Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355
Incidents (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500
501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510
511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520
521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530
531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540
541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550
551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560
561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580
581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590
591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600
601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610
611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620
621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630
631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640
641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650
651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660
661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670
671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680
681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690
691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700
701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710
711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720
721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730
731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740
741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750
751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760
761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770
771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780
781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790
791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800
801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810
811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820
821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830
831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840
841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850
851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860
861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870
871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880
881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890
891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900
901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910
911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920
921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930
931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940
941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950
951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960
961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970
971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980
981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990
991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010
1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020
1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030
1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040
1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050
1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060
1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070
1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080
1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090
1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100
1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110
1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120
1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130
1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322
Other links

IP renumbering prime ministers, governors, without explanation or discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is renumbering Canadian Prime Ministers and Governors of New York without explanation or prior consensus. Does this behaviour ring any bells? And am I justified in reverting them all? DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion a couple or three (i think) years ago about numbering; it certainly included the BC Premiers, NYS Governors, possibly Canadian PMs too, all of which seem to have been officially numbered in a way which was contrary to logic or common sense. No current opinion on what the IP is doing, but i will see if i can figure where the discussion was and any resulting consensus and if that applies to what is happening here. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 15:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
DuncanHill, it took place here; seems that there are two different methods of numbering, and the IP has been switching to the US-centric one, which for Canadian subjects is not correct (except for BC Premiers!). So, yes, i would say reversion of any Canadian PM edits changing the numbering away from the Canadian method are fully justified; i've not looked at the American ones, if they're going in the wrong variant direction they should be reverted, too. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I had to undo some more of the IPs mistakes. Within the USA, some of the states multi-number their governors, who have served non-consecutive terms, while other states number their governors only once, regardless of if they've served non-consecutive terms. New York is one of the latter group. As for Canadian prime ministers? they're only numbered once, even if they've (Macdonald, Meighan, King, P. Trudeau) served non-consecutive tenures. I would say the IP misunderstanding of these differing numbering schemes (no doubt caused by how US presidents are numbered), falls under WP:CIR territory. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See also the Barbara Bush page. IP appears to be overdoing it with telling us how old she was, at different points in her life. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: & @LindsayH:, it appears the IP is starting to mess with List of governors of Michigan & related pages, too. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

IP has now been blocked; i guess we just keep a occasional eye on the target articles in case the issue reappears after the end of the block. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 06:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AndyTheGrump blows his top[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self report. Do I need to notify myself? Whatever.

See [1]. Grossly uncivil. And, in my steam-coming-from-my-ears opinion, entirely merited. See User:Eyagi's entire tendentious and repetitive POV-pushing mass-child-rape-warcrime whitewashing 'contribution' history for context. And then ask yourselves if you wouldn't feel the same way.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Eyagi filed by Acroterion, and Eyagi's user page and talk page, it seems like a NOTHERE/RGW "WGR" situation. The context makes Andy's response understandable (which tbh surprises me, I didn't think it would). Levivich (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
After reading the evidence, Eyagi gets an indefinite block and AndyTheGrump gets a trout and a request to be less grumpy. Comment on the content, not the contributor, please. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Or a movie that used to be screened on 42nd Street. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I have requested that Andy, without any technical block, refrain from editing for six hours or until the steam leak has been fixed, whichever comes first. Bishonen | tålk 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC).
  • Andy should enjoy a nice dinner. I suggest broiled trout with a nice mesclun salad (March is a great time for fresh spring greens), and a pleasant beverage. Invite some real life friends along and forget Wikipedia exists for a while. Endorse the indefinite block of Eyagi for gross sealioning and poking the bear. --Jayron32 13:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Noting the thread immediately above this one, we should not be surprised that experienced editors who are trying to enforce the encyclopedia's policies sometimes lose their cool when confronted by determined SPAs, POV-pushers and spammers. Apparently my ANI thread concerning Eyagi was too straightforward. Maybe I should have used a zippier heading. I could have titled it Ramona the Pest is Tired of having to be Nice to POV-pushing Nationalists. Thanks to Cullen for finally dealing with the the problem editor, they've been on my last nerve for a long time. There are others like them who pop up in that topic area from time to time. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The only thing I wish had been done differently is that Eyagi had been indeffed earlier. Endorse block wholeheartly. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not like we should expect an editor with the username AndyTheGrump to be like one of Santa's elves or Barney the dinosaur. He tells in advance what's coming. Kudos for finding a different method of bringing this editor and their POV pushing to ANI's attention (or bringing them back to ANI's attention).
There should be an essay warning us of being wary of newish editors who make so many very long posts to the talk pages of controversial, "There is a proportionate relationship between the number of discussions by an editor that must be collapsed and the likelihood that they will eventually be blocked as a time waster". Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: Of course please feel free to revert or change it, but I have taken the liberty of adding Liz's First Law of TLDR to WP:LAWS, paraphrased as "The number of discussions by an editor that must be collapsed is directly proportional to the likelihood that they will eventually be blocked as a time waster." Levivich (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, everyone. As effective as my outburst seems to have been in bringing Eyagi's behaviour to wider scrutiny, it clearly shouldn't be recommended as general practice, and I'll try to find more orthodox methods to deal with such things if they happen again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
My favorite technique is to write the message the way I really want to say it, anger and all, then delete that, take a breath, and write something more politic. It's cathartic. Just make sure not to accidentally post the first version! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Andy, you really lost it there and we shouldn't hint that it was OK due to the situation. Nor in the context of a way to bring the situation to light. But still just a big trout is all that is needed and thanks for your work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, this is not the first time AndyTheGrump has responded with uncivil attitude, as he insulted me a few months back aswell. I do not understand how this person continues to be able to edit Wikipedia. He is very uncivil and biased, and will begin insulting you if you do not agree with him. MicroSupporter (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
MicroSupporter, the issues you were having were not due to you disagreeing with Andy, they were due to you having massive WP:CIR issues and being disruptive all over the project. It honestly seems rather foolish of you to bring this up on the administrative noticeboard and bring attention to yourself, given that any admin who looks at the edits you have been making will see a massive number of problems. Mangling text into incomprehensible nonsense [2], edit warring to include nonsensical language [3], adding unsourced content [4] then re-adding it with sources that blatantly do not support it [5], weird and unhelpful retargeting of redirects [6] Unsourced and unexplained changes to nationalities in an BLP [7] redirecting titles to pages in other languages [8], refusing to engage on talk pages and edit warring instead [9] canvassing support at AFD [10] [11] [12] etc etc etc. (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
MicroSupporter, would you care to provide evidence for 'biased'? Actual evidence, with diffs. Evidence that indicates actual bias, not disagreement with you over what is appropriate article content. Lots of people have done that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV pushing and Disruptive editing by User:Rasnaboy and User:Bhagya_sri113[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related to South India article, South India is majorly using Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, and Tulu as their primary languages. But this gang pushed their mother tongue's synonym "Dakshina bharat" to this article. Native people don't even know what the heck is "Dakshina". Because it is a derivation of Sanskrit and Hindi which are not widely spoken by South Indians. All of them own aka names for "South India" in their own languages. But this gang pushed this "Dakshina Bharat" nonsense into the main summary. This term is not even used by scholars and historians to address South India. They mostly use "Deccan" and "Peninsular India" to refer South India regions. Even if it is valid, this should be in Etymology section.

  • 1 - On may 15th, 2022 An ip injected his POV into the main summary of the article without a valid consensus and solid refs.
    1 2 345 - within 2 days of the POV injection, Random Wikipedia readers started to revert the Rasnaboy's POV with leaving the reasons like "Sanskrit and Hindi not even spoken by most of the population of South Indians and South Indians have their own aka names for "South India" in their own languages such as Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and Many".
    1234 - Rasnaboy is authority for the POV, so he started to do editwarring with the users since the POV injection. He did that more than 20 times. He was saying "It's a generic term".
  • 123 - Bhagya sri's involvement in his POV reverts. She was being as his sock when he unable to cross the three revert rule.

On the talk page, An editor revealed that it was unsourced injection. But he pushed the poorly sourced reference to legitimize his POV. I asked him to submit solid refs that supports his claims. When he was unable to cross three revert rule, his sock Bhagya sri reverted the edit to his POV version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwikia (talkcontribs) 07:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The term "Dakshina Bharatha" has been retained in the article after a discussion with fellow editors (see [13]). The primary reason for the inclusion is that South India is not just Tamils' land but also that of Telugus, Kannadigas, and Malayalis (if it were Tamil Nadu article, maybe we need not retain it). It is the primary term of Telugus and Kannadigas who form the majority of South Indians (albeit with slight spelling variations) and Malayalis too use the term "Dakshina" as their primary one. The term is culturally understood by Tamils as well. I'm not sure why User:Bobwikia is so vehement in opposing it (perhaps owing to its Sanskrit origin, which some of the Tamils with Dravidian-Party ideology often oppose). I did not push my POV but said at the discussion to even remove it if the other editors felt so. Nevertheless, the editors agreed to it later in that discussion and even suggested some changes to the spelling. Only with this consensus did I retain it in the article. Since I reverted two of newcomer Bobwikia's edits last week (one in Dravidian languages and the other in South India articles), maybe the user feels that I'm bullying, which I'm not. I even gave a friendly soft notice on Wikipedia's policy on edit warring to the user on their talk page but they immediately countered it on my talk page by accusing me of threatening them, bullying them, disruptive editing, and so forth. Here, they're even calling me a sock, pushing my mother tongue, etc. I wish the user were more civil and worked collaboratively. I would be more than glad to discuss and work with them. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the ip's edit only. But I didn't know you were the one behind that IP. Please talk with sources. Wikipedia doesn't need your personal POV and conspiracy theories. Who gave you the authority to add your preferred aka name to the main summary when South Indian languages have their own aka names for "South India" ? What's the proof that South Indians have this "Dakshina Bharat" as primary synonym?
1. You didn't submit solid sources when you add the term (It proves your agenda)
2. None of the sources says it's generic term for "South India" when it itself is derived from Hindi and Sanskrit.
3. Most of the scholars and historians used "Deccan" and "Peninsular India" to refer "South India", not your own made version "Dakshina Bharat". This term used in Northern regions to describe South India.
4. Also this should be in etymology section even if it is considered reliable. Because South India has 5 major languages.
5. That consensus should done with uninvolved editors who are not subjected to be biased for its related topics.
But you were doing disruptive editing only. On the consensus page, one of your fellow editors said "If you insist on retaining this appellation based on Sanskrit, I suggest you modify it to Dakshina Bharata or Bharatam, since the south has not resorted to schwa-dropping, which is dropping the a in the end of words that Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages have done." and it seems you two had the same intention.
As a friendly editor, I asked you to show valid references but you failed to submit. Because summary needs Wikipedia's verifiability. South India article is tagged as a good article. How could you add the term "Dakshina bharat" without quality consensus and reliable sources? and You know, the term should be in etymology section. Thanks for the response. Bobwikia (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Bobwikia: Much of what you write above would probably be more effective if it were on the talk page of the article. Since there is no actual edit warring going on (Rasnaboy's last three edits are on Feb 28, 27, and 21) this is really better addressed on the article talk page.Also, it probably isn't a good idea to make hasty sock accusations [14].--RegentsPark (comment) 22:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    Respective Regentspark, He's not even responding. That's why I came here. Please take actions about the article matter. There's Nothing to accuse him a abusive sock. He did consistently push his pov. When random users reverted the pov edit he started editwarring and when he unable to cross three revert rule, bhagya sri undo that users revert. I'm sorry if that comment made you all misunderstood the context.
    About the Article matter, I won't compromise. This is an unacceptable imposition and POV pushing to the good article. I wanna be friends with all the editors who contributes good. I wanna learn from them. There's no need to judge a book by its cover. Thanks for the understandings. Bobwikia (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that it can be frustrating when you post your side on the talk page and it is generally ignored. But, perhaps you're not approaching this in the right spirit. In your very first edit on the page you make the "Pushing POV" accusation. On the post in the talk page, you make sock puppetry allegations. Neither are conducive to the spirit of an informed discussion. If I may make a suggestion, dispassionately lay out your reasons on the talk page and do so with the assumption that the other editors are editing in good faith. DaxServer has commented in that section, and you can ping them (along with Bhagya sri113). For now, I'm going to close this thread as a content dispute but feel free to comment on my talk page if you need help.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats from[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The IP address (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making "actual" threats against multiple accounts. The threats are related to the current administrative review. Thanks in advance for your quick action.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [15]. I also notified them for you. a!rado🦈 (CT) 12:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
And here are other 5 diffs: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. a!rado🦈 (CT) 12:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Blocked per WP:NLT. Thanks for letting us know. --Jayron32 13:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by TrangaBellam[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With regret, I would like to report the TrangaBellam behavior regarding the Naliboki massacre article and its talk page. To keep it brief. There has been a discussion for some time about the content of one of the sections. TrangaBellam not engaging in the discussion did change the section title, I reverted it inviting user to join the discussion. Twice. Then the user made a much larger edition, which I also reverted, invoking the WP:BRD rule and inviting discussion. It started WP:EDITWARRING. Afraid of breaking the WP:3RR rule, I withdrew the last one, asking TrangaBellam to voluntarily withdraw from the changes and join the ongoing discussions. TrangaBellam ignored the ongoing discussions and started new ones, in which he acted as if they were new WP:CONSENSUS. He refused to revert the changes and continue to editing discussed section ingoring my pleas to stop doing so. TrangaBellam accused me of "engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV", without claryfing what he means about that.

To me, this is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, as expressed on WP:CONSENSUS: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. The way he acts and the way he addresses me leads me to believe that his actions are intended to make me break WP:3RR and receive sanctions as a result.

I asked him nicely to start over on his talk page without any bad blood. But TrangaBellam and once he said on Talk:Naliboki massacre: I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues I decided to aks admins for help.Marcelus (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI BRD isn't a rule, its an optional method of seeking consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I am aware of this, but it is a good custom, in addition, proposed by Gitz6666 to me to resolve conflicts in relation to this article, which I accepted, and it started discussions that TangramBellam ignored. (I'm still puzzled why Gitz6666 didn't apply this rule to TangramBellam, but he applied it consistently to my changes). There is still the issue of ignoring the ongoing discussion and making your own changes without getting WP:CONSENSUS. Marcelus (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
So you are aware that it is an optional method of seeking consensus yet you misrepresented it as a rule? Why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I used "rule" in a colloquial way, but good point, it shouldn't be called that, there is a difference within Wikipeda meta pages. Marcelus (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you also using consensus in a colloquial way? Consensus appears to have been against you[21], not against TrangaBellam. Also far from ignoring them I'm seeing a *ton* of participation from TrangaBellam on the talk page (30+ edits in the last day), a charge of bludgeoning would be more fitting than a charge of not participating... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
You appear to have skipped the part where you repeatedly implored Gitz666 to revert me but he found nothing wrong with my edits. Neither did AdoringNanny, et al. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus - this report should be filed at AE. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Can I move it right now? Marcelus (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
No you were correct the first time, this is the appropriate venue to discuss stonewalling[22]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus Yes. - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, moving it then Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus This topic area is covered by AE restrictions. The user is aware of it see this - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
You cannot move this thread because other editors have participated. Obviously, you can open an AE thread after this discussion comes to its conclusion. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Should I move it with discussion or just start everything over? Marcelus (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus Start over. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus Close this with a note that you are moving it to AE. ArbCom and admin. are aware of were this should be filed. (by the way ArbCom TB should be added to the case, I’ll touch more on it later) At AE link to the most recent discussion here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
How to close it? Marcelus (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: my reading of the TP discussions, which admittedly were fast moving -- Section title; New version of section; etc -- does not suggest that Marcelus enjoys the consensus for their preferred edits. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    I enjoy some of the changes, but the point is that my voice was ignored, and all of my edits were removed. Nonetheless there is no point of discussing it here, because I opened new request on WP:AE and plan to close this one. Marcelus (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Please reply -- does anyone object to the closure of this thread? Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    I don't object Marcelus (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    I don't object to the closure of this thread either, but I suggest @Marcelus to seek advice from an admin or an experienced user he trusts before opening a report to AE. His behaviour at Naliboki massacre was less than optimal, so to speak, and the possibility of getting a WP:BOOMERANG is high. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate? I'm not perfect, but I wasn't ignoring your (and others) comments and I was trying to find a compromise. I'm being totally honest now. Marcelus (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    I know you're honest, I don't doubt your good faith, but it is as if you, notwithstanding your 4000+ edits, were a newbie completely oblivious of our rules on cooperative editing. Since we disagreed on article content, I know you won't believe me, so I suggest you seek third party advice before starting a thread at AE. But it's too late, I'm afraid... Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    Once again I hear accusation with nothing to back it up Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    OK, I did my best to provide something to back up my accusation at WP:AE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    I object to the closure of this thread until the issue of stonewalling (both Marcelus's accusation against TrangaBellam and TrangaBellam's accusation against Marcelus) is addressed. It is unfortunate that GizzyCatBella badgered Marcelus into opening a discussion elsewhere but the issue which was brought to ANI is an appropriate issue to be addressed at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    Horse Eye's Back, perhaps you should start a subthread and list your concerns there so that others can answer them? It'll keep the thread tidy. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    Lets give it a minute, if I'm the only objection it doesn't seem appropriate to force the discussion to continue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This anonymous user made changes to Olga Kachura on the 1st of March inserting a false quote in place of one from the originally-cited source, which I manually reverted the same day. Today the 2nd of March they have again replaced text with a different set of false quotes as an attribution. Based on the content of the false quotes and the fact that Olga Kachura was a Donetsk separatist colonel, I have reason believe this is politically motivated and a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX if not WP:VD (though I'm not entirely sure what they think vandalising an encyclopaedic page would achieve?)

Said user has only made a edits on two prior pages which appear to be good faith from my limited viewing, but I just wanted to escalate this here before it devolves into an edit war that I have neither personal investment in nor the time and energy to engage in.

Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you discuss your concerns about this content dispute with the /not/ anonymous IP anywhere before coming here? That may be the easiest path to resolving your question. Very Average Editor (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I hadn't, for a number of reasons, but when I went to the talk page for an ANI notice it appeared that in the intervening time between noticing this and posting to the noticeboard the IP account had already been placed on a 72hr block and the edit manually reverted by a different IP account. Given that the issue is already being actioned separately with admin involvement, I'm happy to have this thread closed or otherwise withdrawn. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is long term edit warring with a dynamic IP editor in the Mako Komuro article in a BLP dispute.[23] It may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. I filed a EW3 report on one of them.[24] Their IP has changed again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Mako Komuro for a month. That should handle it for now. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Last night I blocked the /64 range for 3 months. There were hundreds of edits to the article since early January 2023, not counting a few earlier edits over a year ago. The range has edited no other article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fake barnstars and GA topicons on userpage[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ishola0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Was just wondering if there's any sanctions needed for a user that is blatantly forging barnstars and GA topicons? I'm not sure the precedent for this. It does seem to be a blatant violation of the policy WP:Signature forgery though. Looking forward to your thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  • This user has been engaging in COI editing, signature forgery, and otherwise disruptive editing. In this diff on Meta, the editor admits to COI editing to create Wikipedia page for my self and my business. The user has created several drafts, including Draft:Musa Muhammed Olayinka, which has been repeatedly rejected for being non-notable. After I rejected that draft, the user impersonated my talk page, including signed barnstars in a manner that was consistent with committing WP:Signature forgery. I'd understand a new editor doing this once by mistake, but after the edits adding the forged barnstars were reverted by Casualdejekyll, the user re-instated them (a related MfD has been opened).
    My best guess at this point is that the user was trying to make their user page look like that of an experienced user so that a reviewer would look over their submissions more favorably. I'm not sure if this is UPE, or if this is someone trying to write an autobiography, but in any case this user simply needs to be blocked to prevent future disruption to the English Wikipedia. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The citations for the draft autobiography are clearly bogus and/or content created by the subject. WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I've blocked indefinitely as a promotion-only account and deleted the latest draft. I'm not sure if the MfD needs to play out, the page can just be blanked as it's essentially hoax content.-- Ponyobons mots 18:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    Floq seems to have already gone ahead and blanked everything but the kitten. Now that the editor cannot re-add the content to their user page, I'd say that this has been resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. Floq would never blank a kitten; we need them for Bishzilla's army.-- Ponyobons mots 19:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, Yreuq. Edit-warring, casual accusations, lies, and sock-puppetry suspicions. The content dispute at the Bosnia and Herzegovina article progressed into intense name-calling, which made me realize that it is time to back off and investigate who we are dealing with.

See, Yreuq claimed in an edit summary that I was a sock-puppet of Miki Filigranski and lied that I have been "sanctioned in the past many times over same type of nasty nationalism" [25]. It turns out that Yreuq made the exact same unsubstantiated claim against JoJo Anthrax, who edited a completely unrelated article.[26] When challenged by JoJo Anthrax to prove the allegations,[27] Yreuq simply deleted the message.[28] Interesingly, AndyTheGrump had earlier raised sockpuppetry concerns against Yreuq on Yreuq's talk page.[29]

What I am seeing is a long history of inability or refusal to treat fellow editors with any respect, for which Yreuq has been blocked before. Blablubbs, Firefly, 331dot, and NinjaRobotPirate seem to be especially acquainted with this. Whether this is indeed sockpuppetry or just severe behavioral issues, it looks to me like it is time to look into it and act on it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the last ANI thread about this editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bludgeoning and edit warring by Newimpartial[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Despite four different users, in the last 24 hours, warning Newimpartial to stop their excessive WP:BLUDGEON, they seem unwilling to WP:HEAR. This comes right after their edit warring and WP:BLP violations (and duely warned for that as well) in the LGBTQ area. After edit warring yesterday to insert material from a clearly unreliable source into Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull [30], [31], [32], [33], Newimpartial engaged in extreme bludgeoning at WP:RSN. In the discussion, a large number of users all told Newimpartial that the source they were edit warring to keep in was obviously unsuitable. Despite this overwhelming consensus, Newimpartial has made 43 different comments in 24 hours to argue against virtually the entire community. Four different users, myself included, have told Newimpartial to stop bludgeoning. The edit warring and the bludgeoning look like WP:BATTLEGROUND. Several users also raise WP:COMPETENCE concerns in the discussion, as Newimpartial seems incapable of understanding why accusations made at an anarchist blog are unsuitable under WP:BLP. The edit warring, BLP violations and bludgeoning have become disruptive. I suggest a six-month topic ban from LGBTQ articles, in the hope Newimpartial can return to the area after that. Jeppiz (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Support the topic ban. The edit warring is unacceptable, and the article itself is in shambles, this only adds to it.
YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, YouCanDoBetter, I did not re-add any content that had not been stable to the article, nor did I re-add any content to which more than one editor had objected at the time of my edit. I did not at the time believe that a single editor objecting to the sourcing of an inclusion, which had already received the support of multiple editors, could turn it into "contentious material". Clearly I read the community wrong on this, and I would not do the same thing again, but this whole matter seems quite tangential to GENSEX issues. Newimpartial (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, YouCanDoBetter, do you have a view on the length of ban you would find appropriate to prevent future disruption? I have specified here some of the behavioural goals to which I will be accountable moving forward. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Note - I have been reviewing and revising the Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull article since this discussion started, and while I have not yet reviewed the entire article and all of the sources, I think more policy-based language than "shambles" could be used to describe the state of the article when this discussion began [34]. Beccaynr (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm quite disappointed to find Newimpartial's name here on a curious look at ANI, but not surprised. Over the few years I've spent on wiki I've seen them be a very combative editor in the queer topic area. While I tend to agree with their perspective and recognize the contentious nature of the topic area, their flagrant shirking of BLP in this case is yet another instance of their disruptive approach to consensus-building. Myself and many other editors have warned them in the past not to engage in EW with transphobic and homophobic editors and to interact with them in good faith. In this case however, their ideals have blinded them to our responsibilities as editors to living persons. I support a topic ban, with no opinion on the length (including non-temporary topic ban). They seem unable to participate in the topic area and would encourage them to edit elsewhere on the wiki and deradicalize their editing habits. They and I both know they are a great editor at their best and I hope they can find it in them to become more constructive. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Ixtal, just to make my position as OP clear, I also share Newimpartial's perspective and my report here is despite their perspective, not because of it. Their heart is in the right place, I believe, but unfortunately the behaviour is disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I hope I did not imply you disagreed with Newimpartial's perspective or were in any way transphobic/homophobic, Jeppiz. My comment should be taken into account exclusively as a reflection of my editing history alongside Newimpartial and not a judgement on any editor in the current dispute except for them. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 22:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Considering El C has previously both IBAN'd NI in relation to another DS topic area and 3RR warned NI in this topic area, notifying them of this thread in case they wish to comment on past warnings/sanctions. On a similar note, notifying Ivanvector based on 3RR 24h ban. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 22:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Adding my support to Tamzin's anti-bludgeon restriction proposal below. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 23:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I will point out that my 3RR vio came from an incident years ago when I did not know how to count reverts; it has not been repeated. Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ixtal, you say that I "shirked BLP" in this area, but I did not actually revert any contentious BLP material, and as soon as I heard from even one non-INVOLVED editor that there was a problem with a source, I desisted. Although my participation in noticeboard discussions was disruptive, I did not cause disruption in Article space and respected the community norm that consensus is determined through policy-based discussion.
Also, I have repeatedly proposed compromise solutions to respect BLP and NPOV concerns, notably this recent discussion on another sensitive BLP. I don't think you will find any instances if you examine my actual edit history, where I do not interact ... in good faith with editors with whom I disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Misleading comment struck and replacement added by Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. Long history of bludgeoning, and aggressive POV editing over many articles. Seems not to be here to create an encyclopedia but to fight culture battles. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC).
    • I haven't seen any evidence (or really any accusations) of POV editing in this filing, aside from my view of Anarchist publishing collectives (which I will not be repeating in polite company). So why do you feel a GENSEX ban to be warranted? Newimpartial (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't know about a topic ban (I don't edit in this area - topic ban could be right for all I know) but they are an incontinent bludgeoner. When I complained to them about their bludgeoning of an ANI thread, they followed me to my talk page to tell me why they weren't bludgeoning. When ScottishFinnishRadish stopped by to point out to them the irony of that their reply suggests total cluelessness. I had to close the thread to get rid of them. Maybe a posts limit per talk page thread might help? DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how a "post limit per thread" would work, but I could certainly cut back my replies to a maximum of one per editor I am replying to. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    My query is superseded by the anti-bludgeon proposal below, which I completetely support. DeCausa (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban up to and including indefinite. Please also note the same tactics and rehashing the same arguments at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull#This article is not factual or objective and at WP:BLPN#Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, as well as numerous conversations the user has blanked off their talkpage. The history of IBAN and edit warring seals it for me, they are unable to be a productive editor. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    The best one to speak to my Iban would be El_C, who placed it, but in the end the ban was removed without prejudice and the editor I was i-banned from was CBANned for their conduct.
    Also, I would point out that in the aftermath of the RSN discussion you removed content from two anarchist RS [35] [36] with a misleading edit summary of "BLPREMOVE", so I'm not sure your judgement is to be trusted in this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    My "judgement" has nothing to do with it, and the edits were an attempt to clean up BLP violations. You also assert that Its Going Down and Unicorn Riot are absolutely RS, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. I don't see that it was discussed on RSN ever, either. Once this situation is resolved I plan on taking them there to get a consensus one way or another, but there's not much point in doing so now while we have so many discussion threads open on practically every noticeboard the project has. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. Regrettably, this isn't the first time I've seen issues of blugeoning from NewImpartial. Indeed, it seems that any time an issue relating to LGBT issues arises, they are quick to appear and bludgeon the conversation with (some rather predictable) comments, regardless of context. Elsewhere on ANI today I've mentioned that there are sometimes usual suspects in these topic areas, and so I'm unsurprised to see this complaint now be raised. I think anyone who has edited in these topic areas long enough has encountered a rather combative mentality from Newimpartial, which is why I'd support a TBAN until such time they can separate their personal beliefs from their Wikipedia editing. — Czello 23:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Where, precisely, so you believe I have allowed personal beliefs to influence my Wikipedia editing? I am generally quite careful to ensure that anything I do is based on what the best sources say, rather than what I might believe to be true.
    Also, the irony of Czello taking this stance after having made multiple reverts against BLPRESTORE to violate MOS:DEADNAME and insert a pretransition photo in a BLP infobox is discused below, but something about glass houses seems to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Additional content added by Newimpartial (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Do you intend to reply to everyone that supports a topic ban. You do realise that could be seen as...oh well, never mind. DeCausa (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Can you indicate how fidelity to only using reliable sources spurred you to repeatedly insert self-published statements from an anarchist blog in order to try to support contentious content in a BLP? Your explanation on the talk page was that you believe that the anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability were more than sufficient to use the source, but I'm struggling here as to how that does not tie into personal beliefs affecting sourcing decisions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability Good grief, this raises larger concerns about understanding WP:RS. — Czello 23:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    To answer your question, you were comparing the post in question to a "random Tweet" in terms of reliability. I was pointing out that unlike a random tweet, this post issued from a group established for over a decade, whose goals include.

    Produce information and analysis against capitalist society and argue the case for anarchist communism. Be the memory of the working class by making the lessons of past gains and defeats widely known.

    This is not the same as a random tweet, though I will point out that I did not re-insert any content from that source after our exchange of views. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Do you not find it at all eyebrow raising that the areas you bludgeon in are the areas related to your personal beliefs? — Czello 23:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    I am willing to receive a BLUDGEONING restriction in any form; I am also willing to receive a ban from discussing the application of WP:SPS policies. But a ban from the GENSEX topic - a topic that isn't especially relevant to any of the evidence in this filing - looks to me like an attempt to swat a mosquito with a blow torch. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    By the way, my more expensive thoughts about how my editing needs to change are set out here. As noted here, there is no particular relationship between these problematic patterns and the GENSEX topic area. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × several) Like others in this topic area, I've had the experience of being frustrated by Newimpartial's behavior both when on the same side and when opposed. While more than a year old, Talk:Hikaru Utada/Archive 5 § Feminine pronouns should be used is the example that comes to mind most, in which Newimpartial argued at length against basically every other user in the topic area (cis, trans; perceived as "pro", perceived as "anti") that we should use they/them pronouns for someone who lists herself as "she/they". I'm going to stop short here of expressing an opinion on a TBAN at this moment, but what I would definitely support is an anti-bludgeoning restriction. Something like "no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I initially withheld comment on the TBAN proposal because I had not personally seen sufficient disruption for one, and no one had yet put up evidence to fill in that gap. Now that some more diffs have been posted, the thing I keep coming back to is anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability. I don't think it's a huge secret that my personal politics are anarchist-adjacent, but I would never dream of making such an argument. You are clearly not familiar with Christian doctrines of not bearing false witness, You are clearly not familiar with the non-aggression principle—you could do this with basically any ideological movement, because basically all ideological movements claim to be honest and ethical. And honestly I think this speaks to something that won't be fully addressed by a GENSEX TBAN. This leads to a strange conclusion, because if I AGF that NI isn't deliberately misreading policy here, and misunderstands WP:RS this fundamentally, the correct response would be a sitewide block. Conversely, to support only a TBAN implies some level of duplicity here, or at the very least motivated reasoning. If the latter, perhaps a TBAN would solve the problem, and perhaps sends a message that causes NI to reëvaluate how they interact with Wikipedia. So, support TBAN at a minimum (in addition to my proposal above). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
      Their idiosyncratic interpretation (or willful wikilawyering?) of P&Gs extends to notability, too, e.g. their assertion that GNG can be met with one source that is independent (but not secondary or SIGCOV), one source that is SIGCOV (but not secondary or independent), and one source that is secondary (but not independent or SIGCOV). JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban from WP:GENSEX and support anti-bludgeoning restriction. The anti-bludgeoning restriction proposed by Tamzin addresses only one of the problems here—there are edit warring problems in the topic area addition to bludgeoning and wikilawyering—and Ixtal is right to bring up that the editor has demonstrated issues with their ability to edit neutrally in the topic area. Both of these issues require their own sanctions to fix, and for that reason I see both as necessary until the editor can demonstrate that they can edit both civilly and neutrally. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    It seems to me that if editors are to suggest that I have edited in the GENSEX topic against NPOV, that some kind of evidence (in the form of diffs) should be provided-this is certainly what would have been expected had this been filed at WP:ARE. Nobody to date (including Ixtal) has offered any such evidence. The examples you have provided elsewhere of excessive commentary do not in themselves show any problems with civility or neutrality on my part - they represent a different kind of problem, as I have discussed just now at my user Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support an indefinite topic ban. Newimpartial has been relentless in attempting to bludgeon a discussion regarding basic Wikipedia policy where the consensus is otherwise entirely clear. Some of the arguments presented have been quite frankly bizarre. See e.g. You are clearly not familiar with anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability being presented at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull [37] as a justification for citing a source otherwise clearly not RS. This is a simple, overt, partisan attempt to subvert elementary Wikipedia policy through repetitive argumentation, and in my opinion, a topic ban is the minimum sanction required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Question about scope - The proposal is for a topic ban on a very broad area, but evidence has only been provided of one instance of problems in one article. What is the justification for anything more than a page block? To be clear, I find their response below, with the assertion of non-contentious, non-biographical information, concerning, but is that misreading of BLP and NPOV specific to LGBTQ topics? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    You make a good point about scope, Rhododendrites. I admit my !vote is based on my personal impression of the editor through our 2 years of interactions so would find it hard to provide edits to support my views. Sharing 500 uncivil and battleground-minded diffs, for example, is a tall task but seeing them as they are made contributes to a perspective on the editor. I hope other editors are able to provide diffs and evidence for the proposals made above as the community (me included) seems to support sanctions beyond what the evidence currently supports. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 00:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    They've intensely bludgeoned before in other GENSEX discussions and GENSEX-adjacent discussions, such as Athaenara's gensex-related site ban (>36 comments, including responses to about 1/3 of oppose !voters), Discussion on Talk:Irreversible Damage (about 20 comments, including responses to every single participant in opposition to them), RfC on Talk:Irreversible Damage (~50 comments), an RfC on Talk:J. K. Rowling (95 comments), etc. I can create a whole long list for the skeptics, but this is... a pattern. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    And I am perfectly willing to have a "BLUDGEON restriction" imposed on me so I am accountable for and unable to repeat that behaviour on penalty of losing editing priveleges. But a topic-ban on top of that is not necessary to prevent any future disruption, and would be a loss of a contributor who understands NPOV and is knowledgeable in the subject area. Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks. Those do look... bludgeony. What do you think about NI's willingness to accept a "bludgeoning restriction" (I haven't found where that's defined yet)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Rhododendrites, Special:Diff/1140821936 was the original proposal by Tamzin. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 17:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Aha. Thanks, Ixtal. Something along those lines might be called for. I'm reluctant to boldtext support that one in particular because it just seems so likely to be lawyered, but I can't think of a better one. I suppose I'll wait to see if it actually gets proposed... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    I found their behavior in this discussion at pregnancy pretty poor as well. This included accusations that newcomers to an RfC were canvassed POV warriors (despite their own project notifications being non-neutral):
    • I'm not sure where the canvassing is coming from, but I now count 7 to 6 in favor of inclusion.
    • To me the policy-based case for inclusion is obvious, but I was actually tallying your content-free !vote, which is a courtesy. Would you rather I ignored it? Entering a ditto-vote citing two knights of POV isn't exactly a virtue. (They did apologize for this one)
    • [editor1] is one of our most effective POV-warriors on this topic. And he brings his friends!
    • I also posted a notice at WP:NPOVN. [editor1], you can post a notice at WikiProject:TERF if you like, if you haven't already.
    Their own project notifications were also not neutral:
    This was AFAIR my first foray into anything related to GENSEX, so I don't know what bad blood was pre-existing between NI and various other editors, but their hostility to every opposing voice was unnecessary. JoelleJay (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban, indefinite or otherwise. The presented situation speaks for itself and based on what I have seen from Newimpartial the word ″combative″ that others have used seems accurate. Maybe some time away could make them reflect on their conduct. TylerBurden (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    My recent reflections on how my conduct needs to change may be found at my User Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    If a serious commitment to change is made and this is the first time it has gotten this out of hand, then it may not need to end with a ban. The positive thing I see here is that at least Newimpartial has recognized their issues, there are some serious problems on this site when valid criticism is deflected with "opponents are just trying to get rid of their opponent". The rules should be the same for everyone regardless of which "side" they fall on, and such accusations should need some strong evidence. TylerBurden (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, it was not helpful for me to have launched into that accusation. I have redacted my original statement accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Disruptive editing is how I would characterize their behavior, which includes and goes beyond bludgeoning. I do not see the ability for this editor to change. I tried and tried to assume good faith but I cannot anymore. I find them their behavior psychologically abusive and I feel that this is a personality problem. See the discussions between our talk pages [40],[41], [42] which I initiated after their disruptive editing at Talk:Gender. I do not know what the solution is here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Kolya Butternut, please consider striking the sentence "I find them psychologically abusive and I feel that this is a personality problem." The focus here is on Newimpartial's editing behaviour, not their personality. Other, less personal language will be more helpful to this discussion. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Support indefinite topic ban based on behavior on this ANI which shows they have not changed. See thread below beginning with my comment at 18:45, 22 February 2023.
    At Talk:Gender they edited disruptively by accusing me of moving goalposts [43][44] and gaslighting by misstating the positions I had taken in discussion.[45][46][47]. In the thread below, I believe they passive aggressively accuse me of moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion. When I asked for clarification they obfuscated, but did point to the Talk:Gender discussion. These attacks and obfuscation represent the same disruptive behavior I dealt with at Talk:Gender. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban But I know this vote is pointless. Many of the usual suspects are above that have long been pushing an anti-trans focus on various articles. I expect we'll have more ARBCOM cases in the future to deal with the issue as they seem to have momentarily gained the upper hand in their desire to slant articles to promote their anti-LGBT beliefs. As I've said before, I largely stay out of this topic area, only getting involved infrequently when there's rather egregious examples of the anti-trans editors pushing pseudoscience and promoting the viewpoints of bigoted groups. It's not worth it to waste my time around there. It's too tiring to deal with such tendentious accounts. They know who they are and they know the sort of nonsense they're pushing. Thank you, Newimpartial, for bothering to deal with such blatant fringe nonsense like all the articles noted above. This is, unfortunately, how things often turn out when dealing with a coalition front of fringe-pushing editors who know what they're doing. SilverserenC 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topic Ban: I agree with Silverseren that there's really no grounds whatsoever for a topic ban, and many of the supporters of such appear like they're just trying to remove an opponent. I don't think that Newimpartial coming up on the wrong side of a content dispute should be held against them, even if the result seems obvious to others. Newimpartial's contributions are very important to the WP:GENSEX topic area: it's infested with POV-pushers and one of the few editors with the patience to oppose them consistently across the topic area is Newimpartial. (I'm neutral to an anti-bludgeoning restriction though, because I agree Newimpartial does have a habit of WP:BLUDGEONING when they're losing an argument.) Loki (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support any ban. They continue to insist, against overwhelming opposition, that "Keen's supporters (EDIT: or their amendment to just "demonstrators", which is barely any change since obviously they're Keen's supporters) had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground" (sourced to a group blog that counter-protested Keen) is not a BLPVIO because it's not "contentious material about a BLP", despite both the spirit and language of policy saying otherwise:
WP:ATP, a policy extension of BLP, includes in its definition of an attack page biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Nowhere does it require this material to be directly describing the subject.
WP:BLP prohibits inclusion of any poorly-sourced material challenged or likely to be challenged on a BLP.
WP:BLPBALANCE says beware of claims that rely on guilt by association and states "See also" links...should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person; it should be clear from this that associating a person with highly negative behavior is not acceptable elsewhere in the article either.
WP:BLPEL states Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs; if linking to SPS is prohibited when the sources aren't being used to support anything in the body, clearly SPS should not be used in inline citations either. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
As I pointed out here, I removed the mention of Keen's supporters almost immediately after the revert in question. Also, at the time I reverted, only one editor (Red-tailed hawk) had objected to the content, which was part of the stable article version. I did not re-add it again after that.
If what you are really saying is that I shouldn't argue with other editors about edge cases in the use of SPS as article sources, I now agree (which might come as a relief to you after our previous engagement over that topic). Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned that your takeaway from the RSN/BLPN discussions regarding this source seems to be that it was only unacceptable because a) the text it supported originally mentioned Keen by name; b) Wikipedia just isn't yet up to speed with the legitimacy of anarchist collective publishing; c) more than one editor contested it, rendering it "contentious" and thus compatible with your reading of BLP; and d) editors are used to CRYBLPing to discount sources that they don't want to include, even when these sources are used for policy-compliant inclusions, and they are misstating BLP to do so. How can the community be assured you won't repeat these violations if you still can't recognize them? It should not take another editor--or your apparent expectation of a minyan of editors--to revert and point out to you a statement reflects negatively on the subject and therefore per BLP must be attributed to high-quality sources. JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
No, Joelle; my takeaways from the RSN/BLPN discussions are not at all confined to those points. Earlier today I made a longish reflection about what I misunderstood as well as what I did wrong on these matters, on Sideswipe9th's Talk: it may be found here. I will be appropriately cautious concerning all content in BLP articles (as well as all BLP content outside of BLP articles) moving forward, and I will not at all be counting on other editors to correct any future mistakes. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, while it's certainly on the edge, I could definitely see the argument that a statement about "Keen's supporters" is not a statement about Keen herself. I don't honestly think that this is where Newimpartial fucked up here; the problem is that the source is not reliable for any information, not specifically for a BLP.
But aside from that, everyone involved including Newimpartial agrees that they were wrong in this particular case. But that doesn't mean they should be topic banned for taking an unpopular side in a content dispute. Loki (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose a topic ban beyond this one article I cannot get behind a broader topic ban for this editor as insufficient evidence has been presented of their allegedly problematic behavior except regarding one article. I know Newimpartial has made a lot of positive contributions to articles about far-right topics although they have a tendency to become overly wordy or overinvested in some disputes, I am not convinced it rises to the level of needing sanctions. All editors must refrain from bludgeoning. (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Buidhe, I don't edit in this topic area myself so my report was about actions at WP:RSN. If you read through this thread and the diffs posted by several other users to previous incidents, you will see it does appear to be a pattern, not an isolated incident. Jeppiz (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN and anti-bludgeon Support a 3 to 6 month GENSEX TBAN, and indefinite anti-bludgeon restriction. And strongly oppose any indefinite TBAN. This is a tough one for me for a multitude of reasons. It's no secret to anyone in the GENSEX area that I'm friendly with Newimpartial. We've worked well together in the past, and I hope we'll continue to do so in the future.
    On the issues at hand, can Newimpartial be abrasive? Sure. Do they have a tendency to bludgeon talk page discussions? Sure. Do they skirt the edges of our civility policy Sure. But they're far from the only GENSEX editor to suffer from these problems.
    What's swayed me towards supporting, is the RSN discussion and Tamzin's comment on ideological doctrines and movements. Newimpartial's comments as a whole in that discussion, and their related actions on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull are very concerning to me. It's one thing to vocally question and disagree with a consensus, as consensus can on occasion be wrong. And I think that Newimpartial did identify a bit of a blind spot in our BLP policy and guidance when it comes to a specific type of content in biographical articles. But to keep hammering the same point, after many involved and uninvolved editors uniformly said "that's not a RS", is not good. And to keep asserting, as they have done below that they did not restore "any contentious BLP material", despite the consensus that the material was contentious is either failing or refusing to get the point.
    I do have a fear that this sanction will have unintended consequences. But on balance, I think that this sanction is needed to prevent future occurrences of what happened over the last day at both RSN and Keen-Minshull's article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Amended !vote rationale. See comment below for reasons why. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
    Sideswipe9th, I would ask you to reconsider your support for the topic ban. The BLUDGEON in question was on anarchist publishing (not GENSEX, and admitedly a topic where I have taken an unpopular stand before). I am willing to receive the BLUDGEON restriction, which should make my editing better, but I think it matters that (1) I did not re-introduce content into that article to which more than one editor had objected, (2) the RSN and Talk page BLUDGEONING were not about GENSEX and (3) I will not repeat edits that resemble in any way those reverts to a BLP article or that BLUDGEONING.
    Why you would want to remove from GENSEX an editor who understands the issues, follows NPOV and the sources, and who proposes compromise article (and policy) text to defuse conflicts, I really have no idea. I am half inclined to believe that Tamzin has hypnotized you :p. Newimpartial (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    The BLUDGEON that brought us here was on an anarchist publication, for use in a GENSEX BLP. Effectively we're dealing with an issue that straddles two CTOP areas, BLP and GENSEX, and unfortunately the conduct was a problem no matter which of those lenses you assess it through.
    This was a bad revert. We're both familiar with WP:BLPRESTORE, and that revert goes against that part of the policy. The whole point of BLPRESTORE is that it applies to any good faith objection, and not any good faith objection made by multiple editors. Even if you disagree that the content that was removed should be covered under the BLP policy, it was nonetheless removed on good faith BLP grounds. Had you stopped there, I would like masem below been minded to say it was a BRD cycle. But then you restored it again. That was egregiously bad. If you shouldn't have made the first restore, you really shouldn't have made the second one. Regardless of whether you thought it was or was not covered by the BLP policy, an editor in good faith thought and expressed, twice in an edit summary (1) (2) and on the talk page that it was.
    The question for me is, what is the minimum possible sanction that would prevent future disruptions like this. The anti-bludgeon restriction will certainly prevent a repeat of the RSN discussion, but it does nothing at all to address the article space problem. A TBAN would prevent the article space problem, but which TBAN? BLP or GENSEX? Both choices have positives and negatives, both for the project and for you. A GENSEX TBAN will affect your ability to edit any gender or sexuality related article, but you would have enough rope to otherwise demonstrate that you can edit other less controversial BLPs without issue. A BLP TBAN conversely would not give you any direct opportunity to demonstrate that you can follow that policy on other BLP articles and content, but would allow you the freedom to demonstrate that you can take on the feedback from this discussion and otherwise edit in successfully in a contentious topic, and perhaps indirectly demonstrate that this or any other issue will not reoccur.
    I don't know which of those two is the right choice. The only thing I am certain of right now is that unfortunately it has to be one of these two. So let me flip this back at you. Of the two TBANs, which do you think is the more appropriate? BLP or GENSEX? Which gives you enough freedom to demonstrate that you can learn from this, while also insuring against the short term risk of an issue like this occurring again in the future? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I don't accept your premise that a topic ban is required; it seems like casting about for some lead to work with because the tool in hand is a blow torch.
    I agree that I should have respected RTH's objection as a good-faith BLP objection and that my reverts were in error. Nobody has disputed that in this filing - when I pointed out that I didn't revert after multiple editors objected to the content, it's because I was being accused of that more egregious offense, not because I'm saying what I did was ok. It wasn't, as I have said elsewhere in this section.
    Given that I'm not going to make similar edits again when it comes to BLPRESTORE, it also seems to me that no TBAN is necessary to assure the community that I won't BLUDGEON given that a BLUDGEON restriction is enacted. Yes, of course I can keep my editing away from GENSEX for six months or a year, but that won't help GENSEX articles and it also won't do much for my editing except for something like a Liberal Arts "breadth requirement".
    I'd point out that what I did yesterday was a one-time mental glitch in article space, not an article space problem - it hasn't happened before, it won't happen again, and given when I stopped it can't even be called "disruptive" (it wasn't even a 3RR vio). The BLUDGEONing is actually something I have to work on with or without sanctions, but I would suggest that you not fall in with a discourse about a "GENSEX problem" that isn't real and doesn't relate to the evidence presented here, even as an allegation. Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I would hope that from my last reply, that it should be clear that I'm not "falling in with a discourse about a 'GENSEX problem'". I see the sad necessity for a TBAN, at least in the short term, to prevent future disruption. I just can't decide which TBAN is the more appropriate in the circumstances.
    There is, for me at least, two issues at play here with some degree of interrelation: Bludgeoning, and an egregious BLP violation. While the bludgeoning has happened primarily in GENSEX discussions, the problem itself is largely topic agnostic. Because of that topic agnosticism, the bludgeoning problem can be handled in general with a broadly construed anti-bludgeon sanction, leaving us with the egregious BLP violation. However this was a BLP violation that occurred on a biography that's also covered by GENSEX, and as such involved GENSEX content.
    Maybe this is something I need to sleep on. And something I hope that by the time I wake up, other editors who are currently in favour of a GENSEX TBAN over a BLP TBAN can maybe state something convincing, or provide convincing evidence for why it should be one CTOP area over the other. For now though I'll clarify that my !vote should be read as Support a TBAN (BLP or GENSEX) and anti-bludgeon, just don't know which TBAN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW, if I thought a TBAN was necessary I'd strongly lean towards a BLP one, as Newimpartial is very much a net positive in the GENSEX topic area. However, I don't think any TBAN is necessary. Maybe a page ban, but so far no evidence has been offered in this thread of bad behavior outside of this one particular dispute.
    And yeah, the things Newimpartial said about anarchist sources were really dumb (and I say that as a far-leftist myself). Interpreting them with perhaps too much good faith, they might have meant to say that traditional means of evaluating sound editorial structures for RSes don't necessarily apply to the sort of journalism collectives you often find among anarchists. But even so, they definitely did not have good arguments for that source being reliable.
    However, that's still all things they said in this one dispute. There's no pattern of bad behavior, this is all out of one dispute. Since topic bans are supposed to be preventative, this really doesn't justify a TBAN at all. Loki (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I've taken some time to think this through. I've been reading what Newimpartial has been saying, both here and on other user talk pages, since I made my !vote yesterday, and I've had a chat with Newimpartial over on my talk page.
    I want to believe they recognise that they are a problem, not just in GENSEX but how they interact with editors in multiple adjacent topic areas. I want to believe that from this recognition, they will change how they act and interact with other editors. I want to believe that they will become the change we need in the GENSEX content area, so that we can start detoxifying it and making it less hostile.
    But. After reading everything, thinking and talking through everything, I think time is needed. It's not easy to break and form new habits, especially those that have become ingrained over a period of years. And as much I know we need editors in this content area with the institutional knowledge of how our relevant policies, guidelines, and information pages have been developed for this content area, I'm not sure if being active in GENSEX is the right environment for Newimpartial to make the changes they recognise they need to make, and that they have promised me that they will make without the risk of falling back into familiar patterns.
    To that end, I want to clarify/amend my !vote. I Support a 3 to 6 month TBAN, and indefinite anti-bludgeon restriction. And strongly oppose any indefinite TBAN. I think, I hope, that time away from this controversial content area, will give Newimpartial the space needed to work on their problems so that when the TBAN expires they can return to being a productive contributor in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBAN and oppose anti-bludgeon restriction - Newimpartial is expressing substantial and detailed self-awareness in this discussion and recognizing the need to modulate their conduct in the future. Bans and restrictions should be preventative, not punitive, and this discussion can serve as notice of these concerns, particularly in contentious topic areas that are prone to extended discussions. I have worked on some articles that Newimpartial has also worked on, so I have had an opportunity to observe their conduct and have found them to be a net positive in various article Talk page discussions. From my view, the recent discussions (that I have not been involved in) and the responses to Newimpartial's conduct there and here should be an opportunity for serious reflection, and Newimpartial appears to be listening, so a ban and restriction do not appear warranted at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Question: Has Newimpartial received any sort of warning in the past for their improper conduct? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Newimpartial has previously received an interaction ban that followed from this thread, which was started after an editor objected to comments made by Newimpartial in a GENSEX-related RSN thread. That interaction ban, however, is no longer in place. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Just to provide some additional information about my former iBan: it was converted from one way to two way after my iBan partner's behaviour preceding the iBan was pointed out to El_C (not by me[48]), and it ended when my iBan partner could no longer abide by the iBan and began to lash out, which was followed by additional transphobic attacks and resulting sanctions for the former editor in question. Newimpartial (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support 3 month GENSEX TBAN - As demonstrated with the diffs above to previous discussions provided by Red-tailed Hawk and with the recent discussion that brought us here, Newimpartial has had a persistent issue with BLUDGEONING and BATTLEGROUND behavior, specifically in GENSEX discussions. Though kinda walking around the question, they acknowledged that they were aware of the bludgeoning guideline and had received multiple warnings for it in the past (as showed by Red-tailed Hawk). Therefore, I must reach the conclusion that they either haven't fully grasped what it means, which would be a competency issue, or they recklessly ignored it; I suspect the latter. They've even warned others for bludgeoning! On top of all that, they've already had an interaction ban that, you guessed it, was GENSEX-related. Furthermore, I think this is aggravated by their recent support for a clearly unreliable source at RSN, in which they bludgeoned the discussion for their viewpoint. Again, all these issues have been GENSEX-adjacent, despite Newimpartial not fully acknowledging the connection in the reply to my question below. However, Newimpartial has thoroughly apologized and explained that they will stop their problematic behavior and technically this is the first time they've gotten in big trouble over their behavior. So, I think a certain amount of leniency should be given. A temporary topic ban will allow them to thoroughly reflect on what they've done wrong and adjust. Then the TBAN will just go away quietly and we see if they've learned their lesson... Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I have to say, taking my two-way interaction ban with an editor who had already launched gender-related attacks on me and who was later indeffed (and my ban terminated) for their transphobic comments about me as evidence why I have a problem with the GENSEX area and need to be sanctioned - well, I find that to be a low blow, frankly, though it's a simple example of a typical way enwiki treats trans and nonbinary editors. That you would prefer to endorse this sanction over the much more easily justified BLUDGEON restriction isn't easy to understand. I hope you'll be prepared to make the calm reverts of MOS:DEADNAME vios - from "both sides" of the issue - I make every week, as well as the dispassionate explanations of guideline minutae that I freely provide, while you ban me from the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support t-ban from WP:GENSEX. Pretty clear case of POV-pushing, which is moreso about conduct and not content. They have a pro-transgender POV and have taken to forcing BLP violations into articles in an effort to discredit an anti-transgender activist. The closer should note that the opposes don't have any policy based rationales. Silverseren's oppose says that those in favour of the t-ban long been pushing an anti-trans focus on various articles. and that's basically what the opposes boil down to. "Don't ban Newimpartial, because I agree with them and they take the correct side in content disputes on transgender-related articles". Even if holding the right opinions was a valid reason to get out of a t-ban, there is no shortage of trans/trans ally editors on this website. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBAN, or any other sanction at this time - The evidence presented here is very far from convincing of any need for a sanction. At the very most, I would support an official admin warning to avoid BLUDGEONing, except the NI's comments seem to indicate a realization that their response was somewhat over the top, so there seems to be little need for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • A stern telling off would probably achieve the desired outcome without any need for topic bans or other restrictions.  Tewdar  09:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Support an indefinite TBAN appealable after 6 months, with additional probationary measures. I've personally been at the receiving end of bludgeoning before on years articles, and it's extremely damaging to discussions, especially on reasonably contentious topics like here or cases which attempt to implement a non-existent consensus. We should give the editor the time necessary to reflect, and if NewImpartial is able to work more collaboratively without bludgeoning or gaming the system in other parts of Wikipedia, we should lift the TBAN (which is why I explicitly put a 6 month appeal in my vote). However, we should also place Newimpartial on some sort of bludgeoning probation, where if bludgeoning or gaming the system continues outside of GENSEX during the TBAN, they should receive blocks of a growing time period. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
@InvadingInvader Newimpartial uses they/them pronouns... ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty sure I've never participated in discussions of years articles, by bludgeoning or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support GENSEX TBAN I'm less sure about an "anti-bludgeon" restriction as I think that's more of a symptom of a problem than the problem itself. Also, for editors thinking that Newimpartial responding to criticism in this discussion constitutes "blugeoning", em, I think it is entirely appropriate to "dominate" a discussion about oneself. If you don't want to read Newimpartial's responses, don't read them and don't reply to them. Are you seriously saying that people can post whatever they like about them, and they just have to sit on their hands because they've posted a few times already that day?
I warned Newimpartial about edit warring at LGB Alliance and you can read the conversation here. I think edit warring over a section title is pretty typical of Newimpartial not "try[ing] to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors" which is what WP:ACTIVIST notes wrt spotting problematic activism. And failing to respond with "Yeh, that was pretty stupid of me to edit war over a section title" but instead dig down and say go on take me to AN/I over it, demonstrates their combative attitude. This is a BATTLEGROUND editor who not only attacks "the opponent" but also "their own side" and "the Red Cross" as well. I've often said editors need close wikifriends who can tap them on the shoulder (ideally offwiki) and tell them to back away from the keyboard, or strike or revert something. Newimpartial doesn't seem to have one or doesn't appear to value the ones they have (had). Earlier on their user talk page, Newimpartial invited me to this conversion. The word that strikes me in that is "gaslighting", which Newimpartial had used in a kind of pre-crime way towards me. I later discovered they had accused Koyla of "gaslighting". The thing is, the issue I was accused of (potentially) "gaslighting" them about, was the previous paragraph on the page. In both my case and Koyla's it seems that when another editor disagrees about what they did or said, Newimpartial thinks it is not only because of the other editor's bad faith, but also it seems, that other editor is actively trying to cause them "actual harm, actual psychological abuse".
My impression from those discussions is that this is an editor who lives constantly in an assumption of bad faith. That so many editors in the GENSEX area are disruptive activists with opposing views to them means that they are not always wrong about that. But seems that their hostile approach to everyone means that even the good faith editors and editors "on their side" will annoy them to the point where they conflict with them too. Their post last night to Sideswipe9th initially filled me with hope, as the section was titled "Sorry" but I'll quote how it concludes: "There might have been a time when we could be wikifriends, but I'm losing all respect for your judgement of conduct issues at this point. I will try to remain civil, but it will be a very cold civility like I sometimes manage with Colin and Koyla, who also decided recently that it would be fine to just ignore my perspective and lay into me because it suited their understanding of the world. Blech.". Yeh, it is always someone else being not just wrong but malign. --

Colin°Talk 10:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Psst...pronouns...  Tewdar  10:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Colin - why in the coldest hell would you misgender me in a long comment seeking a GENSEX ban at ANI?
Also, for one additional tedious time you have misstated our prior conversation - I never suggested that you or any other editors were actively trying to cause psychological harm. What I was talking about was precisely instances like this long post, where you clearly did so (misengendering is harmful) but may well have done so unintentionally. Ahhhhhh, irony. Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC) , partially redacted by Newimpartial (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
A thousand apologies for that. I've fixed it I hope. Wrt the "actual harm, actual psychological abuse" quote, you were responding to me asking you to stop accusing editors of "gaslighting" you, and not for situations where editors had made a mistake. There is no possible world where "gaslighting" can happen by accident. It is a term that is very much an accusation of seriously bad faith. -- Colin°Talk 13:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Colin, I am not accusing you of "gaslighting" and when I did so, I was not accusing you of inflicting harm on purpose. I explained this at length on my Talk, in the discussion you already linked. What you have done above (apart from the misgendering, which you have now corrected) is to insist again that I accused you of actively trying to cause me harm, which I never did.
Also, concerning cooperation, collaboration and compromise, you seem to be ignoring instances like this recent discussion or these two from last month, where I have collaborated constructively across differing perspectives. I get that obstreporousness is in my toolbox, but I am also able to play nicely with others. Newimpartial (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am of course willfully "ignoring" three instances of your behaviour from last month where I was not a participant, had never edited those pages nor ever watchlisted nor ever read those talk pages. Of course it is my job to read your entire contribution history for situations I am unfamiliar with to try to find three cases where you behaved yourself. I'm being sarcastic btw. The problem, Newimpartial, is not whether occasionally you can play nicely with the other children.
I'm not going to get drawn into (again) another argument about what you said I said. I've linked to the discussion and others can make their minds up. -- Colin°Talk 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't making an argument about what you said I said. I was making a statement about your comment of 10:27 -Newimpartial thinks it is not only because of the other editor's bad faith, but also it seems, that other editor is actively trying to cause them "actual harm, actual psychological abuse (emphasis added). That is a false statement, presented without evidence, in a context where I had already clarified weeks ago that I was not accusing you of causing intentional harm.
On your first paragraph, the instances I linked were a response to your generalisation,

I think edit warring over a section title is pretty typical of Newimpartial not "try[ing] to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors" which is what WP:ACTIVIST notes wrt spotting problematic activism.

I do actually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate and compromise with many other editors, and so I presented clear, recent evidence on that (the first example of which I linked already, above, which is why I said you ignored - not "wilfully 'ignored'", I didn't imply intentionality). A topic ban is supposed to prevent disruption in an area, but the only thing you point to is an unpleasant bilateral interaction that I encouraged you to move from Talk:LGB Alliance to my user talk page; that, and my expression of hurt in Sideswipe9th's page after receiving these personal attacks and insinuations. If that's your idea of disruption in a topic area, I don't know what to say. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
These arguments over precision are a frequent source of disruption from Newimpartial. I tried and tried to speak with the precision they expected, but when I expected the same level of precision from them, they characterized my corrections as utterly puerile. [49] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Rather than accepting a quick, decontextualized assertion about that difficult dialogue, I would encourage anyone with the necessary endurance to read the two voices of that exchange: my comments are visible here and Kolya's, here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Colin: I think you may have dropped your bolded !vote in the wrong subsection. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Moved from below per WP:TPO and permission given at Special:Diff/1140937443. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Per Sideswipe9th below, I would agree that at first step we should consider a 3 or 6 month TBAN from GENSEX. I think an indef would be more appropriate if no signs of hope were present. I'm not sure a "stern telling off" is enough for them to get the necessary break/reset, though if that ends up being the result, I would encourage Newimpartial to take a self-imposed wikibreak from that topic. -- Colin°Talk 08:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBAN or other sanctions at this time, per Beyond My Ken and Beccaynr. One person's "bludgeoning" is another's "fervent discussion", getting emotionally invested in topics one volunteers one's time to edit is going to happen sooner or later, and sanctions are too blunt to be suitable in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'm also a bit uncomfortable with some comments that seem to suggest Newimpartial's comments here are "bludgeoning". Frankly, this is why I don't like ANI. It's a trial without a defense attorney, where the jury is whoever happens to show up, and speaking in one's own defense can be taken as furthering the crime. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a mob trying to remove an opponent from the game board. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Absolutely this. Boomerangs are in order. DanielRigal (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'm trying to excuse myself from this discussion, but I have to ask - who are you proposing receives a boomerang, exactly? As ValarianB mentioned a "mob", are you suggesting it's for anyone who voted for the TBAN? — Czello 15:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I think the relevant population for a BOOMERANG woukd be everyone who !voted for a TBAN for me as a result of personal annoyance with my prior Talk participation. Or at least a trout... Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    How does one identify who voted for those reasons? — Czello 15:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    While I'm sorely tempted to give a joke answer, the rral answer is interaction analysis. A good algorithm ought to be able to evaluate the tone of the editor's prior comments at me, the tone of their comments here, and make an easy determination. Use AndyTheGrump as training data (all right, I couldn't not include a joke answer, but I gave the real answer first). Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    There's so many issues I can see with this I'm going to assume it is the joke answer, but anywho I assume the boomerang calls won't get off the ground anyway... — Czello 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Forget I mentioned it. I'm not trying to make this into any more of a trainwreck than it already is. To be honest, I think this thread may be one of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen on Wikipedia if you disregard blatant vandalism. I read this and I wonder what on earth is going wrong. DanielRigal (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    To quote the old joke, it hurts when I do this. I guess I should stop doing it, then. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Interaction analysis (by humans) can determine who is likely to be !voting in annoyance. That is the non-joke answer. Levivich, for example, is not, based on an examination of our recent comments in reference to each other. AndyTheGrump, on the other hand, almost certainly is, based on the same criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I understood, I think what I'm trying to say is letting an algorithm determine good faith sounds like the first step to SkyNet Czello 19:16, 22 February 2023
    Fascinating. So someone who only got involved in this whole mess (on a subject I haven't really worked on much) because a ludicrous WP:RS discussion over a source that even an elementary understanding of sourcing policy would have shown to be unsuitable, somehow becomes 'training data'. I assume this is in reference to the 'Large language model' AI algorithm, which as has been well documented, generates superficially plausible but entirely fabricated bullshit when it lacks the necessary data (i.e. evidence) to come up with anything better. How apt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I have seen people deliberately winding Newimpartial up. Newimpartial should try to recognise bait, and not take it, but the blame lies with the people yanking their chain, not them. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I guess I should expand on this a bit, seeing as everybody else is so verbose. ;-) I think we should have the maturity to recognise that Newimpartial has made some mistakes without blowing this matter out of proportion. It needs to be recognised that they are a significant net positive for Wikipedia and that driving them away from the topics where they are most desperately needed would be substantially detrimental to Wikipedia. Articles concerning gender and sexuality are under an unprecedented level of attack at the moment and dealing with this is stressful and unpleasant even for people who are not in the groups affected. It is a real pity that it falls to quite a small number of people to defend these articles. There is a fine line between a Defender of the Wiki Barnstar and an accusation of bludgeoning. It is not surprising that sometimes the stress shows and people make mistakes. Of course, that does not absolve Newimpartial, or anybody else, of the obligation to try to follow policy and guidelines but I see zero evidence that they ever intended to do otherwise. I have read their comments in which they acknowledge their mistakes and undertake not to repeat them. I am convinced of their sincerity in this and I believe that no further sanction is required. I can see the arguments for a warning but I find the proposal for a topic ban (or any other major sanction) to be entirely unjustified. What we do need going forward is a lot more eyes on articles that cover gender and sexuality, even if only in passing. Things are only going to get more intense as anti-LGBT rhetoric becomes normalised in English speaking countries. Eventually this will peak and subside. In the meantime we all need to play our part in holding the line and keeping Wikipedia impartial. DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    "we all need to play our part in holding the line"… this quote says a lot about the user's mentality. Supporting someone at ANI because they are a POV pusher is risible and should be ignored. Many fold (including LGBTQIA+ folx) give good reasons this user is not helpful to building an encyclopedia. Support topic ban and bludgeon restriction. (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
    The quote says more when you finish the sentence. In the meantime we all need to play our part in holding the line and keeping Wikipedia impartial. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
    Why do I feel like this is the same person who already gave us two deliberately inflammatory posts in this thread? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - The bludgeoning and tendentious arguments waste too much editor time, and despite people trying, I don't think anything else is going to work, since the bludgeoning of this thread continues. Suggestions that this is a mob trying to win a content dispute, that bludgeoning is just fervent argument, or that anyone was baited, have no basis, and are the reason I've come off the fence on this one. I think Gensex, not BLPs, is the right topic area, and I'd be fine with a 1-month or 3-month time limit instead of indefinite. Warning second choice. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    The main concern I have about a 3-month ban is the likelihood that one of the activist editors in GENSEX will use this as an opportunity to launch one of the long-theatened RfCs on key topics, knowing not only that I will be unable to participate but that there will also be a chilling effect on trans editors, as there was after the Athaenara ANI and especually if TheTranarchist is sanctioned at the same time (a different case and perhaps unlikely, but not impossible). Given the way my prior iBan - with an editor who hurled abuse at me from near the beginning to the end of their time on enwiki - has been weaponized against me in this discussion, I am also concerned that even a short ban could be turned into ammunition for similar action in the future, not to deal with actual bludgeoning but simply because my familiarity with the policy history is inconvenient for some aggrieved party. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) id redacted by Newimpartial (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    If you really wanted to prevent that, you could avoid a sanction by not bludgeoning this discussion. I believe that you continuing on like this would be more harmful to the topic area than your temporary absence. I'd rather the best option, which is you not being sanctioned, but I don't see that option as being available here. I'm most concerned that if you walk away from this thinking you were doing nothing wrong, you weren't bludgeoning, you were baited, or the editors complaining are just a mob or the usual suspects, that will lead to no change, which would be bad for the topic area. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    To be clear, I do think I have been doing something wrong. Several things. I misread the community's sense of when BLP content becomes contentious, and I bludgeoned multiple discussion on a topic (because I felt I was right in a SNOWBALL situation). Those were both clearly actions against community norms, and I won't do either again.
    Also, while most of the editors calling for an indef TBAN have evident skin in the game, at the same time I have clearly pissed off editors who are not part of any mob and whose negative interactions with me are tinged with apparent regret (on their part as well as mine) more than hostility. I get that it is up to me to edit differently so that I do not contribute to future wikidrama, and I think something formal about my BLUDGEON behaviour - whether a restriction or a logged warning, or what have you - could help with that.
    But if you look at the closed section where it was proposed to ban or restrict me for participating in this filing, it is reasonably clear that the community feels it important for me to be able to participate actively in this discussion - I certainly feel that a comment like this one is more helpful to an eventual closer than it would be for me to "not bludgeon this discussion" by being silent. Of course, some admin or admins will make that determination. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I hear you. I feel the chilling effect here and I'm not even trans. It must be a hundred times worse for those who are. I think this is the reason why you need to take great effort to keep your powder dry. Avoid taking bait and make extra effort to stay on topic and within policy even when others do not. Ironically, my advice is to (sort of) "assume bad faith" in the sense that you should ask yourself "Is this intended to provoke a counterproductive reaction?" and then let that guide your responses. DanielRigal (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Is this intended to provoke a counterproductive reaction? As another regular of the GENSEX content area, I actually do wind up asking myself this on a fairly regular basis. And I absolutely hate that I have to do run this self-check to make sure that an editor is not trying to bait me into saying or doing something I'll regret. Aside from making sure that my content and contributions are in keeping with the relevant policies and guidelines, my guiding principle in the GENSEX area is to be the change I want there to be. And on this regard, while I can ensure that my visible actions are in keeping with that change, my internal processes to ensure that I do so are not.
    I hope that every editor, whether involved or uninvolved, can see how utterly dysfunctional GENSEX is. As much as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is policy, the content area is unfortunately a battleground. Much of this reflects the attitude of societies across the world at this time. On the one hand you have major charities, activist organisations, and medical bodies which I believe represent the mainstream view on this topic and are typically supportive of non-cishet identities and sexualities. On the other, you have religious groups, some heavily right-leaning political groups, smaller charities and activist organisations, and some notable dissenters of medical opinion, who typically reject any sort of non-cishet identity and sexuality and I believe represent a fringe view on this topic.
    Like any encyclopaedia we're caught in the middle of these two groups. But unlike a traditional encyclopaedia like Britannica who can filter their content creation process through paid experts, we are also a user generated encyclopaedia. And because our content can be written by anyone, it opens us up to a series of challenges that other encyclopaedias do not face.
    There was a sentence I ultimately removed from my !vote above, that I think I want to bring up now. Loki made a point that GENSEX has a large number of POV-pushers, and that Newimpartial acts somewhat as a balance against them. And I think that is true. I have a fear that a sanction here will have unintended consequences, in part because it will upset what little balance we do have in this regard. And maybe that's a sign that we need an inquisitorial style ArbCom, to look into this dysfunctional content area in depth and to figure out where exactly it is we're going wrong and how best we can resolve the situation as a whole. As after-all nobody expects the ArbCom inquisition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Sideswipe9th, we must also account for the unintended consequences that letting a disruptive editor continue to engage in the topic area just because we agree with them has on our ability to attract and retain editors within the topic area. I have seen multiple editors raise concerns that TBAN-ing Newimpartial will irrevocably change the balance in the topic area in favor of transphobic/homophobic editors while forgetting that the wiki's own PAGs do not align with that group and so those of us that remain can still prevail. However, I am not aware of any way we can prevent constructive editors from leaving or never joining the topic area due to the presence of highly combative, tendentious and/or sharp-tongued editors. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 20:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    There is a fairly straightforward solution to your concern: the editor in question can take a less combative and sharp-tongued approach. This has been a learning experience, and I will make that shift with or without sanctions. In this context, I don’t know what additional benefit sanctions can be expected to achieve. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Newimpartial, you've mentioned this being a learning experience. However, I have no reason to trust you when you are still bludgeoning this thread. Promises tend to be kept when you are being forced to keep them, and would much rather have you successfully appeal for a removal of the sanctions in a few months or years rather than have to revisit this whole issue in a month or two. My ban from ANI (see block log) was immensely helpful to my growth as an editor and that's why I believe sanctions could work in your case as well. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 21:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Your proposal that my participating in my own ANI was somehow problematic and should be limited was rejected by the community and WP:SNOW closed. I recognize that I have bludgeoned at least a few times per year since joining Wikipedia, and I know this needs to change. That behaviour wasn't limited to GENSEX topics and seldom touched on BLP issues at all. Therefore, the idea that a GENSEX TBAN is necessary to prevent future disruption - well, I don't really have a history of causing disruption before now, and it is clear that if I do so, I will face serious sanctions. No need to revisit this whole issue in a month or two. Each of us learn in our own way, and while I respect your own "hard knocks" experience I don't feel that I need to follow your path. Soneine UNINVOLVED will surely decide. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Ixtal: Can't reply to someone without replying to them. The problem with bludgeoning isn't just the large number of replies. It's that these replies are in some way or another "disruptive". According to WP:BLUDGEON: "bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.". Here at ANI, Newimpartial is the actual focus of this discussion, so we can't call it bludgeoning the same way we would if this were an article talk page. Where has Newimpartial "attempted to force their point of view"? Where has Newimpartial "contradicted every viewpoint that is different from their own?" I can see they've been agreeing to some fault in the case but they also need to defend themselves. We can't simply assume the accusations are true and then try to stop the accused from defending themselves by referring to their defenses as "bludgeoning". — Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Nythar, I disagree on not being able to call it bludgeoning, although I understand that comes from a subjective difference of opinion. I am known to have much lower requirements to call behavior disruptive compared to other editors and acknowledge my bias in the case of this editor due to my previous interactions with them. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 01:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    In past conflict areas on-wiki, I've seen patterns where one editor getting sanctioned (especially a prolific one) attracts more uninvolved administrator attention to that topic area and makes it easier to see other disruptive influences and remove them quickly. Given how "noisy" the past few days have been across a wide swathe of noticeboards, that seems likely to happen here as well. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I have seen some of that at the BLP article that touched this off, and I can only hope that is the effect. But unlike short-term attention, long-term experience (as with the discussions that went into the 2020-23 revisions to MOS:GENDERID) is not easily replaced. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    will use this as an opportunity to launch one of the long-theatened RfCs on key topics - I have no idea what possible RfC(s) this could be referring to, but: isn't it rather strange to view the possibility of an RfC - getting wider community input - as a bad thing? Crossroads -talk- 19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Depends on the context I think. When mishandled, RfCs can be problematic. For a prime example, the November 2021 RfC for the J. K. Rowling lead caused issues both in the subsequent FAR, and in other discussions since then as we all felt that we were pretty much unable to write a new version due to how many editors contributed to the RfC.
    I'm not sure what RfC's that Newimpartial is alluding too here though. But I would generally say "no surprise RfCs please like we (royal content area we) have a habit of doing. Lets workshop them on the relevant talk pages first." Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. @Newimpartial has defamed people by using bad sources in an attempt to "win" Wikipedia. Newimpartial does not take advice from editors who disagree with their bad decisions until they "lose" at a noticeboard. And they only agree after spamming the noticeboard with the same arguments a ton of times. They should never be allowed to edit articles about gender or gender activists until they stop trying to "win" by defaming people and using bad sources. Maine 🦞 16:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    My reflections about the changes I need to make are found here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

*Oppose If we're going to ban Newimpartial, it is time to just nuke the entire topic area and ban every editor involved. That might say more about the topic area than the editor, but that doesn't mean it's not true. With the timing this also feels more like this discussion and the !votes on it originate more out of newimpartial's defense of another editor above than out of a legitimate concern regarding their editing. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    • Really starting to get frustrated by all these users who come here to cast oppose !votes with no indication of even bothering to read what the discussion is about. Again, it's based on the bludgenoning of WP:RSN and trying to squeeze in clearly unreliable sources. I get it, you like Newimpartial. For the record "I like this person" is not a carte blanche to violate policies. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
      To be clear, I stopped trying to squeeze in the source prior to the RSN filing. What happened at RSN was that I thought the SPS, from a known organization with a track record of self-publication, could be used to provide material not subject to the heightened requirements of WP:BLP. I did bludgeon that discussion, but then recognized that the community does not see the situation the same way. I have recognized that I was wrong and this issue is not an "ongoing disruption" anywhere.
      If you look at both the support and oppose !votes on your TBAN proposal, you will see that none of them actually envisage that I will disrupt RSN again (I won't) or defend the reliability of Anarchist blogs (I won't). Many of the "TBAN indef" votes allege a pattern of POV editing on my part (which they do not in any way support), and nobody seems especially interested in disputing whether or not I goofed at RSN and the edits preceding that. I messed up, I won't do it again, and few editors seem interested in litigating that - perhaps because sanctions are about prevention, and that case doesn't require any additional preventative measures. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
      You dropped this in the middle of an active discussion about a similar issue with the same editors being involved, of course some editors are going to feel like the two three discussions are in some way related. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Licks-rocks "nuke the entire topic area and ban every editor involved" is an unfair painting of the amount of good editing and good editors in GENSEX topics, and such a broadbrush contributes nothing towards aiding in sorting the problems that do need to be sorted. I have to agree with Jeppiz's frustration. Followup at #Stern talking to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN I have never been particularly impressed with Newimpartial's edits to the topic area when they came up at ANI threads or at ArbCom, and they clearly haven't improved. Conduct like theirs just generates more heat and makes it harder to write good articles, not easier; editors can consider it "removing pieces from the board", but that's frankly often how a lot of disputes get turned into something productive. Enforced time outs are realistically one of the few tools we have for improving consensus building efforts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    If your goal is an enforced time out, perhaps you could suggest how long of a ban it would take for me to demonstrate that the set of behavioural changes I outline here has, in fact, taken hold? Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I support an anti-bludgeoning restriction along the lines proposed by Tamzin -- two comments per discussion thread per day (no exceptions) seems very reasonable. I think this sanction would get much closer to the heart of the problem than a TBan. --JBL (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanction Trying to remove your ideological opponents is a shitty tactic and those doing so should really think about how transparent they look. Note: I'm not really talking about the OP here. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support FINITE topic ban of GENSEX pages and FINITE bludgeoning ban . I think two comments per discussion per day as proposed by Tamzin (possibly three per day) is very reasonable. Their conduct in discussions has been uncivil for quite some time as shown by others above. However, Newimpartial has shown some remorse and for that reason I strongly oppose an indefinite ban. My recommendation is 90 days. Frank Anchor 23:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support a stern telling off, mainly per Tewdar, who knows this situation better than most. I wouldn't strenuously object to an anti-bludgeoning sanction, and I hope to see NI adhere mostly to the bounds of that restriction even if it isn't enacted. I oppose any TBANS or blocks. We absolutely should hope for experienced editors to be as receptive to feedback as NI has been here, and I wouldn't jump to blocking unless there are signs that they return to bad behavior after saying all the right things. There's no sign of that from NI, and the mud being slung about prior sanctions is too dry to stick. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite gensex topic ban, due to the years-long pattern of tendentious reverting, argumentation, bludgeoning, and edit warring as explained and documented above and below. It has continued despite pushback and correction from other editors. I will share more evidence that this is a pattern of behavior tomorrow; however I wanted to at least state this in case someone was inclined to close this too soon. Crossroads -talk- 05:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's the evidence I have, although my impression above is not based solely on these diffs, as I did not always keep track of such diffs:
[50] - endorses a blatant personal attack on another editor. [51] - casts aspersions on those they disagreed with in an RfC as having "attacked" trans editors (which if true, would entail a noticeboard report and swift block of the attackers, not impugning RfC comments).
[52][53][54] - three times calls RfC participants they disagreed with "zombies".
[55] - absurdly claims WP:SYNTH does not apply if someone off-wiki has made a statement even if it was made in a non-RS, even though SYNTH and WP:NOR explicitly are about reliable sources and the clear ridiculousness of getting around SYNTH if some rando said something in some social media post somewhere (this should be viewed in the context above of other 'creative' interpretations of policies like BLP, RS, and GNG).
[56] - personalizes dispute, attacks editor.
[57] - another personal attack mid-discussion.
[58] - another snide attack.
[59] - says editor 'disagrees with consensus reality'.
[60] - mocks editor's careful explanation of concern, falsely calls it a 'one-against-many' crusade.
[61] - aspersions and baseless attack mid-discussion.
[62][63][64] - attacks the same editor three times in 30 minutes while replying to someone else.
[65][66] - absurdly claims that an article on "anti-trans rhetoric" and trans-exclusionary radical feminism is "in scope" for the Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences to argue it is one of the highest quality references on the topic of J. K. Rowling.
[67] - dismisses comment by editor due to their comment in a different discussion, an ad hominem.
Other evidence of disruptive behavior and argumentation is elsewhere in this ANI discussion. Crossroads -talk- 19:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Without irony, Crossroads, thank you for being focused on diffs that are well-selected and relevant, selected from almost 18 months of editing. A couple of these diffs represent discussions of sourcing and content within Wikipedia policy and guidelines ([68][69]) - but the rest of them all show exactly the kind of behaviour I have to stop. This exemplifies the reality I have already recognized about the changes I have to make - none of the rhetorical barbs I used or "clever" comments made any contribution to building an encyclopaedia. I will not do that from now on.
However, I would like to point out that my inappropriate Talk participation is sadly not limited to GENSEX topics. My interchange with JoelleJay that culminated here (and I was ruder before) is a good example, as was my meta-discussion with Colin on my Talk, which was prompted by a GENSEX discussion but wasn't really about that topic at all. My tendency towards incivility has not been tied to any one topic and has certainly not served any WP:ADVOCACY on my part; it is just bad editing in Talk space.
So, yeah, you have provided a good list of examples of what not to do again. I won't. The goal of editor sanctions, however, is to prevent future disruption, and I don't see anything in your diffs that would make a TBAN - much less an indef TBAN - a necessary or even helpful sanction to achieve that goal. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
For the sake of transparency and those who may not be following closely, some of Crossroads's diffs are the ones I also refer to below in #Stern talking to; that is, there is some overlap here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support tban and bludgeoning remedy - per the behavior in this discussion. The inability to see that the sources they want to use are not appropriate for using in connection to a BLP and the continued IDHT behavior about that is what makes me support the tban. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Ealdgyth, my "hearing" of where my behaviour went wrong has been expressed repeatedly in my responses to this filing (and also here). I get that the community does not approve the use of SPS in that way, and I won't do it again. So I don't understand what you mean by WP:IDHT in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    It took what... three days and being dragged to ANI before you recognized what should have been obvious within the first 12 hours? And frankly, your reply that you cite doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that you really get the issue with trying to use that source - I do not get the feeling that you really understand that the guiding principle of BLP is that we err on the side of caution in all aspects - if something is iffy, we leave it out. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Ealdgyth, the second time I restored the stable content with the anarchist blog source to Article space, I then made my first comment on the topic in Talk and did not restore that source again. So I get that I shouldn't have restored it at all, but I did recognise (before any meaningful discussion had taken place) that it would be inappropriate to re-add that source, and to err on the side of caution, even while I argued that the content in question was not about a living person and that therefore SPS could be used. I shouldn't have compounded my initial error by following that sourcing discussion to other noticeboards, and I have reflected here on the needed change in my approach. But WP:IDHT doesn't seem to be a shoe that fits - unless you're talking about my continuing participation in the noticeboards, but that is part of the problem I set out to address in the comment I just linked. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Upon reflection, there certainly are aspects of the situation I have been slow to hear, and which I am now in the process of hearing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban from WP:GENSEX, boardly construed, and support anti-bludgeoning restriction per Jeppiz, Red-tailed hawk, and Sideswipe9th. As an uninvolved editor, the case is pretty clear-cut. GretLomborg (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Of the three editors cited here, only one supports an indefinite topic ban. Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    So? My !vote is my own, I cited them because of their rationales and explainations, not because I was exactly following their !votes to the letter. To reiterate, the time period I support is indefinite, based on what I've seen. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indef GENSEX t-ban. This has been a very long time coming, and the awful behavior has been tolerated for so long only because so many of us essentially agree with Newimpartial's pushed and pushed and pushed socio-political viewpoint. This is not an endless battleground for viewpoint-pushing and it has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    I have not been "pushing a socio-political viewpoint", nor has any evidence been produced here to that effect. I don't think that's what this ANI filing has been about, really. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    JoelleJay's, Crossroads's, and SandyGeorgia's diff lists are sufficient for now, though I would produce a deeper one. I'll save the effort for ArbCom, where I think your behavior will almost inevitably be examined if the current proceeding fails to come to a significant enough sanction to protect the project long-term from that behavior, which is only problematic across the GENSEX topic area.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indef GENSEX t-ban. I'm not involved in this topic or with this editor, but the examples cited here are clearly show WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. If this editor is able to avoid this type of behavior on other topics then eventually this ban could be lifted. Nemov (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN of any length per AndyTheGrump, but favor it being finite for reasons laid out by FireFangledFeathers. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • On the fence, still observing. I've laid out my main thoughts at #Stern talking to, and NI has responded with what seems to be real contrition and recognition of the issues. On the one hand, such acknowledgement is rarely seen here; recognition and contrition could be one route to lowering the toxicity at ANI, and I am loathe to overlook it. On the other hand, I just don't know NI well enough to say if they will be able to stick to their expressed intent. And, reading through this thread, it seems as if some sort of ban is already in the cards. I am hoping if a ban is enacted, it is not indefinite. Someone who has seen and acknowledged the damage in the content area of disruptive editing can be a good advocate for change; is NI the person who can do that? I don't know. But all this chest pounding about the influx of blah blah blah to this content area overlooks that every content area is in trouble on Wikipedia right now, so we still have to discourage bad behavior, while rewarding policy-compliant behavior. We have plenty of editors in this area who are policy compliant, yet everytime GENSEX comes up, we hear this chest pounding. Be part of the change you want to see. With a few more days of observation, I will feel in a better position to state whether NI's contrition and recognition of the problems can be a force for change, but I'm not yet ready to support or oppose a ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose sanction, support logged warning. I have to say, some of the comments by Newimpartial are not so good. Newimpartial is tilting in some of these, comments that appear to veer into questioning the basis of policy and what I would call, hectoring. That being said, Newimpartial is a user since 2008 with 20k+ edits and only one block in 2019 for edit warring, and I have seen Newimpartial around before and they seemed to make good comments and good edits, so I think they are worth giving a formal logged warning with a short leash and not jump to topic ban someone who makes mostly productive contributions in a topic. Andre🚐 00:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indef topic ban on GENSEX Per the many diffs displaying Battleground/Uncivl/IDHT behavior. They can appeal in 6 months, there are thousands of eyes on the topic area, it'll be ok. Arkon (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban per the sustained battleground mentality and bludgeoning in the gensex area. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban, insufficient evidence of a sustained topic-wide problem at the level that would require one. Many of the diffs listed (outside of bludgeoning on a single article) amount to editors disagreeing with Newimpartial's conclusions, and are no more personal or battleground-ish than is normal from anyone who heavily edits a controversial topic area. If we topic-banned everyone who eg. described an edit as a whitewash or noted the unfortunate existence of factions among editors in the topic area, we would have virtually no long-term editors in controversial topic areas left; and certainly many of the people advocating a topic ban on those grounds do not have clean hands in that regard. It simply isn't the sort of evidence needed to leap straight to a topic ban for an editor who has an otherwise (basically) clean record. --Aquillion (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support tban per Ixtal, Colin, and Levivich, among others. I am also concerned by the statement I get that obstreporousness is in my toolbox, but I am also able to play nicely with others. - being difficult to deal with should not be a tool used to win disputes, and the fact that Newimpartial considers it to be such a tool is concerning.
I weakly oppose the blugeoning restriction; I have concerns both that it will not control the problematic behaviour and that it could be abused by editors in disputes with NewImpartial. BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't regard obstreporousness as a tool used to win disputes; it is more like a bad habit I have to consciously act to break, but which is always there (maybe more a liquor store around the corner than a tool in a toolbox) if I cease to be mindful.
On the other hand, playing nicely with others is also there as a good habit I have to remember to maintain; I believe my edit history shows a good deal more of the latter than the former, though I know you've seen me in instances when obstreporousness was on full display.
I'm also curious how long a TBAN you have in mind... Newimpartial (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying regarding obstreperousness; I have struck that comment.
For the length of the TBAN; historically I've preferred indefinite, as editors can wait out time limited bans without improving their behavior, but in this case your comments have already addressed some of the concerns that lead me to that position.
Overall, I think I weakly prefer indefinite, with an explicitly defined very short appeal period (maybe two months?) to allow you to demonstrate improved behaviour and successfully appeal without editors objecting that the appeal is too soon. I suspect this will result in you returning to the topic area faster than time-limited ban.
However, without such a definition of an appeal period I would prefer a time limited one; three or six months seems reasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support a 6-month gensex topic ban. I do not like banning any editor from topics they have contributed extensively to; however, there are just so many warnings an editor can receive before a line is finally drawn and a bullet is bitten. I would like to remind everyone in this discussion about the Universal Code of Conduct and Unacceptable behaviour > Insults: "In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.". The only way to finally (hopefully) rectify this behavior is by a temporary topic ban.
    Newimpartial: you know very well that in many talk page discussions you mock and ridicule editors you disagree with. You've dismissed it as joking. Many see is as bullying because it is aggressive behavior camouflaged as humor; and you do it over and over again, and you've gotten away with it over and over again. WP:BLUDGEON states: "bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." -- this is a pattern that has become predictable and second-nature. It needs to stop. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 08:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, it does have to stop. I agree and will a stop it, as described below. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Tentatively support 3-6 month TBAN, oppose permanent TBAN, mainly due to comments I perceived as combative or unnecessarily personal, unrelated to bludgeoning, that I don't believe have been addressed. For example, NI accused me of being another editor's "collaborator" and "coordinating" with that editor in a content dispute (a form of meat-puppetry); when I'd never encountered that editor before and didn't know them from Adam or Eve. All I did was support holding an RFC and fix it to make it neutral. I've also seen NI make disrespectful or insulting comments towards other editors, in edit summaries, or in some replies (which may, in some cases, be misguided attempts at playfulness, but it's uncomfortably hard to tell).
I hope that Newimpartial will take it in stride and meditate on this discussion. This type of conduct, regardless of intent, is part of the reason why I, probably like others, mostly stay away from contentious topic areas. DFlhb (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I've changed my mind from oppose to support, after reflection, and significantly rewritten my comment above (wasn't yet replied to), since I think leniency would hurt NI more than it would help them. A short cool-off would be beneficial, not for punitive purposes, but because the core problem across all these diffs seems to be excessive emotional involvement in Wikipedia. For example, take NI's comments on Sideswipe9th's page (I'm losing all respect for your judgment of conduct issues and it will be a very cold civility). I'm lenient, but not that lenient; those comments are just hurtful, and borderline manipulative. Taking a step back from the biggest "triggers" will hopefully help NI reflect, change, and stay out of trouble over the long-run.
And re: the recent RSN discussion: it's self-evident that all statements in BLPs must follow WP:BLP. I don't know whether a temporary BLP TBAN or GENSEX TBAN would be most appropriate, but agree with Sideswipe9th on basically all points, including the fact that a permanent TBAN would likely be detrimental to the POV balance of the overall encyclopaedia. An ArbCom case investigating the overall topic area is indeed likely called for. DFlhb (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support gensex topic ban and bludgeoning remedy - The bludgeoning and tendentious arguments waste too much editor time, and despite people trying, I don't think anything else is going to work, since the bludgeoning of this thread continues. Suggestions that this is a mob trying to win a content dispute, that bludgeoning is just fervent argument, or that anyone was baited, have no basis, and are the reason I've come off the fence on this one. I think Gensex, not BLPs, is the right topic area per Levivich. Also endorse that NI has defamed people (BLPs) by using bad sources in an attempt to "win" Wikipedia. Newimpartial does not take advice from editors who disagree with their bad decisions until they "lose" at a noticeboard. And they only agree after spamming the noticeboard with the same arguments a ton of times as accurately recorded by Maine Lobster above. NI seems incapable of NOT bludgeoning every discussion, as evidenced on this ANI and in diffs. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose any topic ban. Newimpartial's self reflection shows they have taken the community's concerns to heart. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBAN, support stern talking-to. I'm largely agreeing with DanielRigal here. My battery is about to die so I might expand later. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban upto and including indefinite from WP:GENSEX and support anti-bludgeoning restriction. This isn't an area I edit in so I'm certainly not here to "remove an ideological apponent". Reading through this thread and some of the provided diffs what I see, quite frankly, is clear combatative pov-pushing from someone who doesn't know when to drop the stick. How many potential new editors have been (or will be) put off when they get bludgeoned and wiki-lawyered at every step? It's toxic. The sourcing issue around the BLP vio and the accompanying arguments make me wonder whether they should be editing BLP's either.--DSQ (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban (prefer 3–6-month ban) & support anti-bludgeoning restriction. The evidence here is pretty cut and dry regarding the NI's actions. I generally don't like indefinite topic bans but won't object if it is decided that it is needed. I understand this is a sensitive topic and NI does seem to understand that they are wrong and wants to improve (which is why I think it should only be a temp ban), but it is also pretty clear that this is not an isolated incident despite repeated warnings. Having them take time off and edit less heated areas should be good for both them and the topic. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
That was my intention. As OP, I never supported an indef tban or a block, just a temporary time-out. Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban; worth an anti-bludgeoning warning at best. The user appears to have taken the feedback on board and is willing to moderate their behaviour. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and OP comment[edit]

When I started this thread, I had no idea it would turn into this. I do not edit in the LGBTQ-area (though vocally pro-LGBTQ in real life) and do not know the editors in that topic area. I though and still think this was a pretty simple case. At WP:RSN, I saw a user (Newimpartial) trying to pass off an obviously unsuitable source and then WP:BLUDGEON the ensuing discussion at length. I am sorry to see so many users above showing no indication of even having read the discussion. I count at least four users above who simply argue along the lines of Newimpartial is great and any effort to tban them is bigoted without a word about the report or the case at WP:RSN; one even suggesting a boomerang without the slightest indication of what the reasons would be. The only possible explanation I can see is that these users believe that sanctions at WP should not be based on behavior but on whom our "friends" are. At least they have not offered any other explanation for their oppose votes than their opinion that Newimpartial is great and anyone saying otherwise is bigoted (I recognize, of course, that some other users have opposed my suggestion with perfectly relevant and policy-related arguments). I must say I find it deeply ironic that these same users claim my suggestion for a temporary tban is mob-behavior, while acting this way themselves. It would be immensely helpful if editors would comment on the actual situation at WP:RSN. Finally, for what it's worth, I do not consider Newimpartial an 'opponent' in any way and don't remember even one interaction with them apart from this one case related to WP:RS. I proposed a temporary tban in the hope of seeing them return. Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The situation at RSN is that I disengaged, albeit uneasily, from the discussion I was bludgeoning. I will not be bludgeoning again, and would also welcome a 30 day, three month, or six month TBAN from RSN as a mental health break. Even my blugeoning comments at the article Talk page are better to be understood as anarchist source issues rather than GENSEX or BLP issues, and you won't be hearing my small-minority view on those sources on-wiki again, either.
There simply is no continuing RSN disruption arising from me for ANI to manage, nor will there be in future. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Reply by Newimpartial[edit]

Added statement (to save editors' time)

* for those who wonder how I made such a blunder in the sourcing of the BLP article that I restored the blog source twice into article space, the long version is here. I will not be doing that, or anything like it, again.

* for those concerned about my history of BLUDGEON, and who are concerned that a bludgeon restriction (which I welcome) would be insufficient to prevent disruption because of my tendency to personalize disputes, my reflections on what I need to change are [70]. The changes I am committed to go well beyond simply not making multiple comments.

(End of added statement)

Original statement:

Jeppiz, I made a total of three reverts to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, none of which included any contentious BLP material, and all of which were article text that was part of the article's stable version. There were no BLP violations, as far as I can see. In fact, At the time, I did not see any {(tq|BLP violations}}, and I removed any some questionable material when I reverted. Now, it turned out that one source that I reverted-in was an WP:RSOPINION piece, which nobody seemed to notice until it was pointed out by Levivich; if I had noticed that I would not have used it. The other source was an anarchist blog but I did not insert accusations, or any form of insert what am understood at the time to be BLP content to the article. Clearly I misread one source and also misread community sentiment on the other, but I did not do the thing you accuse me of. (Also, since my mistaken reverts, other editors have reverted to remove material from the article that is sources to WP:RS anarchist publications, also not including any contentious material.) Would I revert again, under similar circumstances? No, I would not - I should have let the dust settle on Talk.

And yes, I bludgeoned that RSN discussion. I was frustrated at other editors interpteting WP:BLP as though it required that non-contentious, non-biographical information in BLP articles could not be sourced to SPS other than ABOUTSELF sources. I regret becoming invested in that discussion and would not do so again. It was not a positive for the community.

I have no doubt that editors who have been frustrated with my contributions in the past will seize the opportunity to try to remove an opponent from the GENSEX domain express their frustration as the !vote on this filing. I encourage the admin and the community to look at my contributions as a whole, however: I never edit against consensus, I always explain my actions as clearly as I can, and I do a large number of the shitty reverts agaist drive-by POV accounts who aim to taunt and belittle trans and nonbinary people like me at every opportunity - and I do so calmly and politely almost to a fault. Anyone who suggests that it is especially my contributions that disrupt GENSEX editing is probably either occupying an uncompromising POV of their own or just hasn't really examined my edit history. Having annoyed some editors who disagree with me on various things is not really the same thing as causing disruption to enwiki. My participation in the noticeboard discussions that followed my reverts was disruptive, but this disruption was confined to WP:IDHT on noticeboards and was not related to the WP:GENSEX topic in any profound way.

I would also point out, as a nonbinary editor, after all of the misgendering and gender-based innuendos, personal attacks, and accusations of POV that I have received over the years, it might be understandable if I had become a somewhat partisan editor. However, I really don't think that's what my record says - I continue to base my edits on the BALANCE of sources, especially high-quality sources, in strict accordance with WP's P&G. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC) added comment by Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Additional statement added by Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Redaction and replacement based on my reflection over thsee three days, by Newimpartial (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

    • Short reply to Newimpartial. To the best of my knowledge, we never interacted before; your insinuation that my report is because of "frustration with your contributions" is inaccurate. My report is based only on your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in the past days. I don't know your past contributions and can have no issue with them. The report concerns your recent behavior and nothing else. Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
      • That comment was not about you, it was about the other editors I expect will continue to join this discussion.
      • If your concern is limited to the BLUDGEON and the BLP reverts, I won't be doing either of those things again, so you don't need to be concerned. I see that I have gone past the community norm, and that won't be repeated. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I think accusing editors of voting for a TBAN as trying to remove an opponent (something you have asserted twice in two separate discussions on ANI today) is simply an accusation of bad faith, and refusing to get the point. — Czello 23:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Upon reflection, Czello, you are right that my comment was not constructive and that I missed some key aspects of the filing. I have redacted that and similar comments above, and you have my apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate you recognising this, thank you. — Czello 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Czello, I'm not a "whataboutist" by nature, but remember last month when you twice [71] [72] reverted to insert a pretrtransition photo in a Trans BLP infobox and also inserted a non-notable birth name into an article against both the relevant guideline and Talk page consensus? Both of those seemed like BLP issues to me, but when I responded with the new CTOP template - no accusations, no threats - you got all huffy.
aww:So you find me accused of a less sensitive kind of BLP issue, you push for an indefinite topic ban, and I am not supposed to think you are treating me as an opponent? How would you characterize the contrast between your letting yourself off the hook and your desire to see me sanctioned, then? I am no more likely to add content from anarchist blogs than you are to add pretransition photos to infoboxes, but for some reason you feel I require a spanking TBAN... Newimpartial (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
And after the relevant guideline (not policy, keep in mind) was shown to me, I immediately thanked the person who showed linked it, closed my own thread on whether the photo should be there, and let the matter drop without complaint. If you think a mild disagreement on a trans BLP means we're opponents, that's unfortunate - but I think that mentality is exactly why this TBAN proposal exists. How do you account for the other people supporting a TBAN? Are they also your opponents? — Czello 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Czello, I am here at ANI facing accusations of 3RRBLP violations based on the same number of reverts, concerning less sensitive material, than you introduced at Gabbi Tuft. Yes, I bludgeoned the ensuing discussion and yes, I was wrong to do so. But in this discussion I see a pile-on from a long list of editors I have disagreed with on GENSEX issues - and barring one who accused me of psychological abuse, without any evidence, none of the others have even cited a WP:CIVIL violation.
There isn't any evidence of DISRUPTION on my part aside from BLUDGEON, and I recognise I have to stop bludgeoning both for the sake of the community and for my own, quite apart from any sanction or ban. But for the editors like you, calling for an indef TBAN on gender and sexuality - what is that, besides either (1) punishing an editor for causing annoyance in the past or (2) removing someone who might make annoying arguments in future? I can't see any way in which the actual health of the project would be improved through a TBAN, given the frequency with which I reinforce and calmly explain our policy framework within this domain. I'm not saying other editors can't do this work, but I've been doing a lot of it, and to see editors I've disagreed with set that aside to remove my voice from the topic - well, some of them are clearly treating me as opponents, is all. If you can reflect internally and don't feel you are, that's great, but would you have !voted as you did if you hadn't disagreed with me in prior GENSEX discussions? Really? Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
In answer to your final question - you may not believe me, but yes, I'm afraid I would have. To be honest, last week's disagreement is something I consider to be pretty mild (perhaps you don't, as you've mentioned it to my count four times now) and I even concede that you had the right guidelines where I did not. I don't hold any hard feelings there. Instead my belief that this is the right vote is based on longer trends I've noticed that others have echoed, particularly around a battlefield mentality on a topic area that clearly means a lot to you. Even where I'm not involved in the discussion (I actually can't remember many instances we've interacted other than last week) I still notice the things others have described in this discussion. The biggest issue I've noticed in the past 24 hours, though, is the assumptions of bad faith. You've said we're trying to "remove an opponent", assuming this is part of some ideological battle, or reacted with hostility to what was most likely an accident. It doesn't help the idea that there's a battleground mentality, which goes back my original statement of until such time they can separate their personal beliefs from their Wikipedia editing. I don't consider you an opponent, but I fear you consider me one. — Czello 13:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
If this is your idea of me "reacting with hostility" to being misgendered, then you clearly haven't been following my story arc - there as a time when I might have reacted with hostility, but that was a mild rebuke at best.
The thing about the TBAN !votes here is that, in essentially every case, I can follow the interaction tool back to the instance when I pissed off the editor in question. Often that was my RSN BLUDGEON the other day, sometimes it was back to my controversial reading of WP:SIGCOV or a dispute over an article lead from years ago. But there is almost always one inciting incident where I pissed the editor off, and some of those relate to GENSEX but many do not, or only tangentially.
Do these editors consider me an opponent? I don't read minds; I have no real way of knowing. Do I consider them "opponents"? Not really. But while I don't see any likelihood of future disruption to be prevented by a TBAN, I do see a longish line of editors who feel that I "deserve" one because of disagreements I've had with them in the past. I know that's how ANI works - I'm not naïve - but it's not how the relevant P&Gs are supposed to work, and it makes me sad. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I did consider the first sentence to be hostile for what was an accident, but Colin below makes a fair point - I won't belabour the point and I understand you're probably getting it from all sides here, so I regret linking that. I apologise if this caused you distress. I think it's probably best, to avoid going round in circles, that I leave this thread here for now. I've made the points I intended to make; we may agree to disagree on editors' motivations in participating in this discussion. Have a good one. — Czello 13:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Czello, I see you linked to Newimpartial's reaction to my pronoun mistake. I checked your user page and don't see any comments about pronouns or being trans or non-binary, so I'll assume you are not. Please don't lecture members of another minority group about how upset they should or should not be when someone causes them offense and upset over an aspect of their identity. That incident, though accidental, was careless on my part and should overall be treated as a negative mark against me. Remember also this is AN/I and Newimpartial is being dragged over the coals, so they should be cut a little slack if their response to that sort of thing is of the "Oh FFS" variety. -- Colin°Talk 13:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
none of which included any contentious BLP material. That you still state this, despite nearly all editors at the three discussion pages (including myself) saying the material contentious, is disconcerting. What is or isn't contentious can be subjective, and definitely something tainted by each of our individual viewpoints, certainly. Hence, it is easy to see one BRD cycle involving possibly contentious BLP material, but this should lead to a consensus agreement if the material is contentious or not and settle that manner. It seems that you have decided to double down against the consensus that the material added wasn't BLP contentious, which definitely does not help a case against inf def from the BLP space or any subset of it. I know we have had to de with editors in the past that initially refuse to accept some material as not being contentious, and thus removing material against consensus, but most if the big cases I recall, there was a consensus to determine that and said editors accepted it, even if they personally still thought it contentious. That lack of accepting that consensus is troubling. Masem (t) 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
non-contentious, non-biographical information - the material in question was about some egregious behavior from the subject's supporters, included in the subject's article because they are her supporters. Adding material to a BLP about the kind of person who supports the subject is obviously relevant to the BLP policy. Further, as multiple people have challenged the material, it's obviously contentious. It's a plausible misreading of policy, but one which was pointed out multiple times before the above statement, which is just kind of perplexing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I did not reinstate the material in question after multiple people had challenged it. Also, the relevant question for future disruption is Would I reinstate similar content in future and the answer is No, I would not. I haven't had issues with BLP editing in the past, and I won't in the future. This was a one-time aberration. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I had asked you to self-revert, AnimalParty had objected to the source, and then you simply deleted my request on your talk page asking you to self-revert by denying anything was wrong with the material. Even after multiple editors had objected to the sourcing, you doubled down on the source's reliability with extremely dubious reasoning that flies in the face of WP:RS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
My final revert to include material from this source was at 20:37; AnimalParty's objection was 20 minutes later. While I continued to BLUDGEON disagree with the two of you, I did not re-add that content again, once it became clear that multiple editors objected. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
They need to take a walk around the block, drink some coffee, do the Sad Keanu, and get their head on straight. Sennalen (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, Rhododendrites, I now understand that the community expects essentially all objections to the addition or re-addition of material in BLP articles to be subject to WP:BLPRESTORE. I was in error not to have recognised this, and will abide by it in future in all cases (whether or not covered by other CTOP sanctions). Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Note to closer - this would be a good instance to try to distinguish involved from uninvolved !votes. A simple interaction check will confirm that most of the !votes opposing sanctions come from editors I haven't interacted with (many of whom I don't know), while the !votes in favor of sanctions come from editors who would show recent interactions with me (mostly on GENSEX topics, yet no actual evidence of ADVOCACY on my part has been presented). I believe that the opinion of uninvolved Administrators is the gold standard in assessing the likelihood of future disruption. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Are you seriously saying that AN/I should only look at the opinions of those who had never interacted with you till today? You earlier claimed about the ban votes: "in essentially every case, I can follow the interaction tool back to the instance when I pissed off the editor". You're kinda saying "The more people get to know me, the more they are likely to request that they don't have to work with me again". That you've managed to "piss off" everyone you've worked with on the project and that all the sanction votes are bad faith grudges. I'm sure some of them may be coming from editors trying to remove a piece from the board. That comes with the territory. But plenty votes are coming from editors who are, frankly, on the same side of the board. Note that the opinion of "Administrators" counts no higher than the opinion of "editors". They get to play with more buttons, that's all. -- Colin°Talk 16:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't express this well, but my understanding is that closure and/or enforcement is to be carried out by uninvolved admin. Obviously everyone can have a say in the discussion.
But I do still feel that people who !vote because they are annoyed with their interaction with someone are seldom the best judges of the likelihood that that person will contribute to future disruption. Frankly, I get that my tendency to be argumentative - not just the fact of bludgeon, but my style of comment - has led to this drama. I have to edit differently.
But if you read the indef TBAN votes with any kind of critical distance, I don't think you'll see any sober evaluation of editor contribution versus likelihood of disruption - rather, it amounts to "this editor has been bad and should be removed". I don't see a consideration there that is relevant to our behavioural norms - yes, I have been bad, I see how I have been bad, and I want to be better. And I'm also concerned that my being excluded from that area will remove some experience and nuance that I carry from situations where I can help. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
If you can point me to an AN/I that contained a "sober evaluation of editor contribution versus likelihood of disruption" I'd be surprised. NewImpartial, Sandy below highlighted the importance of friends not letting friends get to the stage where they are at AN/I facing sanctions. Here's some examples: "I would rather all editors on that page upped their game than got their editing rights curtailed.... A battle about what the LGB Alliance once said in a deleted tweet is not something you want to be earning diffs on for a topic ban." I advised you about how you were falling into the behaviour outlined at WP:ACTIVIST and said "Compromise is very much about knowing when to back down, and let someone else win an inch, even if you are right." When I came to warn you about edit warring I wrote "I really am not going to be the editor taking you to AE or AN/I or filing any reports. So this isn't a threat-warning, it is a for crying out loud, Newimpartial, are you trying to get yourself topic banned warning." And your response was not any kind of acceptance that editing in a topic area with sanctions dangling over it might require a better standard of behaviour than that, but boasts that your edit warring resulted in improved text. Understanding that edit warring is bad is basic stuff, Newimpartial, and you just dug in and kept digging till I ended with "Well its your account, hurtle your self towards a topic ban if that's what you want."
While I see some comments from you of the "I've been bad and will try harder" variety, I haven't really seen any recognition that perhaps the people commenting negatively about you have a point that you need to go away and have a hard think about.
You "being excluded from that area" will indeed remove an experienced editor. But that's the problem. Other editors see an "experienced editor" behaving and acting and editing like you are, filling talk pages with arguments about you said I said you said, edit warring, arguing to keep any old crap they find on the Internet if the can insist the source is reliable, and getting away with it. So they do likewise. I'd rather have an inexperienced editor who made mistakes but was who was open to learn, than an experienced editor who was disruptive and hostile to criticism. -- Colin°Talk 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: over at RSN Jeppiz asked you if are aware of WP:BLUDGEON and you responded with: No. Is today really the first time you had heard of BLUDGEON or were you just being sly? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not been able to pay consistent attention to pulling away from engaging discussions, to avoid BLUDGEON, and so in that sense I have not been "aware" of it much of the time. After today, however, I will find ways to remain mindful, with or without a sanction being in place.
I actually see the point of a "BLUDGEON restriction" on myself and do not oppose that. But watching editors !vote to ban me from GENSEX for my having bludgeoned about Anarchist blogs and RS publications - a discussion only tangentially related to GENSEX - I find difficult to accept. Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
For a more direct answer to your question than is given above, Newimpartial has received talk page notices and taken place in numerous discussions in which they demonstrated awareness of WP:BLUDGEON, including (but not limited to) the following that I am placing in a collapsible box so as to not take up too much vertical space on the screen:
Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support User is a consistent battleground poster who bludgeons, chooses to ignore consensus, tendentiously edits, etc. At some point, whether their cause is good or not, it has to stop.Lulfas (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think there has been a single time when I have chosen to ignore consensus or edited tendentiously. I have bludgeoned Talk discussions, but I won't do so any more, regardless of the outcome here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    You edited tendentiously at Talk:Gender, for one. This discussion and our talk page discussions which I linked to above are where there is evidence of your psychological abuse, intentional or not. This behavior is insidious and unfortunately the entire discussions must be read to be understood; a list of diffs won't do it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    You haven't shown evidence that I edited tendentiously at Talk:Gender, for example by moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion.
    I also find it troubling and ironic that you seem unable to discuss this topic without repeating completely unsubstantiated allegations of psychological abuse. I trust that this will be given due consideration in the closing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that I was moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions someone had taken in discussion, or that I have accused you of this? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    The signs of tendentious editing are documented here; the discussion at Talk:Gender relevant to sourcing requirements is at Talk:Gender#Simplified_Definition_2. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I feel psychologically abused. My feelings require no proof other than my statement as a witness. Folks can read the discussions and judge your behavior for themselves.
    It looks like Genericusername57 may have had similar difficulties with you regarding sourcing, based on this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    You didn't say "I felt psychologically abused". You linked to a discussion and said that there was evidence there of psychological abuse. I participated (a little) in that talk page's mega-discussion, and even I don't know where exactly you want us to look. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    I said both things. I believe psychological abusive occurred. Regardless, my feeling of experiencing psychological abusive requires no evidence. Newimpartial repeatedly accused me of gaslighting, as the links to their talk page show. I myself felt gaslit throughout that discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Kolya Butternut: I'll grant that others have also cast aspersions, made unproven allegations and generally been uncivil but this seems slightly WP:POINTy and an unnecessary unproductive thread. We see where the editor in question made unfounded gaslighting accusations through the diffs posted, there's no need to redo the argument here and it will help nobody. The WordsmithTalk to me 06:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Comment withdrawn after further discussion with this editor. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment This is meant for triggering a conversation rather than me personally wanting an answer. NewImpartial, the issues raised above are broader than just bludgeoning, including interacting with other editors in a battleground manner on contentious topics and advocacy-driven approaches to editing and interaction. Might this be a good time to outline and do a substantial sincere evolution on those things? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    I have recorded my recent reflections on what I need to do, to limit my argumentative tendencies and to avoid personalizing disputes, on my User Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal on temporary banning Newimpartial from ANI[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose Newimpartial be banned temporarily from ANI for a week. Statements from them can still be shared from their talk page by editors wishing to do so, but their bludgeoning in a thread about their bludgeoning elsewhere will make community discussion on other disruptive behaviour harder. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 01:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support. This could be enforced with a WP:PBLOCK that would allow discussion to continue unimpeded by bludgeoning.Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this restriction is transparently silly, authoritarian, and that essentially no amount of replies from a subject at an ANI report about themselves counts as WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment above struck. I had misread the proposal; I would support a one-week PBLOCK as an immediate measure at WP:RSN. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: a user should be able to defend themselves zealously. BLUDGEON should not count in this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 01:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest this be withdrawn. Editors under discussion typically have a wide latitude in defending their actions here, and it is likely the closing admin will take this information into account. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An editor defending themselves against accusations of bludgeoning by bludgeoning the discussion is inadvisable, but we don't have the right to restrict their participation in such a discussion on that basis. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the OP of the suggestion for a temporary TBAN, I want Newimpartial to be able to take part. Can I also state I bear no ill-will at all to Newimpartial and have seen no uncivil behavior from them. They seem overly invested, and I thought and think a temporary ban may benefit them and the project, but I do want Newimpartial to remain on WP. Jeppiz (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stern talking to[edit]

Tewdar mentions at 09:44 22 February that a "stern telling off would probably achieve the desired outcome without any need for topic bans or other restrictions", so that’s where I am coming in. Beginning with:

  1. Wikifriends of Newimpartial: please read User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned
  2. Editors whose views are aligned with Newimpartial: please remember that the overall disdain that much of the community holds for the nastiness that occurs in the GenSex editing area affects perceptions of everyone who edits there. It is a relief to see that even those who may be aligned with Newimpartial's views are finally willing to stand up to these behaviors.
  3. @Buidhe, Beyond My Ken, and ValarianB: I point out to you that both Rhododendrites and Iamreallygoodatcheckers asked clarifying questions rather than entering declarations. Specifically to you, ValarianB: where do you come up with, "This is a mob trying to remove an opponent from the game board", because I’m seeing the opposite (editors whose views align with those of Newimpartial's taking their behaviors to task). See my point 1; is your input really helpful to either Newimpartial or Wikipedia?
So, that’s the stern talking to for editors other than Newimpartial weighing in here.
I disagree with framing this as a bludgeoning issue, as the issue with Newimpartial is combativeness to the point of disruption. I have had fairly extensive interaction with Newimpartial both because of being a medical editor and because of J. K. Rowling, where retaining the FA status is a very rare success story on Wikipedia.
We were able to restore the prototypical GENSEX featured article to status through a months-long Featured article review, and my impression of how and why we were able to do that is that, from the outset, Newimpartial's combativeness was reined in. I found every other editor—of any POV or alignment with trans issues—collaborative and willing to see both sides and work to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines regardless of their personal views.
I am particularly discouraged by this discussion and this recent followup to this ANI thread, as they reflect that Newimpartial is not taking on board—and perhaps not even likely to take on board—the long-standing and serious concerns with their combativeness. I have quite a favorable impression of Sideswipe9th's competence as an editor, having edited extensively around them in both medical content and JKR.
The behavioral problem was exactly what I found early on in the J. K. Rowling FAR. I invite those here who are weighing in as if the concerns here are along "mob" lines to review my experiences in these JKR-related threads and make their own decisions.
  • User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch115#Rowling other: January 2022, at the beginning of the JKR FAR. I did not take Newimpartial to arb enforcement here, as I didn’t understand the process well and still hoped things would work out by persistently pointing out to Newimpartial how often they unnecessarily personalized discussions and became combative. That conversation is summed up when Dennis Brown said to Newimpartial: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. It doesn't matter if you agree with the hole or not, it's not your hole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)”. Newimpartial, please reflect on that relative to current concerns about your tendency to not be able to drop the stick.
    In this subsection, if you read through the whole thing, you will find a list of the areas of concern I had with Newimpartial.
  • User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch116#Query: March 2022, further along in the JKR FAR. Still having to remind Newimpartial to stop personalizing on the FAR. Read the whole thing; draw your own conclusions.
  • Previous topic ban discussion
For the stern talking to, Newimpartial, I experience you as a severely combative editor whose behavior, in my opinion, brings ill-repute to the entire GENSEX area of editing. I have found none of the others intransigent in their views or in their application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Watching the very long-standing issues between you and Crossroads in medical content, before the JKR FAR, I was unsure which of you was at fault for the contention. The JKR FAR indicated to me that the fault lies more with you than with Crossroads. I do not think that either Wikipedia or your fellow editors are best served by allowing you to continue on this path.
Please do not show up on my talkpage with a side discussion about my views (the discussion stays here). Please DO take this as a very stern warning that your conduct is problematic and even those whose views align with yours are telling you it needs to change. Regardless of whether a topic ban is initiated here, you should have at least a 1RR restriction; Colin does not edit war, and you are well advised to listen to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I just wanted to specify my agreement with your folliwing points (per my Thank, earlier):
  • the issue with Newimpartial is combativeness
  • We were able to restore the prototypical GENSEX featured article to status through a months-long Featured article review, and my impression of how and why we were able to do that is that, from the outset, Newimpartial's combativeness was reined in.
  • That conversation is summed up when Dennis Brown said to Newimpartial: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. It doesn't matter if you agree with the hole or not, it's not your hole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)”.
I grok what you are saying. That is all. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
That's welcome progress :) To everyone else lining up to ban or not, again, please read Barkeep's essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, not quite all. In the spirit of the discussion stays here, I'd ask you to read two diffs from earlier today, prior to your thoughtful and heartfelt comment, where I reflect on the ways I've violated community norms and where I specify that "I get that my tendency to be argumentative - not just the fact of bludgeon, but my style of comment - has led to this drama. I have to edit differently." You can count me among those who are telling me that my on-wiki attitude and behaviour need to change. Continuing along this path without taking a less combative approach wouldn't be a positive for anyone, for myself or for the community. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I am happy to see progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Additional reflections about the way I personalize disputes - an onwiki issue I believe you to have been the first to point out to me in those terms - may be found on my User Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • NI, I'm pretty sure we agree more than we disagree. I don't know that we're wiki-friends, but you're one of only a few editors I thought of when I read Barkeep's essay. I'm sorry that I didn't share my thoughts with you earlier. I've supported this "stern telling off" over other sanctions, because I have some confidence that you can listen and change. Even when I agree with you, your prolific responses to main points, side points, tangential points, conduct matters, and straight-up trolling can put me off of talk page discussions. You're not the only one out there turning one-sentence GENSEX content disputes into novellas, but you're a major player. I don't think it'll take an anti-bludgeoning sanction to get this out of you, but it would make me happy to see more "I'd like to address three of the major counterarguments" comments from you, including in this discussion.
    I have more thoughts on your editing patterns, but I don't want to overly add to the barrage of criticism (some constructive) heading your way right now. If you're up for it in a month or so, I'd be happy to talk with you at your user talk or over email. It saddens me to see you here, and I hope you're keeping your spirits up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Whenever you feel would be the right time, I invite your comments on my self-reflection on my User talk. I found your brief comments here quite helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm unaware of any precedent for a bludgeoning restriction in Wikipedia history. The closest I can think of were a number of "civility parole" restrictions placed by Arbcom on a number of editors in the 2006-2010 era, most notably Giano and a similar "belittlement" restriction on The Rambling Man around ~2016. None of them worked out well, being more effectively weaponized by their "enemies" to suppress legitimate dialogue from them and intentionally provoking so they could be sanctioned and leading to more ongoing drama. Many of the editors under those restrictions ended up community banned, partially because they were weaponized against the editor. I don't think anybody wants that here. I'm all for getting creative with sanctions, but I don't think crafting a custom bludgeoning restriction would work very well. I think the standard tool of a topic ban, perhaps carefully crafted to only apply to organizations and BLP material related to GENSEX (to allow a bit more freedom) would probably be more likely to end up with a productive editor and less disruption. I can only speak for myself, but if the sanction I just mentioned were implemented and this editor spent maybe 6 months productively in other topic areas demonstrating that they understood policies on BLP, sourcing, disruptive editing (bludgeoning, IDHT, battleground mentality etc) I would be thrilled to support lifting the hypothetical sanction. The WordsmithTalk to me 06:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    I seem to detect here a possible willingness on your part to exclude Wikipedia policies and guidelines on GENSEX from a handcrafted GENSEX topic ban. If so, I feel if that could be done it would go some way to relieve one of my concerns expressed above - the loss of experience with the policy history and the possibility that that could be GAMED for POV purposes. However, very many edits I make on GENSEX are reverts of BLP violations through MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME violations; some of those are from IPs or fresh accounts but others, like this recent one by Czello are made by experienced editors. (Incidentally, lest these reverts be seen as one-sided, I also revert to retain MOS-compliant former names of trans people, which I know makes some other trans and bombing editors uncomfortable. But policy is policy.)
    I guess the other objection I have with this form of creativity is that my tendency to BLUDGEON and to personalize disputes is not at all limited to GENSEX topics, as Sennalen and Tewdar (both of whom have commented in this discussion) can attest. The friction I have had with JoelleJay in the past also had nothing to do with the GENSEX topic. So I think the change in approach I describe here may be more to the point. Perhaps "non-argumentative probation", where everyone understands that if I don't change my patterns, I will be sanctioned, would be the most promising strategy from the encyclopaedia's (and the community's) point of view. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Tewdar if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And now you are. Copying my response to Newimpartial from User talk:Sideswipe9th to here. Have a look at the baiting personalizing battleground going on between you and Tewdar on your talk under "On being argumentative. Now try to convince me that a) Tewdar has read a single word I wrote; b) Tewdar is not baiting both you and Crossroads; c) Tewdar is not partisan, putting their earlier declaration in perspective; d) Tewdar is acting in your best interest; or e) you took on board a single thing I wrote on my talk page in January and March about unnecessary personalization. Tewdar may have laid the bait, but you wholeheartedly bit. At a time when editors like me are contemplating whether to support or oppose a tban, this is not a good look. Even while under scrutiny, the two of you are unable to avoid bringing up Crossroads, and this is precisely the behavior that makes GENSEX toxic.
In the same vein, Transarchist (an editor I know not) just did the same thing, so I'm likely to enter a declaration there once I finish shoveling snow. The baiting, biting, attacking, personalizing, belittling of other editors needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I see what you mean; I have put and end to and removed from my Talk the discussion concerned. To paraphrase what Tewdar said earlier, change is hard. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Excellent. It's very simple: WP:FOC. And now Tewdar needs to take the stern talking to on board as well, because unless/until this aspect of GENSEX editor behavior changes, y'all are headed for an arbcase. As I pointed out in January and March of 2022, the points can be made without personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
baiting, biting, attacking, personalizing, belittling of other editors sounds like a bit of an overreaction to what was essentially a joke about a potentially lengthy response, no? I don't have a problem with Crossroads actually. After some initial, erm, intensive debates, we get on quite well whenever I encounter him these days, which isn't very often.  Tewdar  20:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant and unhelpful response. In the part of my post you re-quoted, I was speaking generally-- specifically in reference to the Transarchist thread. And if you think joking about anything between Crossroads and Newimpartial at this delicate stage was a good idea, some introspection is in order. There is a toxicity in GENSEX editing partly because the arbs failed to finish the job when it was before them, and the result is that the entire area is painted with a negative brush, in spite of the proof that collegial editing in the area is possible (J. K. Rowling), and in spite of a few of Wikipedia's finest editors working in that area without these kinds of behaviors (Colin, Sideswipe9th and Firefangledfeathers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Still sounded like an overreaction. But I shall try and take on board your advice about making jokes. I honestly just saw the section header, thought of the Butler title, and started rambling on without thinking of the consequences. Apologies to all.  Tewdar  21:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Tewdar; there's a lot that needs to change in this editing area (including unfair perceptions considering the proof of good editing and editors), and everyone can help get things back on the right footing without another arbcase. We know how it can be done :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I personally don't believe it needs another arbcase. While I don't edit in that topic area anymore (working on finance and literature articles is more healthy mentally to me), I remember there being plenty of new-ish editors coming in with good intentions, a willingness to learn, and a collaborative mindset. Additionally, it is clear to me that compared to another contentious topic area I was briefly involved with (see WP:ARBSCE) and one I'm currently interacting with (WP:AA2) this topic area has both the amount of attention and lack of defined 'teams' (to put it someway) so as to prevent it from really going off the rails to where an additional case becomes necessary. Of course, I'm sure more active editors might disagree. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 21:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would ask folks who support only a stern talking to to look at my !vote which begins above with Support indefinite topic ban based on behavior on this ANI (sorry for the bouncing around). Their comments to me at this ANI make me question the sincerity of everything they've said here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The more of it I read, the more it looks like a theatrical performance, designed to steer people toward an interpretation that what we've witnessed is just some former bad behavior patterns unique to talk/noticeboard spaces, and now behold the new NewImpartial; rather than observe that it's an overall bad behavior problem at the intersection of GENSEX topics and that editor. The specific behavior that prompted this filing is just one of many wave crests (and most of that specific behavior has repeated continuously throughout this ANI discussion; there's nothing former about it).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, to be clear, I think the attribution of bludgeon and argumentative behaviour to the intersection of GENSEX topics and that editor has not been supported by evidence - I myself have pointed to prior instances from my editing outside of GENSEX (and indeed, the noticeboard filings that got me here were about the reliability of Anarchist web publications, and only tangentially related to GENSEX). I would also point out that other editors have engaged in bad behaviour in GENSEX topics, prior to and outside of my own participation.
What I am able to do is simply to take ownership of my own actions - I will not BLUDGEON future discussions, inside or outside of GENSEX, with or without a formal restriction. I will also do my best to avoid lapsing into my patterns of argumentative behaviour and will accept the nudges offered when I lean in that direction (as already happened last month).
Finally, SMcCandlish, if my exercise in striking through my inaccurate or argumentative comments in this ANI doesn't help you to distinguish between what I now expect of myself and my past behaviour, I trust that my track record in future will convince you eventually that the interpretation - that I am not underming the project through bludgeon or argumentativeness - has come to represent a simple, established fact. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBAN and support temporary anti-bludgeon restriction - Based on the arguments and evidence provided, do not believe a topic ban is needed, as NewImpartial has shown compromise, and willingness to compromise on contentious sources for citations, but their interaction with other editors has caused issues. --Cdjp1 23:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support temporary TBAN and oppose temporary anti-bludgeon restriction This one was more difficult. I find user:Newimpartial to be an extremely intelligent and prolific contributor. While we have been on opposite sides of an argument, for example on the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article, in the past I have found them to be a reasonable opponent. Lately though, I feel like there has been much more of an edge/activist angle to their edits. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a bludgeoning tool or as a weapon, and I believe that user:Newimpartial has lost sight of this. A short (say 3-month) topic ban gives them some time to reflect, and doesn't have any lasting permanent effect, except to remind user:Newimpartial that there are consequences to one's actions. I would also hope that user:Newimpartial doesn't find such a short and limited sanction to be objectionable. All it asks is that she stay away from gensex topics for 3 months. If user:Newimpartial objects to such a minor "punishment" (especially after writing that they understand how they have erred), I believe this says more about the user than the sanction itself. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:FD27:AF83:F025:53FA (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
More heat than light to an already heated situation. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 10:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it likely...

... that there are any more threads trying to "get rid" of editors from the GENSEX arena who are pushing against the "gender-critical" advocates, of whom there seem to be more and more every time you look? There are already threads trying to remove Transarchist, Silverseren and Newimpartial. I just wondered in case we could merge them into one big section entitled "People we'd like to silence", or something similar. It would make things a lot easier. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is dumb. Arkon (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Frankly, this is starting to feel like we might need ArbCom to examine the GENSEX area and all the individuals involved here. This is starting to get way too "us vs them." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
You're not wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This topic area might end up there (again...) but I'm still holding out hope the community can use the available tools to clean out the area before it comes to that. For future issues of disruption in this general vicinity, AE is probably better equipped to sort through it with more structure and less noise. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Totally agreed that AE/ARE are more functional (and evidence-based) venues. I rather think that had this filing concerning by actions been made there instead of here, it would be resolved by now with considerably less Sturm und Drang. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I don't think this is a fair reading of how these threads have gone. I actually totally see your point on Tranarchist. That thread reads to me largely like people trying to punish someone for having outspoken pro-trans views off-wiki. I don't mean to say that every person to !vote on Tranarchist has !voted in a party-line[1] way, but I see a scary paucity of evidence of actual disruption, and it reminds me of... well, a certain other past incident in which many community members expressed the view that a trans editor should be punished for criticizing transphobia in a way that didn't affect content. But I object to the notion that there's a pattern across these three threads, other than the topic area. Silver seren's was closed with little appetite for sanctions, and if you look at the topic area regulars who are (perceived to be) on the pro-trans side, you'll find quite a bit of support for sanctions for Newimpartial, including from myself.[1] I think what this really boils down to is that whoever closes the two remaining threads should be careful to look for arguments based on policy and guideline—The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive—and not on "a bare [communal] desire to harm a politically unpopular group". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I think what you're seeing is that people who are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS feel entitled or even obligated to disregard normal content and civility guidelines, leading them here. Sennalen (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Since this is a subsection of my ANI, I would like to deny any implication that I am here to RGW. I only seek to see Wikipedia content that is written in WP:NPOV language and that maximally reflects the information provided in the highest quality RS available for each topic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
We're all just talking about "people" here. Sennalen (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Sennalen, forgive me if I've misinterpreted your remark and I'll happy amend or strike if I have but, as much as I think that Newimpartial has been disruptive on talk page discussions, see my !vote rationale above for my thoughts, I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree that they are here to right great wrongs. They are absolutely here to build an encyclopaedia. They have a passionate interest in improving our articles, and making sure that our content is wholly policy compliant, even if they have a differing view on how some policies should be interpreted.
Of the oppose !voters that I recognise and have interacted with, I would also say that they are also all here to build an encyclopaedia. Speaking in general terms, like Newimpartial they are all editors who are here to make sure our content complies with the relevant policies, and while I may have had my disagreements with them at times I've never come away from discussions with any of them thinking "Wow, this editor sure is advocating for violating policy". Several of them I've seen active on some articles relating to this discussion and the one on TheTranarchist above over the last few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BEINSCRUTABLE Sennalen (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I'm following your logic here, at least not in the way that you're probably intending it. Would you care to elaborate before I go off on a wrong tangent? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Anyone can turn down a wikifight they don't think they'd win. That's weak character evidence. People who are serious about building an encyclopedia will WP:STEELMAN opposing views. Sennalen (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
You're getting dangerously close to saying something unacceptable. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:38D6:2866:26A1:4193 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
You're right. "Have you ever been to Belgium in fact?"[73] Sennalen (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Still not following your logic. While steelmanning might apply in some content areas, in others it is entirely inappropriate. When you're editing in a content area like GENSEX or medicine, where the opposing viewpoint is inherently fringe, pseudoscientific, and not supported by reliable sources, writing for the opponent is inherently a NPOV violation. For example, transphobia and homophobia in GENSEX are two viewpoints that are ideologically opposed to the mainstream view of acceptance and normalisation of different sexualities and gender identities. Or homeopathy and anti-vaxxers are pseudoscientific opponents again to the mainstream medical view that homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo, and that vaccines are both safe and effective. Steelmanning in both of those cases would result in us writing content that runs afoul of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and numerous other content policies and guidelines.
Could you state plainly what you mean please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Represent all point of views neutrally and with due weight - all points of view, not excluding homeopathy or transphobia. This does not violate any content policies and guidelines. Neutrality does not mean false balance, and due weight does not necessitate throwing any old rubbish into our articles.  Tewdar  09:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, since you appear to be referring to me, when did I ever make even one edit to the GENSEX area? And when did I make even one gender-critical comment? I reported an obvious case of bludgeoning, and I objected to Silverseren's characterization. Since you now claim I have entirely other motives, please provide the diffs or strike your accusations. Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • You appear to have missed the comment I made above, which said that I didn't believe the issue was with the OP of the thread. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Black Kite, this is a bad take and you should either substantiate it with names/diffs or refactor/strike it. You're nearly as much of an oldtimer as I am, and I have a poor memory but I'm pretty sure we've been on the same side of some issues. I have a lot of respect for you. You know as well as I do that in contentious topic areas like Climate change, Gamergate, GMOs, ARBPIA etc this same accusation gets thrown around constantly. While there are undoubtedly some SPAs hanging around, it seems like the vast majority of editors weighing here are doing so in good faith. Being this jaded isn't helpful to anyone. The WordsmithTalk to me 07:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The Wordsmith I think this may have been taken in the wrong way, clearly sometimes irony doesn't translate well to Wikipedia. But "jaded" is a fair take; the comment was really posted as an "oh, good grief" reaction to scrolling down ANI and seeing half of it being people trying to ban people from areas they edit, in many cases purely because they don't agree with them. I get the impression that there appears to have been quite a large increase in this type of thing recently, and not just in the area included in the multiple threads above. And I don't think that's a good thing; it's just depressing, really. If that's "dumb", then so be it; feel free to hat the whole the section if anyone wishes to. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Personally I would not describe any of my own content work as "pro-trans", but rather "pro–human decency" in a way that happens to be relevant in trans contexts just as much as it's relevant in many other contexts; that is to say, I categorically oppose efforts to use Wikipedia to hurt the living, dishonor the dead, or tell lies, and the GENSEX area attracts all three of these things. And my personal views on trans issues are idiosyncratic and do not neatly map onto the concept of "trans rights activism". I think similar things are true for many in the GENSEX area, across the ideological spectrum. But I am aware that, for better or for worse, people divide this topic area into "sides", and that is in some cases a decent way to very roughly read the room.
Pouring gasoline on a fire is a bad idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Black Kite and GENSEX

The comments above by Black Kite demonstrate a clear level of emotional involvement that makes me think that Black Kite should not be taking administrative actions in this topic area. Administrators should not give the appearance of bias, and saying that we should put editors on a list to ban is an extreme show of bias. I believe that this is conduct unbecoming of an administrator and that discussion is required to hold Black Kite to account for creating more heat than light above. 2600:1008:B116:BA3C:8867:F3FF:A9F:6C5A (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Newimpartial definitely has a problem with bludgeoning, which is not a new thing, and I'd support some sort of cap to moderate that, but would oppose a TBAN at this time. I'd also like to point in response to: Myself and many other editors have warned them [NI] in the past not to engage in EW with transphobic and homophobic editors and to interact with them in good faith — transphobic and homophobic editors should be indeffed. Transphobia and homophobia are inherently not "good faith" positions and one should not be expected to engage them as such. El_C 13:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    El C, I meant editors they perceive as transphobic and/or homophobic. Due to the contentious nature of the topic area if one has a hammer mentality every disagreeing editor appears a nail. You can even see it in this thread (not from NI necessarily) where a number of editors have alleged that this is an attempt by transphobic editors to shut out trans/ally editors from the topic area. I apologize if my wording (even in this reply) isn't well worded. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    "transphobic and homophobic editors should be indeffed." An editor accused of being "transphobic and homophobic" may simply be someone who has added neutrality in both text and sources into articles that have been manipulated by editors with one-sided personal agendas that favor or attack the subject of the article. Gensex articles have become a minefield in which too many editors engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, where WP:LAWYERING becomes a battering ram used to bait contributors into debates so as to discourage unwanted change, and where a victim mentality and/or feelings of injustice can sometimes be the impetus for an editor focusing on a particular gensex related subject. Accusations of "transphobic" or "homophobic" are made easily by editors who want to influence article content with their agendas. And let's not kid ourselves ... there are editors who become the target of those who want to steer an article in a favored direction. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic editor, darts articles[edit]

I hate bringing folks here, but I'm not aware of other options and I unfortunately think a topic ban may be needed. JRRobinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very passionate darts editor, who unfortunately does not understand Wikipedia sourcing guidelines which (understandalbly) results in frustration: Are you actually an idiot!!?? This is one of the big darts tournaments, outside a televised tournament. Why does it need extra sources anyway?? And it certainly has general notability in the darts world!! Just because you know nothing about darts, doesn't mean you can ruin it for anybody else. While this is a second cousin once removed from the N:SPORTS issues, this is a larger sourcing where JRR continues to only use social media and primary sources and is unwilling to understand why that isn't acceptable. primary, primary, primary & social media. Side of ownership here: You guys just don't get darts, do you?? Why don't you actually leave the darts pages to darts fans who know what we're on about.

Thoughts or other suggestions on how else to handle this? Star Mississippi 02:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This user has warnings about unsourced additions on their talk page going back to 2007. I daresay someone who has made over 42,000 edits and ignored rules for this long isn't about to start following them. I see no other remedy besides a block, unfortunately. A short-term block was tried in September and clearly hasn't made a difference, and there's a persistent history of battleground behavior. Reading this comment from their talk page in response to a warning, where they said What do you mean disruptive editing...?? And besides, it was some idiot who changed it from Jamaica to England... It's not my fault if the only sources are just not brilliant Twitter ones... really seals the deal for me. Their response to being informed why their articles are getting deleted again and again (and I want to emphasize this is dozens of deleted articles)? These players should have articles on here. They've participated in major darts events. They're more notable then loads of other sportspeople on here. There's nothing on darts in WP:NSPORTS, it needs updating URGENTLY. We all have our interests (and some of us even choose our usernames based on them), but I cannot see how this editor is a net positive. They're so biased towards darts that they are incapable of putting Wikipedia policy ahead of their personal interest. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by policy ahead of personal interest?? What I'm doing is helping improve articles which have been either neglected or been undervalued. And I do wish that you all understood my angle from this. If you look at Wikipedia's article on encyclopaedia, it describes it as a "reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either general or special to a particular field or discipline". Now, I don't claim to be the best or most knowledgeable source of darts, but making darts related articles more accessible by giving summaries of affiliate tours and main events is to broaden the knowledge of everyone. The fact is that these articles have had no questions about them in the years that I have being doing them, and all of a sudden since Christmas time, certain users (mostly American ones it seems, for some reason) have tried to put their own stamp on these pages, when there has been no complaints about them before. The fact is that unlike most other sports, darts definitely has a more limited range of sources available to it, hence using the primary sources is normally the only way to get the best information about it. I'm not the disruptor here, I work well with people, if I was being very rude, I could've been well more insulting. The fact is that all our articles had been on here not causing any problems, and yet suddenly, everyone has just gone hell for leather in trying to say that they're of little to no interest, yet have adequate sourcing material (I'm not saying perfect, but at least adequate). I just want to help expand the encyclopaedic knowledge that this website is surely most known for. JRRobinson (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
yet have adequate sourcing material (I'm not saying perfect, but at least adequate). this is part of the issue, @JRRobinson. What the organization says about itself is not adequate. Articles require independent, reliable sourcing, which you have not provided. That you could have been more insulting is not a factor in your favor. Star Mississippi 14:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm just saying that I showed restraint, as calling someone a profanity or an expletive wouldn't get anyone anywhere. And don't block me, the amount of good I do on here more than outweighs the supposed "conflicts". JRRobinson (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Not screaming at and attacking people is the bare minimum, not something worthy of praise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
don't block me, the amount of good I do on here more than outweighs the supposed "conflicts" - First of all, your incivility cannot be "balanced out" by the contributions you make to Wikipedia; civility is a policy that is held in equal importance with other policies. You are not permitted to break one as long as you are satisfying the other. Second, the best thing for you to do right now is to admit that you have behaved uncivilly and promise to hold yourself to a higher standard. This is a collegiate, collaborative atmosphere. That may be difficult for some editors to accept due to different cultural standards and backgrounds for each editor, but it is still a requirement just as much as properly sourcing your statements or not reverting four times in 24 hours. --WaltClipper -(talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree that it seems no other recourse than to block them. The combative attitude and personal attacks, as exhibited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Baltic Sea Darts Open simply sealed the deal for me. They do not seem to understand that other editors can understand their position, and at the same time require that WP policies be met.Onel5969 TT me 10:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not combative, and it was hardly a personal attack. You just don't see it from mine or the regular darts fans' perspective. I put as much detail in as I can, it's not easy sometimes, I grant you, but what I do is more positive, than negative, and certainly not threatening. JRRobinson (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
You called someone an idiot. Saying "it was hardly a personal attack" only shows that you may lack the understanding of what a personal attack is to such a level that it is actually disruptive to leave you free to edit Wikipedia. Your claim that you didn't realize that saying to someone "Are you actually an idiot?" is a clear and unambiguous personal attack is so beyond the pale, it strikes me as actually worse than the attack initially; I am actually more inclined to block you now (not less) since you said such a thing. Had you apologized, retracted the attack, and expressed any amount of contrition, I'd have archived the thread and we'd be on our way. Now, that you've responded by claiming that calling someone is an idiot is "hardly a personal attack", I'm seriously considering blocking you. Your move, dude. What say you now? --Jayron32 18:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
In the hopes of keeping an editor with a long editing history, I would support a TBAN from darts related pages broadly construed as there seems to be a lack of understanding of notability and sourcing in that area. Gusfriend (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Calling someone an idiot is clearly not appropriate. JR, what have you to say about this? --Jayron32 12:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd concur with the TBAN - the person they called an idiot is the person who advised such (rather than anything more severe, and I also don't believe we're at a point we could reasonably claim such an action was preventative), but yes, this feels like an ancillary to the whole NSPORTS dispute, with clear guidelines not being met. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban as proposed above. I gave him two opportunities to walk back his personal attacks, he ignored me each time. Something needs to be done; and this is a good first step. --Jayron32 19:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)