Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive354
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Göycen
[edit]| A consensus to lift the year block under the CT regime has not formed and is unlikely to form is the near future. It becomes an normal admin action on 14 May 2026 and can be appealed through all of the normal routes. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Göycen[edit](copied by Yamla without endorsement) I understand I was blocked after a series of reverts. Recently almost all my edits were re-reverts of material I believed to be inaccurate; I added no new content related to the ArbCom case and even replaced dead links with live archives to keep sources verifiable. My editing record on the Turkish Wikipedia (see contribs there) shows consistent, constructive work. I am currently on hiatus, preparing for my medical board exams, and only logged in briefly to address these disputed edits. My comment asking another editor to restore reliably sourced material was made in good faith and read more harshly than I intended, but I now see it can appear as canvassing; I accept responsibility for my wording and will be more careful. If unblocked I will:
I hope this demonstrates I understand the problem, will not repeat it, and can continue making constructive, policy compliant edits. Göycen (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you review the complaint that led to my ban. I apologize for not providing enough context in my appeal; I assumed Firefangledfeathers would clarify the situation, but no further explanation was offered on my appeal page. I would therefore like to supply the missing background and address any misunderstandings.Göycen (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Dear Firefangledfeathers, I would appreciate it if you could provide a more detailed explanation for my ban in light of following messages1,2 and the recent ban of the same sockpuppet from last year. I recognize that my reference to "Qajars" may have connections to Azerbaijan, and it's possible my comments regarding "kete" were perceived as canvassing. Göycen (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Dear Rosguill, Thank you for your last comment. However, I still haven’t seen your assessment regarding my appeal. Responding only by criticizing the tone and questioning my understanding is not, with all due respect, a sufficient response. Göycen (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Dear Firefangledfeathers, Thank you for your comment. I also do not want to take more time of yours. Perhaps I should be more open: I am not entirely appealing your decision. My messages are simply intended to demonstrate my goodwill. I understand that I should be banned; I only find it unfair to be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. I would appreciate it if you could consider reducing the length of my ban. I did not intentionally edit hot topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Although I acknowledge that I violated the topic ban, my actions were motivated by good intentions, particularly in response to edits made by a problematic IP address. Göycen (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Dear Rosguill, I know that time is the most valuable resource for both of us. This will be my final ping regarding my appeal. With full sincerity, I kindly ask you to review it once more. I have already clearly stated in my original appeal that I unconditionally agree to refrain from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any page, discussion, or edit related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, broadly construed, as defined by ArbCom and community sanctions. Göycen (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Dear asilvering, With full sincerity, I kindly ask you to review it once more. I have already clearly stated in my original appeal that I unconditionally agree to refrain from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any page, discussion, or edit related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, broadly construed, as defined by ArbCom and community sanctions. Göycen (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Dear Firefangledfeathers and Yamla,Thank you for reviewing my request. I would like to withdraw my appeal at this timeGöycen (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]I'm aware of this appeal (thanks Yamla!), and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Göycen, I didn't realize you were looking for further explanation. Is that still the case? Which part would you like me to clarify? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by KhndzorUtogh[edit]@Rosguill, @Asilvering Interestingly, their last appeal got rejected due to AI involvement [1]. This new appeal seems AI-generated as well, and for what it’s worth, it’s a total shift from the way they spoke last time in ANI (I dug up the archive below) [2] I decided to look into the archived ANI case since I couldn't recall any specific things. This is where Göycen lost their EC rights, and there was a subscetion of “vandalism”/POV accusations that Göycen made in the same report which eventually led to their own blocks. It's kind of noteworthy they've been MIA since last August and just came back recently, and they still inaccurately label things with the term vandalism [3], [4]. Göycen has barely made any edits since last year, with their recent contributions primarily consisting of tban violations, improper use of vandalism to revert edits, and canvassing to WP:GAME their lack of EC rights; WP:GAME being the reason they lost it in the first place [5]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Göycen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Yamla[edit]I copied the appeal from User talk:Göycen and believe I count as an uninvolved editor. Please excuse any mistakes in procedure with my action here, I don't often see enforcement appeals while patrolling unblock requests. My opening of this appeal is in no way an endorsement of the appeal itself, I'm simply bringing it to the community. --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Göycen[edit]
|
JohnWiki159
[edit]| No AE action taken at this time except advise editors to engage in dispute resolution rather than reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JohnWiki159[edit]
This is an years-long slow edit warring without talk engagement.---Petextrodon (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JohnWiki159[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JohnWiki159[edit]Dear all, I have added LTTE as Perpetrator to the info box because the article contains incidents of sexual violence by LTTE members against Tamils. The source cited lists cases of such violence against Tamils by LTTE members. Moreover, UTHR has reported such cases by LTTE and the source lists the cases reported by UTHR. UTHR has reported on violence perpetrated by both the state forces and LTTE. Petextrodon calls UTHR anti-LTTE but at the same time, Petextrodon uses the same UTHR reports as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces as shown here. The article has several incidents which use UTHR as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces. But when the same source is used to list the violence perpetrated by the LTTE, that source becomes anti-LTTE for Petextrodon. In this edit, Petextrodon adds a phrase "According to the anti-LTTE" for a LTTE violence reported by UTHR. Isn't this POV editing? The talk page discussion is about whether to include a LTTE violence in the article. Users Petextrodon and Oz346 have objected including an incident in the article reported by the the UTHR source where a forcibly recruited child soldier who had managed to escape faced sexual violence by LTTE members after being caught. The UTHR source says that the sexual violence of the escaped child soldier by LTTE members came to be known later through the grapevine straddling all sections that inhabit Batticaloa's interior. In the talk page, Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino argue that "things heard through the grapevine are explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia hence this incident cannot be included in the article". However, my opinion is that this incident can be included in the article by mentioning the grapevine straddling. Moreover, the source talks about this incident as well. Since these users are objecting the inclusion of this incident in the article, I decided to only update the Perpetrator list since the article contains other incidents of sexual violence by LTTE members against Tamils, to maintain the neutral point of view of the article. It should be also noted that there have been several other attempts to remove LTTE from the List of Perpetrator and LTTE violence1 2 3 4 5 This gives the question why some users are so focused on trying to only remove the LTTE out of all the Perpetrators from the info box when there are LTTE violence incidents in the article. --JohnWiki159 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I believe Petextrodon has misunderstood what I wrote. I summarized the talk page discussion to help readers understand the points being raised. What I said was Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino argue that "things heard through the grapevine are explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia hence this incident cannot be included in the article". I included the argument brought up by these users in quotation marks and then provided my own opinion afterward. I haven't admitted to anything. Regarding Petextrodon's accusation that I am engaging in POV editing on the LTTE article, I have used reliable sources to add content to that article. I reject Petextrodon accusations of me adding excess weight to its negative representation. When examining contributions of Petextrodon, Petextrodon's edit count is more than twice mine in the LTTE article. Then as per Petextrodon's logic, this implies that Petextrodon has been adding far more excess weight to its positive representation. I believe all content, positive or negative, should be supported by reliable sources and presented in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Regarding the accusation of misrepresentation by Petextrodon, the source summarizes the specific incident reported by UTHR in which a forcibly recruited child soldier who had managed to escape was subjected to sexual violence LTTE members. There is no mention of "grapevine" in the source. Since Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino have objected the inclusion of this incident in the article, I decided to only update the Perpetrator list. However, my opinion is that this incident can be included in the article by mentioning the grapevine straddling as highlighted in the UTHR report. Regarding the content removal by different users, the content removal occurred gradually over the years, often in different stages. Most of the removals were made by IP users or newly created accounts. When the content was restored with proper explanations, there were no ongoing back-and-forth reverts or edit wars. Therefore, there was no need to open a talk page discussion at the time. Petextrodon calls UTHR anti-LTTE but at the same time, Petextrodon uses the same UTHR reports as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces as shown here. This inconsistent treatment of the same source appears to reflect a POV editing approach and compromises the article's neutral point of view. Selective application like this risks misleading readers.--JohnWiki159 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by (JohnWiki159)[edit]Result concerning JohnWiki159[edit]
|
Yarohj
[edit]| General informal warning given to both Yarohj and UtoD about the need to discuss --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Yarohj[edit]
@Femke: Note that user Johnwiki states the main citation is the UN panel report in Mullivaikkal page which is also present in the in-line citations. Also note that for Sri Lanka Armed Forces the issue has been discussed before and also an RfC decision for the page not to content dump WP:SOAPBOX sections which are already present in more relevant pages on it but to have a concise section in History explaining the things and give links to relevant articles which is already present. However the issue being reported is user Yarohj edit warring and trying to push them through by force even after being warned -UtoD 10:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC) @Femke: It appears the user is unaware of what WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Also separate headings for Human Rights issues had been solved by RfC where it was decided controversies be concisely mentioned under History similar to IDF.RfCs handled the wording on that section. Undoing years of consensus building is tiresome thus better for user to explain issues in wording than WP:SOAPBOX WP:CSECTIONs by mass copy-paste dumping . -UtoD 05:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
[8] Discussion concerning Yarohj[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Yarohj[edit]The source you linked literally says "The UN says most of those civilians died in government shelling as they were crammed into ever-diminishing “No Fire Zones” – though the Tamil Tigers are also alleged to have committed grave abuses including suicide bombings and the use of human shields.", I don't how you can mention allegations as established information, and make a big claim that LTTE has done massacres against Tamils in NFZs, while its well known established fact, that Sri Lanka Armed Forces have committed countless genocidal atrocities against Tamils in NFZs, backed by a lot of sources as mentioned in that article and @UtoD has removed a whole section of content from Sri Lanka Armed Forces page too, it was relevant content copy pasted from other articles with attribution, I don't know how any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, significant notable activities that happened in the civil war, how can that be WP:NPOV, portraying as if nothing happened, like there is no cases against them of genocide, war crime and human rights violations, not mentioning any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, a propaganda recruitment page for Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Yarohj (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Yarohj[edit]
|
Wareon
[edit]| Rightmostdoor6 is topic banned indefinitely from all pages and edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, for battleground conduct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Wareon[edit]
5 years ago, but also recently
@Asilvering and Guerillero: Boomerang for asking to prove if the sources are unreliable? The user is repeatedly making WP:IDONTLIKEIT statements, you need to look at the given diffs. Another editor has also asked [11] them to either brief their revert or self-revert before it's too late. Wareon, I have likewise responded to the editor and suggested them to follow the same procedure, and you need a course correct in
Discussion concerning Wareon[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wareon[edit]
To sum it up, Rightmostdoor6 appears to be just another editor who believes that using systematically biased Indian sources for this conflict is a good idea. He does not respect the actual reliable sources and instead tries to rely on what he feels is more popular in India as clear from his message right here where he says, " I would recommend a topic ban for this editor with just 238 edits so that they can learn the basic policies of Wikipedia. Wareon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3[edit]I don't think this should have been brought here. Yes, Wareon made a poor revert, which necessitated a {{POV}} template, but that kind of thing is part of normal editing, avoidable though it was. The talk page discussion is proceeding fine. As for the "Godi media" issue, the sources I used were not mentioined on that page, but somebody provided evidence of governmental interference. So I think it is fine to question them. That is again part of normal editing. So we shouldn't be here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC) If there is a real fault here, it is the fact that Wareon made an edit, while the issues were under active discussion. The resulting text is now worse than both the previous versions, and it is going to take even longer at arrive at WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by HerakliosJulianus[edit]With the large amount of repeated assertions on Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos in labeling sources by denouncing as Godi media. This needs to go through the current ARCA referral, as it's evidently tendentious editing and heated arguments from the multiple parties. A well required ARBIPA2 seems necessary. Heraklios 20:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Captain Jack Sparrow[edit]While the statements and aspersions regarding "Godi Media" that were callously thrown around by editors were indeed quite egregious, even with a pattern of somewhat disruptive editing I'm not sure if this would have been sufficient for AE action. However, I note that Wareon's doubling down and their apparent defence of their use of "Godi Media" as a label to try and discredit sources is quite an unreasonable reaction. They are also incorrectly claiming that some sort of consensus exists against using any source they can label with the apparently arbitrary label of "Godi Media" - Indeed, the ongoing thread at RSN notes that users attempting to use the label as their argument can be effectively ignored, and I concur. At the same time, I doubt that there is a sound basis for any boomerang sanctions. Most of the mainspace edits by the filer seem fairly reasonable, and I cant see any preventative value in a sanction unless a clear pattern of DE is established, which in this case there doesnt seem to be. Statement by Simonm223[edit]Having seen the page at the heart of this dispute pop up at, like, all the noticeboards I went there to see what was going on and found what is, frankly, a dumpster fire. SPAs abound with many editors even openly admitting to managing multiple accounts. The rate of discussion is extreme and the rhetoric is very heated. I've told some editors before I don't believe the term "Godi Media" is particularly constructive but I have noticed a lot of decisions about reliability seem to have been started from the position of "does this source agree with me" and then a judgment on reliability is made on that basis. My first engagement at the page was over several editors who were trying to claim Al Jazeera was unreliable because it reported on details of Pakistan's actions that pro-India editors didn't want to see there. However there's another problem here which is more apropos to this board which has been the clear WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics of attempting to get opposing editors kicked off the project on minimal or outright inappropriate grounds. That seems to be the case here. Criticizing the reliability of a source is not, absent evidence of some sort of disruption, something we should be disciplining. I would recommend a boomerang is in order here. And then somebody should probably put extended confirmed page protection on article talk. New single purpose accounts on both sides of this dispute are being highly disruptive in aggregate. At least one, blocked today, openly admitted that they have a second account "for personal and test editing" which I sincerely doubt hasn't been used for socking. As such, and it's ether protect the page or block them all and do it all over again when they sock. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Abecedare[edit]Not directly related to this AE report but I have placed the talkpage of the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article under 1 month ECP protection as an individual admin action, in response to it, this ANI discussion, this SPI report, etc. Shouldn't preclude admins applying user sanctions in response to this AE report. Wondering if there is admin appetite for applying temporary WP:ECR to the "2025 India Pakistan conflict" topic area? IIRC there was a discussion between Valereee and Barkeep about admins as a group having the ability and remit to apply such non-standard sanctions in CTOP area and IMO we need better solutions than playing whack-a-mole. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Orientls[edit]@Firefangledfeathers and Asilvering: The term "Godi media" is used frequently by the news outlets[20][21] and scholarly sources.[22][23] For more scholarly sources, see the discussion here. While our article on Godi media is ideal, I would also add that this is not a pejorative term but a term used " Rightmostdoor6 is not a newish editor but an editor who is misusing noticeboards to get rid of opponents, as clear from his recent filing of this unnecessary report on ANI which also faced much criticism. This is a contentious area and we should not take more risks. Orientls (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Wareon[edit]
|
M.Bitton
[edit]| No consensus to act after nearly a month; closed without action. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning M.Bitton[edit]
Additional comments:
In conclusion, this editor has returned to their disruptive editing despite being blocked for a month a mere two months ago due to it. I wish they took the off ramp, but alas they didn't, so here we are. Considering he has disruptively edited in Israeli and Palestinian geography, German and Morrocan relations, and Islamic Italian history, this is a wide-ranging problem a topic ban cannot remedy. @FortunateSons
Discussion concerning M.Bitton[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by M.Bitton[edit]This report is in response to my question to the admins, as well as what I said to them.
In conclusion, I don't think Closetside is capable of editing PIA related articles without pushing a nationalist POV, as evidenced by the two previous reports and the PIA related block. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Fiveby[edit]For a quick primer on the content dispute here i'd suggest admins take a quick look at figure 1 in "Analysis of extreme rainfall trend and mapping of the Wadi pluvial flood in the Gaza coastal plain of Palestine" (WPL Springer link) (the abstract of which MBitton has quoted on the take page) which illustrates the main channel of the stream and the drainage basin of all the tributaries. Not to decide the content issue but to determine if editors are making valid arguments and representing sources appropriately on the talk page. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Richard Nevell, there is no controversy or confusion as to the physical geography here, a mundane bit of content with concepts and terminology we should have all learned in middle school. How and why such controversy and confusion has been manufactured on the talk page is an exercise for the admins here. While there are many ways of describing our water body we should not entertain those which move the source to the Hebron Hills nor those which have the course somehow reaching the Med without passing through Gaza. I submit that neutral editors would realize both that there are important issues concerning the tributary waters from the West Bank and that there is no need to alter the course in order to provide that content. fiveby(zero) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by MilesVorkosigan[edit]In his statement, M.Bitton says that there was no 3O. That is only very, very technically correct, because I saw the request on the 3O page and went to the talk page for the article. I asked both users some questions, ClosetSide responded, M.Bitton refused to engage and just kept repeating that he would only use the one source that agreed with him. He would not explain why he chose to ignore the other sources mentioned on the talk page or why he would not discuss them. After I reminded him of policy, he filed a complaint here, trying to pretend that asking him about his sources violated the Arb decision about Israel/Palestine. Then he removed all of my comments from the talk page. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Richard Nevell[edit]I am commenting here as both parties have pinged me in their comments. My previous involvement on the talk page largely been around the article title. I have watched the discussion about the current points of contention unfold but contributed little as my available time is unpredictable and I didn't want to join a conversation and go quiet. There is some talking at cross purposes and not much meeting in the middle. M.Bitton has been quoting explicit statements from sources (eg: "The Khalil Besor river originates in the West Bank") whereas those used by Closetside are less explicit. Closetside has been making special pleading that the sources provided by M.Bitton define the watercourse in a different way to other sources. Even if that is the case, that does not negate the sources provided by M.Bitton it means we need to work out how to reconcile those differences. Though not raised by Closetside in their opening statement, there is also the issue of the removal of sourced content about the Wadi Gaza Nature Reserve, which Closetside justified as being undue. Five sentences explaining the reserve's extent, ecological issues, and rehabilitation not only seems like useful information but an appropriate level of detail for the article in question. On reflection, I should have said as much on the talk page as the situation unfolded. Closetside's approach is to make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them. It is a rhetorical approach which attempts to control the discussion and treats it more as a debate to be won rather than being based on consensus building. The contribution of the 3O giver was unhelpful as they misunderstood the ARBPIA restrictions and reacted poorly to being informed that they were not yet eligible to engage by accusing M.Bitton of owning the page, and I thought the mention of a topic ban read like a threat. As a non-expert in this subject area I would look for secondary sources explicitly stating "the Besor Stream originates xyz". Speaking of which, thank you to User:Fiveby for pointing to fig 1 in Bergman et al 2022. That and the text from the same source quoted by M.Bitton suggests that there are different ways to describe the stream. It would explain how the sources M.Bitton and Closetside have been taking different approaches. Reading more of the article I think the way forward, content wise, is to emulate the description in the 'Introduction' section, noting the main channel and tributaries. As the source describes the Besor as having multiple headwaters trying to select a single one may be overly reductive. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Samuelshraga[edit]Full disclosure: M.Bitton and I have a history, and I am the one who filed the recent AN/I thread which led to their month-long block. I am commenting because I don't think that M.Bitton's behaviour has meaningfully changed. They are fresh off a block for behavioural violations. I detailed then, for one, IDHT and invoking contrived interpretations of policy (then it was NPOV), without specifying what in the policy supports their position. In the dispute here, they similarly invoke WP:OR vaguely even when confronted with sources[43], [44], or just throws it at any opposing argument.[45] This behaviour is not specific to this dispute or topic area. The other POV-pushing is still evident - here they tell an editor that their content doesn't belong on the Morocco page and to place it in the more obscure Germany–Morocco_relations[46], only to then revert that editor there 3 times in a row [47][48][49]. M.Bitton proceeds to template this editor (twice) for edit-warring. That editor has 352 edits by the way, so WP:BITE is a concern, but this is improper to anyone. One reason that M.Bitton got blocked before is that after being reported, they doubled down and went on the offensive. This is another instinct that has not changed since their block, if their first response above is anything to go by. All I sought last time was for M.Bitton to recognise the problematic behaviours and change them. M.Bitton ended up apologising when caught for block evasion, but I am not aware of any instance of them recognising why they were blocked in the first place or undertaking to improve. Rather they've returned and within a month are embroiled in intractable content and conduct disputes across multiple topic areas. Is it possible that this whole dispute with Closetside could have been avoided by starting it with a touch more civility and a lot fewer aspersions and assumptions of bad faith?[50][51] I think so. And if M.Bitton doesn't see the problem with their behaviour, is there any chance they're not going to be brought back again by the editors who they've attempted to beat into submission? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by FortunateSons[edit]Making no statement on the content, perhaps it would be beneficial to either close this with or without action. FortunateSons (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning M.Bitton[edit]
I've only skimmed this and have no position on the overall merits, but I am disappointed to read
|
Colin
[edit]| No consensus The discussion among admins feels fairly equally split between imposing a warning and imposing a topic ban from Transgender healthcare or some subset of articles. While normally I would read all of the admins who supporting the topic ban as implicitly supporting the warning, the fact that some made it clear that they see the two as mutually exclusive nixes that option. At this point, we are left with allowing for further discussion by admins and closing without a consensus. In the last few days, the majority of the comments have been from admins who are entrenched in their position going back in forth. More time is not going to make this close any easier. Additionally, this has been running for more than 2 weeks fairly continuously.
Everyone: Please be less verbose. Colin: It is painfully clear from this discussion that you are on extremely thin ice. Not in a "you might be topic banned from trans issues" way, but in a "shown the door from the project" way. Based on my two terms on the committee, discussions such as this are normally the start of someone's entrance to the circling the drain stage of life on Wikipedia. Very few people have any trust that you are going to change your communication style. This is particulary true after you decided to scold an admin responding to this discussion on their talk page. Do not take this close as a victory. Arbs: If you would like to take this issue on, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions and do it. This "I'm going to take a half bite of the apple to both preserve my ability to rule on this in the future while also guiding the results" is absolutely infuriating for both participants and admins trying to get a consensus here. You are now both in the way of a consensus forming and going to be forced to recuse. Further, your presence here shapes the discussion in unhelpful ways because you are arbs. If you would like to be an AE admin, please resign from the committee. Admins: The endless and unnecessary back and forth made this close difficult. If you would like to do vote counts and horse trading I know of something that may interest you in November. | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Colin[edit]
Colin has shown that they contribute without issue outside of the topic of GENSEX, and despite the previous warning they consistently launch into a battleground mindset approach when editing GENSEX; casting aspersions and directly making accusations against other editor - typically through belittling their intelligence. --Relm (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC) To respond to Colin: relative to when I started editing GENSEX, they have made an impression on me even if I have not made an impression on them. We've been part of the same discussions, GAR and FTN discussions included. I am a historian, not a medical professional, so I try not to stick my head too far out and stick to very simple things and evaluating other editor's arguments, which may be why Colin does not recall me. In February I was taking a break from GENSEX and primarily dealing with this category to get it down to the few dozen [60]. I saw the comments by Colin and they stood out to me, and I saw it on the FTN, so when I looked at the Cass Review talk page after hearing the Noone report had been published and saw the same behavior I believed that it was appropriate to file given they had already been warned for this behavior recently. I've been apart of too many AE filings already, and would prefer to avoid the process entirely going forward. I was harassed during the last one which soured me on the process. When checking to see how common of a problem this was for Colin since their warning, I saw [61] which suggested that a simple talk page topic would be insufficient or received with the same tone. I have no particular end or solution in mind, just a hope that the conduct is corrected sufficiently and that the admins are capable of weighing what the best measure towards that end is. Relm (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Colin[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Colin[edit] Black Kite's comments and the negative reaction of at least three editors can be found here. IMO his statement at 19:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC) is the very definition of a battleground mentality, with no room whatsoever for editors occupying a middle ground, and prejudices any decision such an admin might make. Transgender health care misinformation is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to exist in a NPOV exclusion zone. What is described above as "attacks against YFNS" are about the false claim "The Cass Review—a non-peer-reviewed independent evaluation of trans healthcare within NHS England". It is false because the Cass Review consists of seven peer reviewed systematic reviews. Claiming it is not peer reviewed is a fine example of activist misinformation: our article on misinformation makes that false claim. I reject the "casts aspersions" and "belittling their intelligence" claim entirely. My criticism of Black Kite is evidenced and agreed with by others. In the recent discussion there is no "misbehaviour" being alleged at all, evidenced or otherwise. Editors who are intelligent and working in good faith can also be wrong or misguided in their approach. I have absolutely no doubt that the editors on the above pages are intelligent and working in good faith to improve the encyclopaedia, as they see it. WP:MEDASSESS warns editors of rejecting (or disparaging) higher level sources in favour of lower and "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". Which is what the most recent discussion was doing, where editors were assessing Noone on the basis of whether they agreed with it rather than on P&G merits. The authors of the Noone paper are spectacularly lacking in authority or relevant experience, and the contrast with the York team is something I spell out clearly and forcefully. I accept my language criticising the weaknesses of sources or in statements in or drawn from them is robust and having an inflammatory effect on those who would seek to push those sources or statements. Clearly that's not working or helpful. I have never engaged with RelmC before, nor was she in those discussions AFAICS. That her first ever interaction with me is to post the above breaks so many rules of behaviour I'm boggled. I'm struggling to think of a clearer example of WP:BATTLEGROUND than that, frankly. It's clearly this isn't working. I've never shied away from calling out bullshit and bollocks when I see it and don't think that's going to change. Those who know me know I am strongly sympathetic to the trans cause and oppose those who attack out of bigotry. For this reason, a topic ban would be deeply shaming, frankly. I propose a voluntary end to my editing in the GENSEX topic, and feel that I can be trusted to adhere to that. -- Colin°Talk 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Barkeep49, ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93, can I request you close this with the acceptance of my offer. Admin actions are meant to be preventative not punitive, and you have my word the preventative aspect is already done. Continuing this will only lead to "punching me when I'm already down" comments or editors using this AE to attack each other. I hope others have the grace to spot an easy victory / hopeless case when they see it and do something positive with their time instead. -- Colin°Talk 18:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Tamzin and Vanamonde93. Thank you for your carefully considered comments. I think your assessment is fair and I do acknowledge that my tone/approach/language is a serious problem, particularly in a contentious topic. "Uncivil NPOV-pushing", as Vanamonde93 isn't appropriate, or, frankly, working. Wrt my "dogged" approach, I am trying to adopt a pattern of posting and then taking a break for a day or two. While I enormously appreciate Tamzin's comments about transphobia, as the author of WP:UPPERCASE, I know nobody will read them after this closes. I know that a mention of such a ban would be gleefully used as a weapon against me in any future disagreements anywhere on the project. I don't think there is any fuller move I can make than, or expression that the problem is not "everyone else", than to drop out of the topic completely, which I'm doing regardless of what you decide. -- Colin°Talk 23:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Liz, with all due respect, what you think about editors having topic bans on this subject is not the point. It's what the rest of the site makes of it and how that will get cited as a personal attack (the previous AE report already has). My retirement from the topic is already in place, regardless of your decision, and will be enthusiastically enforced by a large number of editors. As RelmC demonstrated, even editors I've never interacted with want me removed. I'm sure Tryptofish will help too and you can be sure the universe will be cold before he stops hating me. The AE report has already done its job. Doing something else because that's what you typically do or feel is expected at this point isn't I feel really considering me as a human being. You did X to me because "it's just neater and easier" is depressing, frankly. -- Colin°Talk 08:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Re RelmC: I'm responding to YFNS who has just described Void if removed as "the most blatant MEDRS ignoring activist I've seen on WP" and that they are "an anti-trans pov pusher" on Black Kite's user talk page. His nor my talk page is not the place for arguing about them. -- Colin°Talk 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC) There are no "wild overly dramatic allegations of misbehavior" from me. The claims above of "casting aspersions" are false. I'm confused by Barkeep's request: Wikipedia is full of amical discussions I didn't participate in. So? The bold text is not entirely hypothetical. Nor does it or I suggest any editor is NOTHERE, so that doesn't "predicate" anything. Nor do I say in that discussion that any editor is an activist (vs source authors, and others do likewise). Here are some examples of "something that has not occurred": The words "hate group" currently appear 25 times at WP:FT/N. Here a BMJ paper is dismissed as one of the five authors is "head of a pro conversion therapy group". Here Hilary Cass is linked to the far right. Here the source authors are "infamous conversion therapists or board members of pro-conversion therapy organizations". Here is one of many xenophobic comments about the entire UK being as bad as Russia. These authors are not just incompetent but hateful people or from a hateful country. My comment about YFNS at the DYK was very wrong but wasn't repeated at the Cass Review discussion, so I fail to see how that becomes a "live controversy", any more than YFNS's ("the most blatant MEDRS ignoring activist I've seen on WP" "an anti-trans pov pusher") is live. -- Colin°Talk 22:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Barkeep49 if I ran a drug trial with two participants, and one of them, their headache went away after an hour, and the other's didn't, what could you reliably statistically conclude? Your experiment is no better. And my comments mainly concern sourcing, not NPOV. There's a current 40,000 word sourcing discussion at FTN(SEGM) with bludgeoning and personal attacks all without my involvement (I made two tiny helpful comments). This topic is incendiary and toxic and if you believe that it only becomes that way when I enter, I have a bridge to sell you. Even the discussion Loki claims was fine "until Colin comes in and makes wild aspersions" actually derailed here when Lewisguile made false allegations of ABF, personal attacks and not liking young people. My reaction to that inflammatory post was not cool, but I wasn't the one making "wild aspersions". We're seeing a pattern here. In the previous AE, Snokalok offered quotes that, weren't quotes ("Why put words in Colin's mouth then" said Barkeep) and from that false basis, "continues with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light, to characterize 20 more diffs of Colin's." Lewisguile inflamed the recent discussion at Cass Review with false allegations of misdeeds by interpreting my text in the worst possible light. RelmC's two "Casts aspersions" are false allegations, interpreting my text in the worst possible light. Many more examples possible. Tamzin's rationale for a topic ban last night I'm going to put that down to them using up their mental energy on the essay they just wrote. But I would appreciate a retraction and apology. -- Colin°Talk 07:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC) User:Tamzin Did you read the above, starting "The bold text is..." Your description and claim about my "treatment of the hypothetical editors critiquing them" is literally incompatible with what I wrote. No editor (hypothetical or otherwise) is accused of being "activists and not here to build an encyclopedia". Such forms of "editors critiquing authors" exist in multitude and I didn't pass judgement on whether that was acceptable/good, only remarked that was how it is. You are accusing me of an current behavioural problem that is imaginary. Come to my talk page if you want to examine it. -- Colin°Talk 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC) User:Tamzin I can only repeat that you are misinterpreting my words in the worst possible light. My comment is not "would be acting like assholes". Is someone editing at race and intelligence and dismissing sources because they are written by a hate group "acting like an asshole"? Is someone editing MMR and dismissing a source because the doctor author is well known for fraudulently misrepresenting his work "acting like an asshole"? Is someone dismissing what Trump claimed, because of his well known personal failings an asshole? No. These can be valid criticisms. I have received complaints that my criticisms of some authors are over-harsh. The psychology lecturer from Galway is not a reliable source on how to do systematic reviews. I was pointing out that there are even harsher criticisms routinely dished around, nearly always against authors perceived as being anti-trans. That's just how it is. Neither a good thing or a bad thing. The "asshole" and "activists NOTHERE" comments are completely untrue misinterpretations of what I wrote. Please do not ascribe malign motives (battleground mentality) to words that have a perfectly straightforward explanation. If you aren't sure what I meant, you could have asked. That would have been, em, civil. -- Colin°Talk 14:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Tamzin, I am not arguing that my comments have not at times had "heated rhetoric". But if you go inventing stuff about asshole activist editors who are NOTHERE, and use those words as a rationale for a topic ban, can you not see why I'm upset? Those are your attitude problems with said editors, not mine. User:Vanamonde93 I cut down my participation after the last AE and serious personal real world events pushed Wikipedia further down my priorities for several months now. I don't see how lack of recent participation is justification to escalate sanctions to a topic ban. Wrt "you have no plans to change" that's just not true. Maybe there's a cultural communication problem here, and you're expecting what I consider obvious to be spelled out. I've repeatedly agreed with your criticisms (well, excluding the fictitious one about assholes -- your inflammatory language, not mine). My approach, tone, language, rhetoric is not helpful, is inflammatory and rubbing people up the wrong way. I'm not sure what sort of human accepts all that and doesn't intend to do something about it. A psychopath perhaps. So yes I have plans to change. I bought a book yesterday on managing my emotions. But I have made the decision to edit other topics, which as a volunteer I'm entitled to do, and won't change that decision. There's one neurological condition article that I've neglected for too long. Maybe I'll be a happier, calmer, kinder editor after a break from the culture wars. I'll leave you to decide which colour form to fill out now. -- Colin°Talk 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I strongly object to Voorts wording -- "his failure to assume good faith" -- when Barkeep49's "the DYK comments were unacceptable" was accurate. I have repeatedly said I don't believe any editor in these disputes is here to harm the project: they are all working in good faith, even if some are deeply misguided. Assigning malign and false motives behind my words is exactly the sort of thing you guys should be admonishing others for, not doing yourselves. It is completely unnecessary and inflamatory. This forum and this topic needs people who can neutrally describe what they saw, and no more, without projecting imaginary mental concepts into other people's heads. A mindset that takes "that was uncivil" into "he's failed to AGF" is a lazy harmful assumption, and doubly hurtful coming from an admin who has repeatedly stated he only read a small amount of the text here and presumably hasn't read any evidence at all. False claims of ABF are a common form of personal attack to disrupt a content discussion. If you include this in my AE report, you've just added an extra weapon with the additional personal attack of "and Colin's been admonished at AE for this [ link ]". Frankly, at this point, all you can do is make things worse by being so careless in word choice. -- Colin°Talk 07:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Voort, I confused you with Asilvering and misunderstood your words that you "only <did X>", which is not "bad faith", and not reading the evidence hasn't stopped others commenting. Admins, when you add to your 5300 word response to my 3000 (2200 collapsed) words, please consider the lasting effect of your word choice carefully. -- Colin°Talk 17:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Void if removed[edit]For context, the diff in [1] referenced an admin quite blatantly implying I was an "anti-trans POV pusher" and questioning my motives for bringing Raladic to AE, and Colin was objecting to this sort of unchecked incivility (same with the talk box followup): Complaining about such incivility is not "casting aspersions". Pointing out that this sort of lack of neutrality added nothing and undermines faith in the AE process is not a "battleground mindset". The rest of this complaint is a trawl through mostly months-old comments for anything that can be interpreted the worst possible way, with no consideration of the context. Void if removed (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Snokalok[edit]I'm going to address a couple points here: In regards to the Cass Review, we're obviously not here to dispute content, but as has been said to you a thousand times on this topic, Colin, The Cass Review is a different document from the systemic reviews it commissioned, and it draws different conclusions as them. Thus it cannot be treated as the same thing, AND ALSO we have reliable sources saying the Cass Report itself is not peer-reviewed.[72] And beyond that, a quick look at the Cass Review page shows the entire global medical community outside the UK ripping it to shreds - including but certainly not limited to America, Canada, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Austria, Poland, Japan, Switzerland. Editors don't NEED to do academic peer review, the entire world already has and they're not impressed.
This all would be one thing, everyone has a position on everything, but as was said in this AE and the last one, you do kinda, go off the rails a little for it. I don't think you're a bad editor, but I do think you turn your brain off when it comes to GENSEX in a way that I don't think you're entirely cognizant of. I support your promise to stay off of GENSEX, but I would support it being formalized - not in disgrace, and I would support a note saying that it's not in disgrace - but simply because I feel like if it isn't, we'll end up back here later on. Snokalok (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sweet6970[edit]1) I am one of the editors who complained about Black Kite’s comment at the AE discussion on Raladic, as linked by Colin. I stand by my comment: it is Black Kite’s comment which is shocking and worthy of sanctions, not Colin’s. 2) Regarding Colin’s offer to cease editing in gensex: this shows there is a very serious problem with Wikipedia’s attitude to editing in this area. Colin has said that he is pro-trans. But he is also an experienced medical editor (which I am not). If he cannot, under the current conditions on Wikipedia, call out bad medical editing, then the medical articles to do with gensex are going to be in a dire state, and probably would be better deleted than left to deteriorate and bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by YFNS[edit]At the last AE report I spoke against a TBAN for Colin, and expressed hope that he'd 1) stop being incivil towards and insulting me and 2) stop accusing anybody who slightly criticized the Cass Review of misinformation and "activism" and etc. He has not. I was thinking of reporting in February but decided against it because I was scared it would look like the last case, walls of insulting text and a slap on the wrist, and didn't have time or energy to deal with it. At this point, I regrettably think a TBAN is necessary.
I would like to note that there were further instances of incivility:
There is a general pattern across his comments of calling any social sciences researcher, particularly LGBT ones, "activists" without explanation or sources and doubling down:
Even in this discussion, there's no real apology and further doubling down:
I wish a TBAN wasn't necessary, but his behavior has been unacceptable in all the same ways since the last AE report Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Parabolist[edit]Perhaps it's having read enough of these discussions, but I would absolutely not describe Colin's approach to these articles as purely NPOV like the admins below. When Colin agrees with sources, he is rigorous about how editors should respect the experience and skills of the doctors who wrote them. When he disagrees with sources, suddenly the doctors who have written those are no longer doctors, and are now activists, which seems to be defined as anyone he doesn't agree with. Look the discussions from the previous complaint, and see how he talks about Dr. Cal Horton, who he repeatedly denigrates as only having the qualification of "being the mother of a trans kid", or diff 8 of this complaint where he describes a peer reviewed study's authors as "a bunch of writers who's only pertinent qualification is "activist"". Disagreement with his point of view strips you of your credentials. This is not the approach of an editor looking to find consensus, it is one of a RGW editor. This is all aside from the fact that there is no way to read his interaction with Lewisguile as having the sort of attitude we should accept in a CTOP as contentious as this. Come on. Parabolist (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDay[edit]Colin, walk away from the topic area of Gensex. I'm not accusing you (or anyone else) of misbehavior. Just walk away. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Statement by Black Kite[edit]My statement referred to above at the previous AE was Statement by Tryptofish[edit]I have a long and unpleasant history with Colin, and I want to stipulate that up front. I think it's important for admins to remember WP:BRIE here. I also want to point out, because it hasn't been mentioned yet, that Colin's history with combative language goes back to a 2020 ArbCom case here: [79]. That was in MEDRS/Medical topics outside of GENSEX, so I question how much mileage can still be squeezed out of logged warnings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Loki[edit]I have two quick things to add. Number 1 is that I agree with Parabolist: this is not a case of "uncivil NPOV pushing", this is just good ol' fashioned POV-pushing. Colin repeatedly expresses concern over NPOV and respecting MEDRS, but if you look at what he's actually arguing, it seems like he thinks the Cass Review is the only MEDRS source in the whole topic area and any other source that criticizes it is "activism" merely by the fact of their criticism of it. You can even see that with the argument over Noone et al where he engages in some weird credentialism to argue that because a certain place has done many good systematic reviews that means they cannot under any circumstances do a bad one and anyone who says they have are not only mistaken, they're malicious. (To be honest, from having participated in the last time this went to AE I honestly do not think this is due to anti-trans animus per se; I think it's a kind of misguided patriotism and a refusal to acknowledge that, for example, the NHS is not immune to political pressure. But it's still POV-pushing, and the standard POV-pusher's defense of "I'm the real NPOV and you're all activists" shouldn't be convincing here even coming from Colin.) But number 2 is, I would really like to invite the admins below to read the entire discussions before Colin enters them, and notice the effect of Colin entering a discussion. He's not good for the topic area even if you do think he's legitimately trying to defend NPOV because what happens every time he comes in swinging with wild overly dramatic allegations of misbehavior is that the entire discussion becomes about him and what he said, and no longer about improving the article. Loki (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell[edit]I've been following this discussion, but refrained from commenting. However, I noticed Tamzin's comment regarding WPATH. I can't speak for other users, but I believe Colin's intended reference might be to this discussion, which resulted in no consensus after many months of debate. One can see that some users there dismissed sources like The Economist, The New York Times, and BMJ as unreliable, despite the general consensus at WP:RSP recognizing the first two as reliable, and BMJ being a peer reviewed academic journal. I believe the point could be to highlight the inconsistency where highly reliable sources are dismissed in one situation, while lower quality sources are upheld as authoritative in another. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Colin[edit]
|
