRA section should be replaced with just "since" as 1920 is wrong. The Defence Forces section should clarify it was Óglaigh na hÉireann pre 1924 to avoid confusion. [UPDATE1: 1924 also wrong. Talk page updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C3%93glaigh_na_h%C3%89ireann#It_is_important_to_get_the_ordering_and_section_titles_correct. 74 observer (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)][reply]
7. The whole naming approach to these gangs like they are armies is absurd, that was part of the point (missed by FDW777).

Regarding previous sanctions, these were initiated by FDW777 (quelle surpise) in relation to my making full and complete the list of Provisional IRA murders in a small rural locality (killing of a single mother of 3 etc.) - I was less aware of editing and dispute rules at the time and would not have been sanctioned if I had. The update was ultimately prevented by FDW777 getting the topic deleted.

FDW777 is operating to engineer encyclopedic information on Wikipedia to legitimise terrorism and that is the real issue. The Óglaigh na hÉireann issue here is just one narrow aspect of that.

74 observer (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 2: FDW777 has effectively reverted the topic in question placing the Defence Forces at the bottom. This was done (1) whilst this arbitration is ongoing, (2) IMMEDIATELY on creation of the talk issue and (3) ignoring the facts of the talk issue.

• 'Talk page update at 09:40 to 09:52: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C3%93glaigh_na_h%C3%89ireann&oldid=1053002068#It_is_important_to_get_the_ordering_and_section_titles_correct.'
• 'FDW777 Article revert diff at 9:50 to 9:55: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%93glaigh_na_h%C3%89ireann&type=revision&diff=1053002435&oldid=1052367823'

This behaviour substantiates my statement re FDW777 above.

74 observer (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would help matters, to use the English language version of the disputed topic, rather then the Irish language version. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looking through the pattern of edits, and the statement here, there does seem to be rather a pattern of tendentiousness. I'm not sure I'd issue a sanction here yet, especially given the age of many of these edits, but I certainly would caution 74 observer at least informally if not by formal logged warning that we follow, not second-guess or "correct", the consensus of reliable sources on a matter, including a name. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As there seems to be no further appetite to take any action here, unless another uninvolved admin weighs in within the next day or so, I will close this with an informal warning for tendentious behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

One-month block for violating topic ban from post-1978 British politics. Topic ban was an arbitration remedy (remedy 2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles). Block logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2021#BLP issues on British politics articles. See also: ANI discussion (permanent link)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

• I am aware. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Desmond's career was as a publisher of magazines (mainly pornographic) and later of a newspaper group, not as a politician or as someone directly involved in politics. I have not edited the passages in the article referring to the donations he has made to certain British organisations, or the changes in affiliation of one of his newspapers from one to another of those organisations, as the diffs will demonstrate. I cited a reference to migration in a passage (the one which also mentions the weather and Diana, Princess of Wales), but that was entirely in general terms not as it applies to a specific country, and the original sources are non-specific as well. Philip Cross (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC) copied verbatim from Philip's talk page per his request that the appeal be heard at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that editing the Richard Desmond article (a biography of a living, controversial, figure involved with British politics) is a clear breach of Philip's topic ban from post-1978 British politics and almost exactly the same conduct that resulted in him being sanctioned by ArbCom given the subject's current and well-publicised dispute with Wikipedia (in the previous case, he was editing the article on a politician while in dispute with that politician elsewhere on the Internet). I note that Philip did not respond to the concerns raised at ANI about his editing, and continued to edit in the manner which prompted the concern while the ANI thread was ongoing. In my opinion, this shows a disregard for the ban and the community's concerns, which is why I felt a block of considerable duration was necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 7 November 2021 (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.

I continue to be of the opinion that the off-wiki smear campaign launched against Philip Cross should not have been 'rewarded' with anything more than a warning, but as he has not appealed his topic ban, that matter is sadly irrelevant to the merits of whether this enforcement is appropriate. I plan on coming back to this when I have time to analyse the diffs that led to the blocking. Iffy★Chat -- 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC) @Barkeep49: Which David Miller are you referring to? You linked to the disambiguation page instead of the diffs your comment is based on. Iffy★Chat -- 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing to me, as my understanding is that the AN/I thread was based on Philip's edits on David Miller (sociologist) (which seems, to me, like a much more solid instance of a deliberate topic ban violation). That said, Richard Desmond does seem to have engaged in some political activism through his newspaper ownership (and his article does have a section called "Political activity"). Moreover, some of Philip's edits on the article sem rather politically oriented, like this one about the newspaper's coverage of immigration, and this one which introduces the claim (in the voice of the encyclopedia, not as a quote or attributed opinion) that "According to Desmond, all Germans are Nazis". It seems to me that this is, at the very least, quite close to a topic ban violation.

Anyway, so long as people are getting worked up about this on Twitter (and are probably reading these comments), I may as well mention this: the theories online about Philip Cross being a state actor, or a company paid to edit Wikipedia, are absurd, and if you believe them you are not thinking very hard. The conjecture tends to center on his high edit count as res ipsa loquitur proof of malfeasance. Really, it's not that big of a deal: he makes about a thousand edits a month and he's been doing so for several years. I am just some guy who edits Wikipedia for fun, and I made about two thousand edits in October of this year. Fixing typos and using scripts adds up quickly. Moreover, while there are shady characters trying to influence Wikipedia articles, they generally do not put up huge neon glow-in-the-dark signs by using one extremely visible account to do so in a dramatic fashion (cf. some of the entries here to see what it actually looks like).

Bringing this here from the original topic ban discussion:

"The Anti-Defamation League described Escobar as a "anti-Israeli journalist". Escobar was among those attending the New Horizon Conference in Tehran, Iran in Fall 2014 along with others the ADL described as antisemites and Holocaust deniers."

The only reference PC gave for this contentious SYNTH material was a press release whose title was "Iranian Hatefest Promotes Anti-Semitism, Draws Holocaust Deniers and U.S. Anti-Israel Activists." (He was quite unrepentant when I approached him.) HouseOfChange (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been active on the BLP Max Blumenthal, another critic of Israel whose bio PC has salted with opinion pieces denouncing him as a friend to antisemitism:

• adding material based on opinion piece "Mikics," multiply cited in article [52]
• Another anti-Blumenthal tirade, which is now together with "Mikics" at the top of description of one of Blumenthal's books: [53]

PC has made more than 60% of all edits to the article. He has also made many good edits, but his passionate feelings about politics make him a bad editor of BLPs related to politics. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I had noticed Cross' edits to Desmond and so I looked into them. From my non-UK viewpoint I did not see Desmond as inherently covered by British politics broadly construed, and the specific edits made avoided content that would have been with-in scope from my assessment. So if that were all this was I would actually be inclined to accept the appeal. However, I find Cross' edits to David Miller, which I was unaware of when I considered and declined to sanction for Desmond, to clearly be a violation of his topic ban so in the larger sense I think the block is appropriate. I have no opinion about whether the length of time blocked is appropriate or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Iffy thanks for pointing it out. David Miller (sociologist) is the Miller in question. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking mainly at the David Miller and Richard Desmond articles (both BLP), the first thing I notice is that neither are obviously political on the surface, and the talk page show no wikiproject that is related to politics staking a claim. Cutting to the chase (and editing out the three paragraphs I had prepared), I see a problem case. Some people consider these articles "obviously" under the topic ban, others do not. I see them as maybe mildly covered, but what do I know. This edit that ties loosely to Israel is probably covered somewhat cleanly, but it isn't the reason he was blocked. I'm a bit on the fence, although leaning to keep the block solely based on that one diff I provided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments kind of reinforce my initial feeling, that Brits and yanks would see this somewhat differently. It's just a cultural difference, not a matter of wrong vs. right. I think we all see there was a problem, it's just a matter of degrees. Would be nice to see another couple of opinions, although we all know where this is likely heading. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As a British person this falls under broadly construed for me. Desmond is the proprietor of an intensely anti-eu newspaper and is accused by private eye over the years of regularly interfering in the editorial. He gave over a million quid to ukip. He is clearly in a political nexus - to the point where a tory minister changed the rules to save him £40m. This was definitely a violation in my mind. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The relationship of Desmond to politics is rather tangential, and I think we're stretching "broadly construed" a bit far to include the entire biography under that designation, as it does not appear politics is Desmond's primary occupation or focus. I would be more inclined to say that any portions of Desmond's article that relate to British politics are off limits, but not the whole thing. That said, David Miller (sociologist) certainly has a heavy interest and participation in British politics, so edits to that article were a clear violation of the topic ban. Given that, I would decline the appeal. I would also strongly advise Philip Cross to quit trying to tiptoe right up to the line of the topic ban, and instead to find some things completely unrelated to British politics to edit about—we have millions of articles, about everything from types of rocks to Russian poets, so that should not be difficult to do. If you keep dancing along the line, you will inevitably slip over it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am going to close this in about 24 hours unless there is an objection, someone else does it, or a significant change of opinion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• To me, as a politically aware British person, there is no question the Richard Desmond is very closely associated with British politics as the former, actively involved, editor of a very politically vocal newspaper, his donations to the Conservative party, and the scandal regarding Robert Jenrick. It is inconceivable to me that someone as keenly aware of British politics as Philip Cross is would consider Desmond an apolitical figure. I am less familiar with David Miller, but as Cullen328 said in the ANI discussion, almost every portion of that BLP is drenched with contemporary British politics. and Cross' edits there include ones that are unquestionably political. I'm seeing no justification for granting this appeal - indeed I think the sanction is, if anything, on the lenient side. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC) (@Cullen328: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of these edits were probably OK under the topic ban, but I think it was violated. UK newspaper owners have substantial political influence and are often seen as driving political debates. Some of the edits made to the article related to the Daily Express and specifically how it has covered political subjects, e.g. [54] adds a quote saying the newspaper is obsessed with immigration (definitely a political issue). David Miller (sociologist) falls more unambiguously into politics. I second the suggestion to find a topic which isn't closely related to British politics. Hut 8.5 20:07, 9 November 2021 (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

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cutterx2202 (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

1. 14:30, 13 November 2021 In response to Please provide references to reliable sources supporting your claims for the movement's responsibility in riots and the monetary evaluation of damages, with a more specific figure than "many", provides a reference that doesn't even mention Black Lives Matter
2. 15:19, 13 November 2021 In response to various points, most pertinently C) does not detail that these damages are due to BLM, just "protests" in general says It'd be on you to prove the riots enumerated are NOT BLM, as they line up precisely with known BLM riot dates
3. 15:37, 13 November 2021 Continues to fail to provide references to support their repeat of the question "Why is there no mention of the many riots the movement is responsible for, causing more than $1 billion in damage?"
4. 16:04, 13 November 2021 After their change is rejected as synthesis, starts with their WP:IDHT of Valid references have been provided. Does anyone have any points of discussion on the question posed? If not, I'll start drafting locally an addition to the article and post here for consensus before I make any changes.
5. 17:28, 15 November 2021 Proposes change using the same synthesis that has been rejected
6. 17:50, 15 November 2021 More IDHT with Please pay attention the wording in the proposal instead of threatening me and being unproductive. There is no synthesis in the proposed wording. I have taken into consideration what's been said

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for edit warring at Ex-gay movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I suggest this discussion on their talk page is also read, more IDHT nonsense and claims of harassment.

In response to the reply below (since amended). There is where Cutterx2202 received the standard DS notification. They have made a variety of claims in relation to this, such as "I said I have not been accurately notified as such for any recent activity. Prior links refer to an entirely different issue that does not involve me at all. I will continue to remove incorrect links intended to harass/intimidate me. Your harassment will remain as a log of your activity prior to any action you take". Or more recently "At every point, I've indicated that link does not involve me. It is another user's issue. I am not involved in that issue, nor am I mentioned or listed as involved on the page. Any further mention of this link by you will be elevated as harassment". They assert the DS do not apply to them, I am sure they will soon learn they do. FDW777 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

User seems to be annoyed that I simply brought up a question for discussion. I have not ignored feedback, as a group of users seem to be doing on the discussion. After altering wording in response to feedback they still are stuck on the first wording that's been since improved upon. This is unreasonable piling on instead of contributing to the discussion. Very little suggestions for improvement, except for a few, just accusing of this or that (see this very page as evidence). Very unproductive. Users want to ban me from an entire topic for trying to contribute. Do what you want here, I'm done. Hostility and the disgusting bias looming over the site is very unwelcoming. There seems to be very few good apples, but the large majority are just trolling. Ideological bias on Wikipedia is insurmountable at this point. I'm deleting my account.

This user is only going to ever waste folks' time. They are determined to both insert their synthesis and ignore policy and warnings in equal measure. They should be topic banned from American Politics, broadly construed.--Jorm (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While they have few recent edits (and basically all their recent edits focus on this topic), their older edits on other topics have similar problems. Here, they removed "experts" despite that being the characterization in the source (Experts on extremism have long warned that white nationalists’ insistence that they are “not racist”, and that calling for a white ethno-state is not the same thing as “hating” people of color, is a propaganda tactic and should not be taken seriously.) While they walked this comment back, the edit summary repeated the accusation!

Also - and this is an edit from 2015, but I promise it's relevant given their limited number of edits overall - at first I thought their overreaction to a standard DS notification was an example of the problems with how those notifications work; then I noticed that their first edit on their talk page was reverting a standard welcome message with the edit summary removed defamation. I don't think there's any reasonable way an editor could mistake the extremely cordial standard welcome message for defamation; the fact that Cutterx2202 reacted that way, in concert with their more recent reactions to standard DS notifications and their statement that Hostility and the disgusting bias looming over the site is very unwelcoming. There seems to be very few good apples, but the large majority are just trolling. Ideological bias on Wikipedia is insurmountable at this point, suggests that they view Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND against hostile forces and are primed to view most interactions as hostile. While they say they're deleting their account, they've stopped editing and returned in the past only to resume the same behavior (after a block for edit warring), so I suggest handling this regardless. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most of this editor's edits were anti-gay and anti-BLM activism, if not a topic ban, WP:NOTHERE is to be considered. —PaleoNeonate – 06:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Cutterx2202 has "retired" apparently. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've blocked them as NOTHERE, a regular Admin block. I'd support an AE block but it seems unnecessary. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]