Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

9081:, I share the concerns raised today by Void and Berchan, but do not recommend the course of action advocated by Berchan's last post. There is something amiss with how these processes function on Knowledge; I have now seen this first-mover advantage used effectively in three arb or enforcement cases with an initial complaint that is so wrong or so toxic or that misses the broader issues, such that defense becomes difficult and those lodging the misrepresentation evade appropriate sanction, resulting in content areas stripped of good editors who become afraid to weigh in, concerned that best practices don't prevail, even when editors find their livelihood or lives threatened. That problem leads to a lack of faith in dispute resolution and good editors giving up. It has been clear for years that arb enforcement is not curtailing the issues dominating the GENSEX area, but I'm not sure that immediately bringing forward all of those behaviors and editors at this venue is the right way to address the recurring problem. It may be back to ANI for broader community input, or a new arbcase, where WAID's idea of prescribed RFCs may prevail; something must be done about editors who use poor sources to push a POV, and launch toxic dispute resolution posts that poison the well so badly that defense is overshadowed by word count problems. Perhaps more eyes are helpful when problems like accurately describing a patient cohort are complex. Or perhaps finding a medical editor to serve on ArbCom will be a way forward. But this AE started with a series of blatant misrepresentations, and it never got past that false start, which concerns me having seen same on other cases. Colin, please take on board that some misread your tone and intent, so you can adjust going forward. And please stay with us. 8991:. I know Colin well enough to know that he can probably see that the point he made in the 20:32 23 July post could have been equally well made without two sentences: "This is political game playing" and "This is some new invented nonsense by activists who can't accept a middle ground as that is giving an inch to US politicians." Having seen some of the POV pushing via poor sourcing, I can understand how frustrating it must be to try to edit in that area (I don't even try), but my advice for Colin going forward is: Colin, you are rarely wrong in your analysis on Knowledge, but in real life and on Knowledge, one isn't always applauded for being right—even less so when you have the intellect, knowledge, and writing ability to show incisively how often and sometimes how badly others are wrong. To make progress in this area, it may be helpful to review your posts to be sure you leave some face-saving room for other editors. That may be the faster route for moving this fraught content area to where it needs to go; saying less is more, particularly when some of the bad sourcing speaks for itself and doesn't require your incisive illumination. That is, I might sum up the commentary by the three admins below (BK, SFR and VM93) as "even when you are taxed by explaining things over and over, try to tame your cleverness, rub it in less, and edit the frustration about having to repetitively address poor sourcing out of your comments before you hit send ... just the facts will get the job done". BK49, I know you are aware of this, but others may not be: at 7372:

feels disproportionate to the conduct here. I would support logged warnings. The CTOP restrictions do lay out behavioral expectations, but only in the most general terms. I would make a warning explicit as to the behavior that we find to be a problem. For me, in this case, it is the venue-inappropriate sniping, but particularly the bludgeoning of a process in violation of procedural convention when the outcome is not to your liking, or alternatively the use of procedural fine points to shut down a discussion when a previous outcome was to your liking. As far as I can tell many users have engaged in this behavior, on both "sides", and it isn't acceptable in any case. That said, I want to flag a concern with my colleagues' comments above. Sometimes there isn't anything differentiating parties in a dispute, and the appropriate response is either mass sanctions or an ARBCOM referral: but sometimes a single user's behavior is very clearly actionable, because they are pushing the envelope further than any others. I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other - we are in no way obligated to deal with all the disruption at once.

10597:

I ask you in the future to bring problematic editors to admin attention not because we are wiser - I certainly wouldn't claim to be - but because the community has empowered us to remove disruptive editors from contentious topics. If you believe admin intervention isn't necessary and that you can persuade an editor to see the error of their ways re: sourcing, then you need to do so with temperate language or step away. And like it or not, we're here because someone brought your conduct to admin attention: if you aren't going to discuss your conduct here, where do you intend to discuss it? And as to diffs; we aren't providing evidence, we're assessing evidence other people provided, and by your own admission those assessments are fair. If you disagree, you are free to try to persuade us, or appeal any outcome of this discussion to ARBCOM. Having thought on this further, I'm inclined to additionally support a logged warning for Snokalok. There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this. There's other editors whose language I'm not happy with, but many of the diffs I'm looking at are a little old to action.

8861:. While it may be tempting to review this filing on its own, I think it would be a grave error to ignore the misrepresentation in the topic area just because it isn't "bad enough" here. I'm not saying that Colin doesn't need a warning or similar - but to issue that warning off this request without considering the bigger picture would be rewarding bad faith editors just because they filed a report first.In other words, if there isn't enough evidence of bad faith/misrepresentation by editors in this topic area now to refer this whole thing to ArbCom, why not? The recent referral of the Israel-Palestine AE cases to ArbCom was quite "easy" for administrators to come to a consensus on... but now rather than looking at the whole picture and deciding to do that, it seems that because a warning against the editor this filing was about may be warranted, everyone's keen to just ignore the rest of the issues and put the burden on Colin to defend himself by either filing AEs against those who are engaging with him in bad faith, or even more difficult, someone to file an Arb request for the topic area.Barkeep has also stated that all that is needed is 8654:

sensible place for an editor to engage meaningfully with their peers/superiors about good editing practice and improvement. If you guys think I'm a valuable editor who they'd like to work in this area, if you agree with me there are issues with quality MEDRS sources being dismissed on prejudicial grounds, that disinformation is being pushed and outrageous conspiracy theories credulously promoted, and would like an editor of my calibre to deal with that, then I already made an offer to any of you to join me somewhere else for a bit of learning and improvement. That would be a respectful response I could work with. You have other options too. If you feel this area is not a good one for my mix of strengths and weaknesses, say so as one might to a friend or colleague, and I'll heed that advice. While this particular rabbit hole has rather distracted my contributions, as a fascinating area of medical controversy, I'd be off editing elsewhere. If instead you think a logged warning is called for, and I'm not arguing it isn't a fair, if rather algorithmic, response to a review of my conduct, it will certainly be enthusiastically preventative. --

7159:

around. But it doesn't help the issue here on wiki if we tolerate this sort of sniping/off-topic digressions/etc. Ideally, all editors would agree to dial things back, and at least try to pretend to pay lip-service to the ideals of editing here. Unfortunately, I think its gone on too long and I certainly can't say that I have any intention of opening myself up to actually taking action in this CT - because why should I expose myself as a target of this level of constant sniping? Why do folks think this is what editors should be acting like? I don't like the idea of treating everyone in this CT like a toddler who needs to be sent to time-out, but honestly - what other choices do non-involved admins have? The best way to discuss things is to not discuss what you think the motivations of other editors are, but rather to engage with sources and facts. None of the above examples do that - and frankly, until that type of editing goes away .. nothing will improve in the CT.

8629:

as much, in a handwavy way, and I have not disputed that one bit. But Vanamonde93, I had at this point, no intention of seeking administrative action against this user, nor do I think ANI is the first step in dispute resolution or the place to resolve content disputes. If you may allow me to poke you a bit in return: I'm surprised an editor with a decade of experience thinks it is. If by "administrator attention" you believe admins are wiser than other editors, what can I say. Void is testament to the fact that a stern warning can rescue an editor from a topic ban, but there is light and day between the post I made to void and the one I made to YFNS. Did you think I can't see that and need to say it out loud like a child? If you did, I feel insulted and wonder why you think the criticisms you three have made aren't acknowledged and accepted. That simply isn't my character, which I think Barkeep, WAID and Sandy can attest to. --

8707:

bad faith (e.g. sources that promote disinformation and conspiracy theories). Similarly with the aspersions that SFN mentions without specific quotes. That would help me a lot. I completely get it about the tone and the temperature raising and the saying things that shouldn't have been said. Sandy's comments have been the most helpful so far and I'm committed to fixing this writing approach/style, no matter where I end up editing from now on. Finding oneself here is not easy, folks, particularly when the opening request contains claims I said things I didn't say (which remains unstruck), describes all the diffs in "the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light" and which generally "misrepresent" what occurred... and today I find an editor saying that because I have friends, who admire at least some aspect of my contributions, my head should be stuck on a spike as a warning to everyone else. Sigh. --

8977:

took Colin to task for allegedly saying X, that is the same as a diff to Colin said X), but what is troubling me more at this point is the realization that behaviors I have seen on other articles are so prevalent throughout the articles mentioned in this AE, which I don't edit-- and that underlying problem is fueling these recent bouts. There seems to be quite an unaddressed problem still in the GENSEX area, and the amount of effort that editors who understand good sourcing are having to expend on basics may be leading to some exhaustion and frustration. I'm concerned that we could end up with no qualified editors to take on the amount of POV pushing that is occurring, as I'm aware we are already missing since July one very good editor in this content area; something broader may be needed to address an underlying sourcing problem, and on that topic, Colin is one of the best, and his absence from

4725:

leaving any template. Please keep in mind that I'm talking to someone who I've known and worked with for years. Frankly, I think I should be able to talk to my long time colleagues kind of however I want, kind of without being judged by "outsiders," meaning by people who I haven't worked with for years. If BM has a problem with me or something I said to him, he'll tell me, as I told him when I had a problem with him (this wasn't my first complaint on his talk page, hence why it's phrased as a final warning). I don't think it's an admin's place to quibble about the particular language used between long time collaborators. It's not like I dropped f-bombs or made threats of harm or something serious like that. Just because I didn't phrase something the way you would have, doesn't mean it deserves a warning.

3906:. The current edits are not appropriate and I support a topic ban from articles related to Rudolf Steiner, or just Anthroposophy if others support that. I have spent time advising tgeorgescu that they should cut back on excessive commentary but in checking a couple of recent discussions, I could not see a problem. We need editors like tgeorgescu who are able and willing to keep articles based on reliable sources so my only suggestion in that area is that I would be happy to investigate if anyone wants to draw my attention to a future discussion where a participant might be overdoing it. I agree that ScottishFinnishRadish's links just above ("own the crazies") show excessive enthusiasm: tgeorgescu should stick to verifiable facts related to current editing proposals. 7163:

two accounts being unrelated on technical reasons) All the extraneous commentary from many other editors above ... is pretty much useless. So, we're left with - nothing. We can close this without addressing the other issues, as the one complaint that was suitable for this venue appears to have been decided as not a problem - if I'm reading the statements by Barkeep and SFR correct? While I might like to see something done about the digressions by everyone and the kitchen sink, I don't have the bandwith right now to topic ban everyone on my own admin authority nor do I care to deal with the nasty fallout I can see as likely in my future if I did such a thing. Close this and wait for the inevitable next time when we go through this same cycle again.

5963:

made dishonest edits that I know of. I think that I have gone to extremes to attempt to word all my information article page Knowledge edits in a matter-of-fact neutral manner, make certain that they use reliable sources, and to evaluate all of the available facts regarding this situation before reaching a conclusion. Just because I do have a moral system that says "Over 18,000 dead children and around 1 million starving people = not good", this does not remotely make me a disruptive editor, and I think that people without any such ethical concerns would be considerably more concerning, as a lack of conscience is also a form of bias, and of a far more socially destructive variety. Any viewpoint whatsoever is a bias. It is inherently unavoidable.

5648:

Israel-Palestine conflict, but because by my estimation, since the start of 2022, around 1800 of Selfstudier's edits (and probably more) are directly related to implementing/enforcing ArbCom remedies including ARBECR, notifying new users, handling edit requests and creating edit notices. So, this particular user, the topic area's top (non-sock) contributor by edit count (normally a positive thing, but apparently a negative thing in PIA), spent over 12% of their revisions on essentially policing the largely unprotected topic area. For me, it's to be expected that editors will ignore this aspect of an editor they perceive as an obstacle or opponent of some kind, but if admins ignore it the AE process starts to resemble an autoimmune disorder.

3773:

won't do" so putting your views here isn't helpful to the admins looking into your filing. Further, with "Malcontents should not blame me for what full professors write" you are continuing to describe other editors (I think? It's hard to tell if you're referring to other editors or merely folks who subscribe to Anthroposophy, but either way it's a sign of battleground behavior) as "malcontents". You were warned for this last November. Here's another unhelpful comment "I mean: for a university-educated Lead Technical Writer it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy." ... you're clearly mocking the editor who you filed this against. Really, this battleground approach needs to stop.

3797:" while still sourcing it to the same pile of reliable sources. This is source mis-representation unless each of those sources actually supports this new text (I'll go on a limb here and say it likely doesn't). On the griping hand, though, Johnrpenner isn't exactly a prolific editor - his edit count is around 1700, but they are widely spread out and mostly appear to relate to Goethe. While they are not editing well, I'm not sure they've had a chance to learn that wikipedia isn't a philosphical debating place. They need to learn to edit well with others, but either a topic ban from the narrow topic of Anthroposophy or a warning about their editing there would probably be fine. 8689:: "a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". This is most ironic as you (and several of the admins below) accuse me of this and other things, without any diffs or quotes, which would be helpful. Your entire post is absent any diffs or quotes of me. And then thirdly, not only am I to be sentenced by credulously accepting complaints of editors whose guiding light here is activist politics rather than core policy, that sentence is to be made all the more harsh because I have colleagues who can see some merit in my contributions. Both editors you quote praise me as a defender of our core policies, and 6986:, to demand other editors not take part in AE proceedings, or claim that editor misbehavior in the RM and MR led to a POV issue with an article title. No one seems to think their aspersions or personal attacks are the same as the aspersions and personal attacks other people cast, and this shitshow happens pretty much every time we end up here for any but the most obvious behavioral issues with new or inexperienced editors. There aren't enough AE admins to be expected to take the brunt of the fallout from any significant action, if there is even consensus for anything. Can we maybe put the scoot on getting a case started? 6081:

ongoing request for a new arbitration case. Specifically, this case should be used as evidence that Levivich (and others) are attempting to weaponize AE to remove people they disagree with from the topic area so their POV pushing cannot be questioned. Beyond that, the only short term action that should be taken is a prohibition on the most flagrantly abusive users (Levivich coming to mind as making multiple threads here recently) from making AE reports until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. If a user is truly problematic, Levivich should be able to trust that someone else can make a report. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |

3648:, I'm right at the word limit, so I'll leave it at this just to say the issue I saw was that when you look at recent edits before this AE (most stuff mentioned here is pretty stale or minor), it really did look like tgeorgescu was improving significantly in the last few months (especially the very last talk section at the page before AE) compared to the period of their warning or when I even told them to chill out on the treatises awhile back. Whatever threads the needle between "you've made some good improvements in mainspace/talk" and "you've still got scaling back to do" will be helpful here for a grounded approach. 8723:..." is not what I said. I clearly literally said "the treatment of children referred to CAMHS or GIDS-equivalent centres" and the complaint by Cass referred to "all the young people on the waiting list for services". And "referred", at the time, included self-referral, whereas now it is restricted to a referral by a clinician. Understanding this patient cohort is an significant aspect of the Cass Review, something they commissioned a systematic review to investigate. It is vital that editors on that page, and similar ones, restrain themselves to the careful terminology used in our MEDRS sources (WPATH, Cass, BMJ). -- 11812:, editors don’t post a source every time they post on a talk page. Nevertheless, editors are expected to argue based on sources. When you post controversial content and are called out on it, you should start bringing your sources. If your reliable source said the nurse was a Hezbollah member, fine. But no, it just said that the pager was (at one time) Hezbollah’s. Perhaps the pager was stolen, perhaps dropped, left at a hospital, passed from a friend, from a relative, or perhaps the nurse was just a bystander. Is it possible the nurse was part of Hezbollah? Possibly yes, possibly no, but you didn’t present a source. 8621:. I have 500 words to respond to 20 diffs from Snokalok which, as Barkeep acknowledges, are full of misquotes and characterising my words in the worst possible light. And at the bottom of the page, I have three admins making comments like "some of the diffs I've looked at concern me" and "there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions" and "language raises the temperature" and "need to take a look at their own behavior" and "treating it as a battleground is a problem, and us-vs-them language". Every one of these comments are undiffed, and 9139:

went unaddressed, while the whole case was framed as related to drug prices, which were never the problem. And then there's the similarity in ARBMED vs GENSEX: at ARBMED, Colin's indignation over edit-warring shone through in his tone, and yet the other party's edit warring was ignored. Here, it's Colin's indignation over really poor sourcing that has led to tone concerns. Colin doesn't edit war and Colin doesn't push a POV, and yet he is to be warned while others get first-mover advantage. I don't see how this can end well. Please reassure me you've considered these factors.

8982:

sourcing. It may be easier for the community or admins to sanction those who adhere to good sourcing but lose patience, but avoid taking on civil POV pushing by those who advocate for poor sourcing that supports a POV, but something must be done to address the underlying problem so we don't exhaust our best editors. It also strikes me that if the "trans kids" misrepresentation or misunderstanding from 11 September is what re-ignited all of this (most other diffs are months old), that suggests this AE wasn't exactly helpful, as WAID says. The April-published

10267:, as you can see in the archived section, so the only reason they would have this diff is if they are somehow hounding my edits. I request they remove/strike their baseless accusation of me "attacking another editor" (with a diff that's not even live as I pointed out) as I simply linked to an article on Knowledge, which summarizes the RS view, so calling what reliable sources report an attack is baseless. Since I did point out VIR may be hounding me in the original AE report and this appears to be another case to support this, may an admin advise on this? 8552:. I have not accused any editor of xenophobia but have repeatedly complained that xenophobic comments have been made to dismiss these top tier sources. As others have noted, this happens elsewhere on Gensex topics. It seems unlikely, does it not, that this British transphobia has infected not just Dr Cass, chosen to chair an independent review as "a senior clinician with no prior involvement or fixed views in this area", but the NICE team, the eight world-class researchers at York and the editor and peer reviewers of the Archives of Disease in Childhood. 10493:; I won't claim Colin's perception is always right but I would suggest on the totality of diffs at play here that those he's replying to should really think on the fact that many editors who've worked with Colin on medical articles outside this topic speak so highly of his understanding of that guideline.But none of that changes that Colin's over the top language - with one example in evidence by SFR below - creates conditions that perpetuate a battleground rather than collaborative atmosphere. The 2020 ArbCom's description of Colin as someone who 3512:

of what is being criticized — the criticisms and critics tgeorgescu has referenced only makes a case for condemning Anthroposophists — and deleting or reverting edits which disagree with him — and ultimately weaponizing the wiki process — which i find is generally quite fair, and i expect someone might be able to follow up and arbitrate his disproportionate critical activity, and attacks against users like myself which are trying to make honest contributions (as i have helped improve numerous other wiki articles, and believe in the wiki process).

10878:

or supported sanctions on the OP. AE does not make a practice of dismissing reports simply on the grounds that they are retaliatory. I also take source mis-use very seriously, but to do something about it as an admin I need to be given evidence of it. That said, any editor acting within the bounds of policy needs to be treated in good faith: that is the very foundation of Knowledge, and if an editor is unable to consistently do so they need to be removed from the locus of dispute. Every editor has the responsibility of being collegial.

4748:

over an extended period of time. This wasn't even my first message about it, but my previous messages went unheeded, so I told him we're going to have a problem -- meaning, I'm going to report your conduct and ask for sanctions -- if he doesn't stop. I think it's frankly a good thing to warn people like this, rather than just reporting him. When I have problems with users, I almost always go straight to their talk page and tell them directly, before I seek any admin involvement. That's a good thing to do, not a bad thing.

6766:

beyond repeating a two-month old discussion. Involved editors do not have veto power on discussions that they believe are occurring too close to another recent discussion, or any other formal process. This was already widely agreed upon at AE. That two editors who are taking part in a discussion about involvement and involved actions in this specific topic area would think that this reversion was acceptable is surprising to say the least. Additionally, simply believing that someone is a sockpuppet doesn't free us of

8809:, why should a warning suffice? Warnings are for good faith editors that may stray from the desired path (like Colin), not for editors that are acting in bad faith. Someone acting in bad faith should be removed from the topic area, as they've shown they cannot act in good faith in the topic area (or beyond the topic area, but this is AE, not a place that can issue site bans). To be clear, I am very happy that at least Vanamonde is seeing that the root problem is other bad faith editors, not Colin. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | 9057:, I'm not seeing that either. Since this is what I find on every diff I view, I would appreciate someone/anyone claiming a personal attack or aspersion posting a diff that actually shows one of those. We already have Colin acknowledging on this page a post to another editor's talk that was "inappropriate in tone and language"; the continued allegations of personal attacks and aspersions, sans diffs, are aspersions. Aquillion, I'm not defending aspersions; I haven't seen a diff where they have actually occurred. 8784:

behavior of those Colin was "rude" to here in the Telegraph RfC and the following discussions.. but I'm sure any admin curious can go review those if they aren't already up to speed on that situation. This is a clear situation (just like Israel-Palestine) where the topic area as a whole has editors trying to push POVs civilly, and AE is not equipped to handle cases like this where someone was, admittedly, a little rude, but the behavior they were responding to is extremely damaging to Knowledge. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |

9445:. Because of the reference to recency (which wouldn't make any sense if this was really about the Cass Review since the whole dispute is recent) and the fact the population YFNS was referring to was just children seeking puberty blockers for gender dysphoria anywhere in the UK, not some restricted local population, he's pretty clearly referring to the use of the language in general, or at minimum for every trans kid in the UK. His technical justification doesn't make the argument he's making narrower. 5618:) are explained in part by the attention/canvassing occurring off-wiki on social media sites etc. I don't know (or care) whether the concerns are legitimate policy-based concerns, but what also seems likely is that this attention is not dependent on the number or details of the RMs, it is dependent on the result of the RM not being the current title. Unless an RM is guaranteed to result in a change to the title that supporters of Israel find satisfactory, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. 8573:

opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that. YFNS claims I am here to provide a "knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review", and WAID notes that there's a US-politics battle to discredit the Cass Review. I'm not concerned with that battle. I'm concerned that medical matters on Knowledge stick to the highest MEDRS sources, and don't repeat disinformation and conspiracy theories, from whatever side makes them. --

5677:

off-site things they have little to no control over, like whether a person decides to evade a ban, or engage in/respond to canvassing efforts, or allow their personal views to take priority over policy compliance etc. And there is no obvious misalignment between Levivich's stated objectives in their reports and the objectives described by policy and existing ArbCom remedies. They have a much higher resolution view of the state of the topic area than ArbCom is likely to ever have.

9134:, we find on this page that four-year-old history thrown back at him (never mind that I was most certainly left feeling like I had to deal with men peering up my skirt, and that I have since collaborated with the editor who is re-visiting this). Once admins or arbs issue a one-sided finding, that editor is left permanently facing things being thrown back at them. How is that not going to be the case here if any one of us brings forward now the recurring issues in GENSEX? 7659:@Lev I don't know. I do read them as different. "You may be blocked" leaves some wiggle room about whether or not it happens, where as "We are going to have a problem" does not (both of course are conditional on a behavior continuing). I have a notion that this difference has mattered in some previous cases at ArbCom when an admin was in conflict with another editor. I will ponder more and (time permitting) look to see if I can find if I have recall that correct. 9815:. In addition, as visible in the diffs snokalok already provided, he is consistently extremely dismissive of anything that writes negatively about the cass review, whether that be statements from WPATH, peer reviewed papers of any kind, or anything else, and will accuse other editors of bias when they argue back. Just in this last discussion he dismissively referred to a peer reviewed analysis of language used in the cass revieuw as an "activist's opinion piece" 4592:@BK: never closed, just deleted. I deleted it, then Self, then SN, then Self un-deleted it after this AE, and it's since run. Surely no one will touch it now (except an admin). I have no problem with "should have been been closed instead of just deleted," if that's the procedure I'll follow it, but I have a big problem with what happened here, that it's just been allows to run. We went from non-disruptive (me shutting it down) to disruptive (it running), IMO. 6557: 3412:—which I now came to see as flamebaiting. Its objectives are overtly stated: recruit other editors against me and get me banned from Knowledge. So, I see my opponents at these articles as an organized campaign, starting with October 2023, or even earlier. The only damage I did to Knowledge is extensively bickering about being hounded. It is rather unusual for Knowledge that a cult organizes off-wiki to take action against a specific editor. 10372:. If you go to the second heading of March 30, and the paragraph starting "But Colin then entered the discussion, saying... ", and follow the diffs there, you'll see that the issues raised in the current AE thread have been going on a long time, with Colin issued an FoF back then, and a similar attitude continuing here, with little sign of repentance. Even if he is right on the content issues, ArbCom has correctly determined that 611: 10550:

also seeing allegations of xenophobia from Colin, and conversely some negative references to national character from those he is arguing with. Such language raises the temperature to no purpose. I'm not sure if sanctions are justified, but multiple participants here, including Colin, need to take a look at their own behavior. Editing a contentious topic requires patience and a willingness to examine nuance - treating it as a

3372:

stand no chance in respect to their own edits, they were merely flamebaiting. Anthroposophists are generally speaking highly educated people, so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials, it is a token they are merely acting a show. Playing dumb and employing vicious libel (flamebait) is justified, according to them, since they are defending the public image of Anthroposophy. I mean: for a university-educated

6178:

participation/reporting of them. It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so. The mere fact his complaints seem "facially valid" does not justify the disruption they cause, nor the dogpiling they bring. I haven't seen a single case they've brought recently that has been so urgent as to not be able to wait for the ARCA request to start a case. But what it

6077:, but because of the actions of some editors (not necessarily here), the closer found a "majority" for the current title. Then editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed. And now they're mad that the community is being asked to opine again given the woefully improper close of the last move review that amounts to a supervote. 5700:"It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so." - This is easily explained by friction and a number of other factors. I could bring numerous editors to AE and SPI, and yet I don't, because, for me, the cost/benefit ratio makes it too expensive. There aren't many editors willing to put in the work required to gather evidence and present a case. 1013: 8865:- they aren't going to calm back down because blatant misrepresentation in bad faith is being allowed to go unchecked and even be rewarded. To put it bluntly, actioning only against Colin here will not do anything useful for the topic area, and I'm pessimistic that even warnings or topic bans for the worst offenders at bad faith/misrepresenting others will do enough here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | 9163:? Is there a reason not to enact that suggestion from WAID, so that here and at other articles, we can avoid protracted discussions about dubious sourcing, and solve those issues more globally? Again, because I've seen the same issues on other articles besides those raised in this AE. Or must we go to ANI or elsewhere for that? Sorry for any typos, etc, I am off to the airport again. 3780:, I see a description of the subject sourced to a pile of what appear to be independent reliable sources (at a quick glance) that is being replaced with stuff sourced to Steiner's own works. Also, I see that "Though proponents claim to present their ideas in a manner that is verifiable by rational discourse and say that they seek precision and clarity comparable to that obtained by 9026:, I acknowledge not having gotten through all of the diffs, but I have yet to see an example of an aspersion, much less an extended history of one. I have pointed out above one example of two unhelpful sentences describing poor sources-- that are nothing like some of the aspersions cast at Colin on this very page with diffs that don't support them. It would be helpful if 10366:. Ultimately, it doesn't mean any less because of how the Arbs voted, because it is still part of the final decision, and Colin should know about it. And look at the first diff of the three diffs listed there by the Arbs, and what he said about me, and most importantly, the way he said it. Based on that experience, here is what I said then on the case request page: 9810:

small and larger misrepresentations about both what his conversational partners have said, and what the sources say. He has a bad habit of assuming the worst in other editors, and thus attacking the worst possible interpretation of their position, rather than the position those editors actually hold. I and others have called him out on this several times already

9495:(though the Telegraph was temporarily downgraded to marginally on trans issues at the time of the discussion, the rest are generally reliable). Some editors responded by seemingly rejecting British sources altogether and directly comparing them to other countries such as Russia and Hungary, and that pretty much explains Colin's responses for Loki's diffs. 8957:) throughout trans-related discussions in favor of less reliably sourced content is also something I have seen at other articles than those raised here; if admins decide they want to explore that aspect further here, then I'll provide diffs, but if this poor sourcing continues to disrupt talk discussions, it would likely be the subject of a separate AE. 8895:

literature, and that diff seems to indicate that and is mischaracterized. The problem with referring to the entire cohort as 'trans kids' is well explained by Colin. Perhaps I should look further, but I agree with Barkeep49 that the original poster should narrow their list down to the more meaningful (assuming there are others that are problematic).

12363:@Vice_regent, experienced editors, especially ARBPIA regulars like you, should know that conduct issues and content disputes are different and have their own places, and if you have disagreements with someone, you should take it to articles' talk pages. This is true especially when it comes to new editors, since this is not the first time you have 3603:

typically see of involved editors behaving poorly. If anything, it looks like tgeorgescu's talk page use had actually vastly improved and it wasn't until you started needling tgeorgescu with your initial comment that they got off the rails here at AE. At least as I've tried to review this report with an even hand, you created more heat than light.

11857:, not even the source you have provided and quoted here is sufficient to verify the claims you have made, just as "all cats are grey" doesn't verify "this animal is gray, so it must be a cat". I have blocked you from the talk page for two weeks as a normal admin action. As you have been blocked for disruption in this area before (1RR violation at 8598:"parent" as a medical qualification. Horton is an activist, with no medical or clinical research background, whose body of research consists of interviewing their social media circle. And yet editors cite their opinion as though stronger than our systematic reviews and all the learned bodies in the UK, as though, at the very top of the 5734:, was unsuccessful. In any case, if editors feel it's too hasty, they should request a speedy closure by an uninvolved party, or possibly snowball close it if there's a clear consensus that it's too hasty (which seems unlikely given the consensus against a moratorium). It's really inappropriate for two highly involved editors to simply 10049:

accusing me of xenophobia against the British (funny considering I'm half British...). He accused me of trying to put it in a Criticism section (which I never did) and trying to defend PB's bc of my opinion (funny considering I think PB's are a regressive treatment and youth should be offered hormones instead in nearly every case)

5784:

by the United Nations recent voting records regarding the currently ongoing military actions by the government of Israel, the vast majority of the population of humanity strongly disapprove of them, so statistically speaking there should logically be a much greater shortage of people in Knowledge who agree than those who disagree.

10843:

failed to treat other editors in good faith several times: that those other editors have also done so, does not excuse anything. I don't believe this needs ARBCOM attention at this time. If the editors involved were able to focus strictly on the content, many of the problems would melt away; but I'm not holding my breath.

10320:

coupled with a lack of contrition or any recognition that they've done something wrong, it is taken by everyone involved as permission to raise the temperature further, which is part of how the topic area has reached its current unpleasant state. If it's necessary to create reports for other people in the topic area then

10080:

Review is not universally well accepted by the medical community, and in fact has been quite criticized on multiple fronts (by human rights orgs and medical orgs and LGBT RS and etc). I'd like to see a warning to treat other editors civilly and not continue insisting everywhere that the Cass Review is somehow infallible.

7902:

through my historic time here I attempt to contribute to articles in a positive way. If it is possible to get a second opportunity to participate in articles relating to this topic I would be grateful; lots of the time it just for simple things like updating statistics rather than attempting to be involved in any debate.

3051:. In addition to any standard CTOP remedies, restrictions upon the frequency and/or length of Tgeorgescu's posts within the Anthroposophy topic area or on any particular page within it may be imposed without further warning or AE discussion by any uninvolved administrator. Tgeorgescu is encouraged to engage community 8625:, would be met with stern warning, as Barkeep did to Licks-rocks, of "behavioral expectations (such as criticism without diffs..". Do I argue with these opinions? No, they are fair. I respond that I would be "more than keen" to have a discussion with any one of you about my tone and language, but at another venue. 10401:

should be given a good telling off and this report closed. Contentious topics are "contentious" and we should welcome a lively debate. I don't see anything disruptive in Collin's posts; just a well-argued case for sticking to and respecting reliable sources and not cherry-picking them to push a personal agenda.

12370:. But now it seems even more troubling that you don't see how applying the term 'military-resistance organization' for Hezbollah, in wiki voice, in the article's first sentence is a blatant violation of NPOV, even if you found one source that uses this description (we actually have a name for this, its called 4919:, instead they chose to edit war and only then the matter was raised here, all within a couple hours, no-one having responded to the RM in the interim. This seems to me, in all the circumstances, to be a proper approach, BM attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation notwithstanding. 4416:). IntrepidContributor, AFAICT, had never edited in ARBPIA in its first round of activity (7/22 - 2/23). The account was mostly inactive between 2/23 until August 17, 2024, when they started getting involved in ARBPIA for the first time. Aug 16, 2024, is when the AE against O.maximov closed with a warning ( 8761:

it's the strongest type of MEDRS - an independent systematic review) and to disparage it in its own article. Has Colin been less than ideal in his demeanor? Yes, but this is yet another example of users trying to get "first mover advantage" and remove him from this topic area so they can continue their

3554:. When he raises issues at FTN i at least often feel behind the curve with an unfamiliar topic, and tgeorgescu usually seems to be going it alone on the talk page. I don't know if AE can do anything to help and maybe the answer here is just to remember to watchlist the articles and pay more attention. 12269:

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

10877:

Trying to keep this brief, as this report has sprawled already. Sandy, I cannot speak to what happened at ARBMED, and that history did not remotely factor into my assessment here. I also do not see a first-mover advantage: I will scrutinize any diffs I see, and have frequently declined to take action

10815:

FWIW, I want to say I agree with those editors saying we'll be returning to this topic area soon. There is a lot of built up bad will in the area and so it makes sense that we will see more reports. I don't think we need to solve everything here (as appealing as that might be). The closest place that

10653:

Re "Trans kids", I feel like conflict is again being created because of an (understandable) lack of perspective of intent (and failure to AGF). The plain reading of the statement is alarming - I know I was shocked when I first read it. When reading what Colin actually wrote it is 100% about technical

10447:

I am completely uninterested in letting this report sprawl. If people have concerns about anyone other than Colin (and for me this includes Snokalok given that the diffs here are not about a 2-party dispute but if another admin feels that's too far, fair enough), they should file their own AE report.

9809:

I don't much like AE discussions, and I don't tune in to the discussion at issue much anymore either, but I will say that I've grown quite annoyed at Colin's attitude towards the topic. Whenever I get involved with him in a discussion, the first thing I have to do is wade through a veritable river of

9349:

As a participant in many of these discussions, and as someone who otherwise greatly respects Colin, I'm posting here mainly to say that I agree with Snokalok's complaint. Colin especially has a bad habit of casting weird nationalistic aspersions when anyone argues that the British government or media

9138:

All I see happening if this closes as it stands now is the same as in three cases: GENSEX continues as contentious as it has always been, Venezuelan editors left en masse, and with the exception of Ajpolino, who hangs in there, FA content production in the medical realm ended because the real issues

8981:

content area would not be a good thing. WAID may be on to something in saying that some RFCs might be in order, and the editors who are disrupting talk pages and frustrating sound editing practices need to be called out to take some pressure off of those editors who understand the literature and good

8338:

Aspersions of bigotry against the British + accusations of bad faith against Hist and myself (I was saying that if someone wikilinks “Gender exploratory therapy” and it redirects to the GET section of the conversion therapy page, that’s not a bigoted edit. He considered that me making it personal for

7125:

I looked through this filing and the comments from other editors ... and I have to agree with SFR - the accusations are certainly piling up here. From a quick read ... the following statements stood out to me as being less than optimal (in fact, often completely useless) in helping to resolve issues:

6626:

has the RM been closed? Or was the RM simply reverted so no one knew it was attempted? I was in favor of closing the RM which I note in the comment above. When Selfstudier decided to revert SN, I nearly procedurally closed it myself. If another uninvolved administrator is thinking about closing it, I

6596:

I'm unimpressed with Intrepid's response, which has large elements of "I don't agree with the consensus so I'm going to try again and see if I can get my consensus." While I am sympathetic to the idea that the MR closed a month after the move discussion itself and that this is a developing situation,

5632:

Also, out in the real world, interest in this Gaza Genocide article formed about 1000th of a percent of what people looked at last month in English Knowledge (amounting to over 10 billion views), so the article title issue does not appear to be an urgent or significant issue from a global statistical

5586:

That's really a bad-faith interpretation. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but don't pretend like I didn't detail why I think that A) the title is premature and, B) it can erode confidence in WP's neutrality. I don't cite new sources, yes, but that's the whole point : I reviewed all of the

4804:

As I mentioned to Levivich on my talk page, 1RR does not apply to talk pages and fixing TPO violations. The diffs provided show me reverting the improper removal of an editor's post on a talk page. Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account.

3618:

about editors or how comments might appear to be a battleground mentality. That too creates more heat than light like I just cautioned theleekycauldron. When I look at the AE after their comment, you brought up that you felt like you were being trolled by Johnrpenner at the article with comments like

3481:

user tgeorgescu has expended considerable effort solely directed towards attacking and finding sources discrediting Anthroposophy (hundreds upon hundreds of edits.. almost as if it were some sort of personal vendetta). if one sees only efforts directed at this — then i might also question how neutral

1079:

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still

1046:

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction

732:

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new

12530:

your initial filing implies that Hezbollah didn't attack Israel on October 8th, and while that's technically true in the sense that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, it is still true that Hezbollah attacked a territory Israelis live in, so it's not like EnfantDeLaVille made that up out of whole

10772:

I think Colin's communication style makes it easier to assume their snark is targeting editors, and as it contributes to a battleground it makes it less likely that editors will assume good faith. I'm willing to assume good faith that there were some misreadings, rather than misrepresentations here.

10596:

Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I'm much less likely to support sanctions against editors who recognize that they lost their cool and commit to being patient, than ones who insist they did no wrong; and your first post, Colin, contained much deflection and little reflection.

10469:

I want to hear from Colin (and am prepared to grant a word extension if necessary because successful defense takes many more words than successful accusation) but I will note that some of the diffs I've looked at concern me as I think parts go beyond "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those

9665:

put out on the matter as though any semblance of objectivity or epistemic good faith can reasonably be expected? That’s not to say to exclude the NHS, just don’t treat its word as the gospel … an organization’s track record and position on a topic should inform how exactly we deploy the source … how

9300:

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

9118:

As I read it, you (and Berchan) are encouraging others to bring forward other instances affecting GENSEX content on this page. How will that not be viewed as pointy or retaliatory and how will those result in clean discussions, starting off messy as likely being viewed as pointy or retaliatory, with

8976:

I have caught up on the diffs only somewhat; the amount of misrepresentation and misquoting of Colin is concerning and even more concerning is that there are still undiffed personal attacks on the page (editors seem to think that because someone said Colin said X, or they think Colin said X, or they

8838:

about others in an attempt to get them sanctioned before their own POV can be called out. To Colin, if this report closes with no action against either Snokalok or Loki I think you've been the target of more than enough blatant lies/misrepresentations in this case alone (not to mention their conduct

8760:

This isn't the first AE request that's been made against editors trying to follow MEDRS, and it's unlikely to be the last. There is a campaign by users for whom the ideas in the Cass Review don't support their political views, and so they are trying to get it removed from other articles (even though

8706:

I would like to repeat Sandy's request that I be given quotes and diffs to respond to by admins minded to give or log a warning. Barkeep, the "baseless accusations of bad faith" you mention is hard for me to deal with without specifics. I suspect there is a misunderstanding about who I'm accusing of

8399:

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

7558:

where multiple experienced editors, cooperating pretty well with one another, are dealing with multiple EC editors who appear to have been recruited into the article from outrage in social media and Israeli press. The article had to be full-protected for a day, and even with the talk page semi'd the

6894:

do this if we're just going to warn for violating PAGs? So, I guess what I mean about a more sternly worded reminder is saying that this already prohibited behavior will be sanctioned if it occurs in the future. We don't need to hand out any more individual warnings for this, because everyone with a

6820:

OK. I understand now. I suggest a warning for IC and Selfstudier, and maybe even a narrow topic ban on closing/reverting formal discussions for Selfstudier. I don't see the same history for Levivich and I see attempts to use our processes so I don't see a need for a warning about the conduct in this

5874:

For the record, all that I recall of the renaming procedure is that the ongoing move discussion was extremely disorganised, lengthy, tiresome, and all over the place, so I assembled the three main titles suggested by other members that were not too long and awkward, and seemed to have good arguments

3965:

The issue, as I see it, is that a single admin has much more blunt tools than AE as a whole. At AE we can tailor a word limit or other anti-bludgeoning measure, but a single admin can only block, topic ban, iban, or set a revert restriction. That seems overkill for this behavior. Perhaps we can form

3617:

Sometimes I've seen you come back for an "and another thing" comment when the conversation was just likely to die. I saw that before your warning theleekycauldron mentions, and it looks like you've been vastly improving in what I've reviewed so far. That said, be careful about personalizing comments

3511:

instead, tgeorgescu has undertaken to report me to arbitration — i find it disingenous to spend such an inordinate amount of time logging in such an amount of effort cataloguing all criticisms against Anthroposophy — without making any efforts towards providing the reader with a better comprehension

1122:

When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as

12856:

rule instead of engaging in edit warring. They can also continue the discussion. Additionally, while it is true that Israel has alleged the death, it has not been confirmed by any neutral or reliable source; every reliable source is simply quoting the Israeli claim. I believe the temporary block is

12596:

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sectionsbut should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have

10726:

is characterized in the report as referring to editors agreeing with YNFS, whereas - to me - it is clearly referring to the twitterati. It isn't a helpful comment, to be sure, and is part of the pattern of inflammatory language - but Colin isn't name-calling other editors in that instance. I'm left

10497:

seems to be true here as well. While I'm not necessarily opposed to Vanamonde's suggestion that no formal sanction is needed, my first choice at this time is a logged warning. Admittedly part of my reason for this conclusion is that the most recent GENSEX AE (Void's) closed with an informal warning

8999:

passed. Compared to other findings of fact in that case passing at 8 to 0, or 6 to 0, that statement about Colin passed at 4 to 1, so there wasn't a very strong consensus among the arbs about that statement. I hope you will all factor that as to whether a logged warning for Colin would be helpful

8852:

I'd like to remind reviewing administrators that misrepresentation (including by the filer of this complaint and others who have commented here) extends beyond just this complaint in the topic area. The RfC on the reliability of the Telegraph was plagued by misrepresentation of that source, in some

8742:

you guys had discussed the issue of people misquoting and mischaracterising my words in the worst possible light. You can't just write this off as Colin's writing style because it extends to people treating MEDRS sources in the worst possible light, based on prejudice, disinformation and conspiracy

8649:

and posted a brief comment, addressing some of my concerns about the opening post, before I could start my day job. When I could return properly to this in the evening, you had added your concerns and advice. My feeling really at that point is that I had three good admins who would review my edits,

8628:

I was unaware that it was expected that I explicitly acknowledge my sins vs respectfully listen to what you guys have to say when you examine the diffs, which I certainly have. Of course my post to YFNS about her conspiracy theories was inappropriate in tone and language. You guys have already said

8593:

where they describe their "side" as "This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence" and

8572:

It seems, given some of the comments posted, I haven't been clear enough that I'm enthusiastically attacking the authors of an awful source, rather than editors. I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its

8266:

Oftentimes when a source written by the British government regarding transgender topics is added, some editors will - while agreeing that the source merits inclusion in the article - nonetheless discuss its due weight and neutrality, often citing the UK govt’s record of targeted human rights abuses

8011:

someone is leaving you a message. And if you don't, well, everyone would just say "I didn't see it", so we have to presume that if a talk page message gets left, it will get read. So, I would decline the appeal, with the same note that if good quality editing is done over the next several months in

7744:

7475:

I am supportive of each of those warnings. I have not made an exhaustive list of which editors raised the temperature via ad hominem commentary, but that seems to me to be deserving of a warning. I'm honestly inclined to word that last as a reminder - not logged- and apply it to all parties to this

7162:

As to the actual original complaint about breaking 1RR, Barkeep and SFR discussed this above. All the other stuff about possible sockpuppetry in the original complaint - that should have gone to SPI, which is the correct venue for handling possible sockpuppetry. (I note that Barkeep ruled it as the

6607:

with editors reverting formal discussions - such as moves or RfCs - in order to shut them down. Now that May discussion also clarifies that 1RR does not apply here but that doesn't mean that I don't find some behavior here troubling. I'll wait to see if any other admins post thoughts before stating

5962:

Absolute objectivity is not an inherent part of human nature. Some people just attempt to systematically hide their subjective traits whereas other are compulsively honest about them, the latter of which is a part of my type of autistic mental condition. However, that does not mean that I have ever

5851:

Okay. My apologies for making a mistake regarding +972 Magazine, but as far as I am aware, disqualifying sources from being considered reliable by Knowledge allows editors to systematically remove all of them from Knowledge pages, which in the case of Al Jazeera would severely cripple the reporting

5783:

In response to accusations by BilledMammal, there does not exist any coordination between myself and other Knowledge members. We are merely people from different parts of this world who seem to share a humanitarian concern for the unnecessary loss of innocent lives, particularly children, and going

5275:

that involved editors shouldn't be shutting down/closing formal discussions that they disagreed with, and should instead go to an admin when the discussion is problematic. I note that one of the parties that shut down this discussion, Selfstudier, participated in that discussion, and so should have

4747:

I know that the entire community is welcome to comment on any noticeboard threads I start, and of course I know that other editors' conduct may be examined at any given noticeboard thread (including my own conduct). That message was about one person, doing one very particular thing, multiple times,

4724:

Maybe it's a cultural thing but I really don't see anything uncivil or otherwise problematic about the phrase "we're going to have a problem if you don't cut the crap" (essentially what I said). I think that's substantially nicer than saying "you may be blocked" and especially saying it in bold, or

4537:

Oh no, SFR, your second example doesn't support your statement in multiple ways: it wasn't multiple editors, and anyway, in your second example, the first RM ended in "not moved" and explicitly suggested further discussion: "This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion". You just

3687:

nine months ago. that's a shame, because they seem to solidly be in the right that Johnrpenner is only here to push a pseudoscientific POV. If Tgeorgescu doesn't agree to stop bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors, and generally behaving as if

3473:

after making additions to the 'Anthroposophy' article — user tgeorgescu deleted / reverted my edits, and so i took it on to the talk page, asking him: instead of just deleting a whole bunch of stuff, why not engage in something more constructive? he did not engage in a friendly fashion, and quickly

3371:

Until May 2024, I had no idea that Penner is a Knowledge editor. In respect to what you say: I would accept a restriction of 1RR and a limit of 500 words per topic. Also, you have to consider that these Anthroposophists overtly stated they want me banned from Anthroposophy, so, while they knew they

1083:

These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to

12314:

In all honesty, I don't see the issue here. Vice Regent is certainly one of our most serious regulars on the topic, but this is the second time this week they've rushed to AE about a new editor without a solid case, in what seems to be based mostly on different opinion. EnfantDeLaVille seems quite

10488:

that isn't actually a quote of Colin's. This absolutely sets the wrong tone for a discussion. Of course supporting that quote that isn't words Colin ever wrote are diffs which show that Colin does indeed have concerns about Americans criticizing British government sources. Why put words in Colin's

10395:

Does anyone know on which side Colin stands with regard to the trans debate? No. This is the mark of a neutral editor. All I see is a respected editor upholding our values such as writing from a neutral point of view and being true to reliable sources against a barrage of biased edits. To say that

10048:

reported that the Cass Review denied a FOI about the authors and arguing "if I see the Council of Europe mentioned one more time in a talk page discussion trying to dismiss a source from the UK, and a top-tier source like this, I will take whoever said it to the relevant forum for a topic ban" and

9382:

is pretty obviously the sort of ridiculous and inflammatory accusation that we're here about. What YFNS actually said is that SEGM and Genspect, two anti-trans hate groups (very well sourced on their pages), consulted on the Cass Review (and that therefore the Cass Review's conclusions are suspect

9254:

being trans". I conflated the comorbid population with the trans population. We have sources saying that at the start of the multi-year Cass Review, trans advocates agreed that not every kid who was referred was actually trans, and that this shifted during the last months so that a small portion

9030:

participating in this thread could give a concrete example of Colin casting an aspersion on any editor so that could be addressed and responded directly to, if there is one. It would at least benefit to understand the standard that Colin is being held to, so that the same standard can be upheld at

8986:

led to some heated discussions, concerns, and hyperbole which have hopefully subsided somewhat; the 11 September "trans kids" situation was not a valid example to kick that back up. After striking out when trying to glean anything of substance by reading the diffs in the order presented, I instead

8684:

inconvenient to one aspect of their ideological cause. Those editors may view Knowledge as a BATTLEGROUND, and that surfaces in the way they view and describe me as an editor, and the fact I'm the third editor in this area to be taken to AE in last the couple months, the previous one still on this

8653:

I am concerned that you think an editor of 20 years should be made to perform a little dance of contrition for everyone's amusement, in order to get a more lenient sentence. Or think this weird forum with our own little boxes to write in, and word counts that seem to have gone out the window, is a

7460:

Warning for starting another RM without any new reasoning shortly after the last closed. Warnings for removing the RM as an involved party, and for not discussing with the editor that stated the RM first. Warning for edit warring over the removal of the new RM. Warnings all around for battleground

6765:

brought up at the editor's talk page.With the unrelated result of CU we're looking at an extended-confirmed editor in good standing who opened a RM two months after the prior request that, while as Barkeep pointed out doesn't really bring anything new, isn't wildly malformed or procedurally flawed

6182:

do is create a chilling effect for editors wishing to participate in this area. If you don't agree with Levivich (et al - those who agree with him and show up quickly to comment on these requests and discussions they start/opine in on talk pages) you risk being taken to AE in an attempt to silence

6163:

To be extremely clear: I am fine if AE admins choose to punt this to arbcom in conjunction with the recent ARCA request for a new case in the Israel-Palestine conflict area. But do it already - stop giving the guise that anything can (or should) be done here if that's going to be the end result. I

6072:

I'd like to say I'm surprised to see this. But I'm not. Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV. While the last move review was closed as "endorse", the closer was quite clear that that was mostly a "no consensus to

5956:

As far as I am aware, I have only made fact-based additions to Knowledge, especially lots of reliable statistics, and do not think that I have made any disruptive behaviour via insults or bad editing. I used my wording as one that seemed neutral, given that there are some editors who are concerned

4571:

FWIW, separate from asking at AN whether shutting down the RM was the right thing to do, I'm also probably going to ask ARCA to take another look at the whole "1RR doesn't apply" thing again. If that's the scope of 1RR, it at least needs to be documented somewhere, because right now every 1RR talk

3772:

Tgeorgescu - first, "A more nuanced view of how I see Anthroposophy:" has no bearing on how you should be editing. Your personal views are no more useful than the personal views of Johnrpenner or any other editors. In fact, you state later in this very filing that "Merely giving us his own opinion

12535:

would put that squarely at the level of a content dispute (along with most of the other diffs you've mentioned), not worth mentioning in an AE filing. It's the continued failure to communicate I'm more concerned about. Perhaps EnfantDeLaVille should scale back their editing if they feel that they

10689:

It's been a few days since an admin commented, and in my view the additional discussion here is not helping resolve anything. I still believe a logged warning is in order for Colin (for inflammatory language) and for Snokalok (for misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith). How do you feel?

10638:

research (emphasis added). They have done other kinds of research and have academic credentials in the topic that are pertinent. Dismissing them out of hand as someone who only has the perspective as a parent isn't helpful (which Colin did) but neither is pretending what Colin wrote is defamation

10549:

I would like to see a more substantive response from Colin. What I am seeing so far is a mixed bag. I am seeing many instances of nuanced explanation by Colin that is being misrepresented. There is some strong language, but not generally beyond the bounds of what I would consider acceptable. I am

10306:

While I know that a single AE case cannot solve the problems of an entire topic area, one thing I would like administrators to keep in mind is the number of responses, above, that describe Colin's behavior as something to be emulated. This report is imperfect but the diffs above still document an

10079:

Colin has been responding to any and all criticism of the Cass review by handwaving them away as "activists" and etc, repeatedly argued to exclude criticisms of the Cass Review from its article, and generally seems to be treating it like holy writ which cannot be criticized on any basis. The Cass

9826:

peer reviewed, not in the opinion section, and consists of a literature analysis. That's just not conductive to productive discussion! And yes, he did indeed berate YFNS for colloquially using the words "trans kids" in a discussion, calling it "fringe activist language", though he later walked it

8693:

in particular. Neither of them have said anyone should aspire to my writing approach, and Sandy is harshly critical of that. As for whether this or that admin action encourages others towards continuing or worsening behaviour, have you not considered the the admins could close this with very much

7673:

I guess I'd just go with "inappropriate". It's been longstanding custom that an editor may ask someone not to comment on their user talk page (though even that has exceptions), but I know of no precedent for expecting someone not to comment on your public noticeboard postings, outside of a formal

7371:

I find myself unimpressed with the behavior of several participants here. As Ealdgyth notes, the ad homimen snipes serve only to raise the temperature. Socking has been ruled out and 1RR appears to be a non-issue, which doesn't leave much that is actionable. I am opposed to TBANs at this time; it

6981:

here we have another case where at first blush there is one issue to address that AE could probably handle, but it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs.

6514:

here; and despite their sniping, most of these editors are experienced enough to know and follow at least the basic outline of how we do things. I'm concerned that broad topic-bans could remove those experienced editors while leaving a bunch of new / inexperienced ones who would continue the same

6288:

This RM is intended specifically to fix the incorrect year disambiguation as soon as possible: a clearly incorrect title shouldn't be left in effect long-term on a heavily viewed page. It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the

6109:

I will not retract anything, but I will clarify that "their" here was not solely intended as a third-person singular pronoun, but also to cover other editors with whom Levivich frequently tag-teams (whether intentional or not) on reporting editors. As SFR replied on BilledMammal's talk page, it's

5456:

Other editors in this discussion participated in that RM, but as I haven't interpreted their comments as objecting to this move request I haven't included them in this list. There are also a large number of editors who objected to this RM on procedural grounds within the RM, but supported that RM

3602:

comment, but even those comments are relatively chill compared to your characterization. If there are recent diffs prior to when you commented, those are absolutely needed, because when I see a mismatch like that in depiction, that looks a lot more like battleground pursuit on your part that we'd

3515:

i have no complaint against a good critical review of contributions to wikipedia - good editors, good referencing, and the good will to work together instead of shutting people down is what makes wikipedia great and useful. please, lets work together, and find a way to make better articles. peace

3376:

it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy. And if I lambasted them for failing to do so, my criticism was genuine and to the point. What do they stand to lose, here at Knowledge? A bunch of disposable accounts. Since both Johnrpenner and the previous Anthroposophist at

12293:

can you explain what a logged warning is? I am sorry, yes reverting the last message from my talk page was a mistake. I guess it was bit too much in the recent days, I felt targeted the moment I started writing about Hezbollah, with people (mostly VR) massively tagging me and acting aggressively

10842:

I have read through the various posts since my last comment, and none of them changes my assessment of what needs to be done. Many editors have failed to assume good faith, and many editors have approached this topic with a battleground mindset. Colin's language has been inflammatory, and he has

10249:

of their experienced and published research on the topic. It also seriously puts into question if Colin is acting in good faith on following MEDRS if he himself isn't actually able to leave his emotions in check and realize that this isn't just a random "activist" as he puts it, but an expert on

8783:

At this point, I think the evidence provided by starship.paint and others has come to the point that this should be punted to ArbCom as well. It's obvious that the primary problem here isn't Colin's speech, but those he is speaking to, who are trying to push a POV on Knowledge. I'd point out the

7987:

Longtime editor runs afoul of expectations in a contentious topic is something I have a lot of time for. I cannot, however, justify overturning this topic ban at this time. Per the criteria, the action followed the criteria (standard 1) and was reasonably necessary to prevent damage (standard 2)

7158:

Note I didn't link these to specific editors because they are examples of the continual low-level sniping, accusations, and off-topic digressions that continually interfere with non-involved admins ability to get to the bottom of issues. I get it that the real world war is inflaming passions all

6080:

That all said, since AE has already been unable to take action on a recent report in the area because of the number of users involved and the cross-user issues (tag-teaming, POV pushing, potential off wiki coordination, etc), this report should simply be punted to ARCA as evidence in the already

5537:

I'm surprised this is even being debated. In a general context, it is well established that for various reasons comments at the top of a discussion are far more likely to be read than comments at the bottom - and in a Knowledge context editors need to go to the top of a discussion to click "edit

5125:

Editors constantly making personal attacks and accusations of bad behaviour without providing the slightest bit of evidence is getting rather tiring. It needs to stop. SFR floated the idea of giving short term topic bans to any editor who had done so and at this point I say go for it. Scorch the

4117:

with a rough consensus here that an individual administrator can institute an anti-bludgeoning measure on them if they continue then that would add, in this particular case, that tool to an administrator's toolbox. Then, rather than having to come back here, whatever admin saw it could just say,

4055:

That's...impressive, indeed. I think we could find a sanction that could curb that type of thing; there's really nothing added to the discussion by a huge wall of text like that (and if it's a "note to self" type thing, that can always be kept in one's userspace instead). But I still don't think

3477:

if i were writing an article on the phenomenolgy of colour — i would expect to see criticism and debate — but i would also expect to see some effort in improving the article — doing what wikipedia does — helping provide some sense of the topic, which covers a neutral and informed point of view.

10530:

which repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis. If only someone would tell the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of

10514:

While some of what I see in the diffs looks to have been misinterpreted, there is a lot of poor conduct too. Unnecessarily inflammatory comments, aspersions, and the kind of generalized aspersions that don't technically refer to other editors need to stop, as does policing the use of terms like

10400:

standard because of his solid reputation as a valued editor, is ridiculous beyond words. Colin's debating style can come across as blunt, particularly if he disagrees with you, but he never acts in bad faith and never has. Given the false accusations posted at the top of this discussion, the OP

9558:

and the UK media have an abysmal reputation regarding LBGT+ issues, commented on by many observers and experts, so their media should be treated with the same caution we treat Russian newspapers as sources for the LGBT+ rights situation in Russia … The radicalization and virulent transphobia of

9278:, and I do occasionally feel like one "side" sees it in terms of American politics. There seems to be a fear that if this report isn't criticized as heavily as possible on as many grounds as possible – we even talked about whether to mention a typo in a source that was cited in the final report 8568:

7901:

I was unaware of recent Wiki rules in relation to 1RR on Palestine articles and was not actively checking my talk page; I am a long-standing good faith Knowledge editor of more than 10 years now there won't be any more issues on articles related to this (or any) topic going forward, you can see

5676:

If an editor sees what they regard as disruptive behavior or policy non-compliance in the topic area they should be able to report it here at AE. ArbCom is not going to be able to solve many of the systemic problems in the topic area because the on-site effects are produced by external factors,

3492:

WP:RNPOV § Neutrality: In the case of beliefs and practices, Knowledge content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Knowledge articles on history and religion draw from religion's

1126:

Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Knowledge and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Knowledge policies and guidelines; you may use

1087:

All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally

10319:

by others above also reflect, in a way that shows how that sort of incivility metastasizes and spreads. Colin is experienced enough to know that that isn't how editors are supposed to interact with each other. When that sort of thing isn't met with some form of formal sanction, especially when

8597:

Wrt YFNS accusation of misogynistic language, I recall YFNS told me they didn't do twitter, so may be unaware that Horton's twitter handle is "@FierceMum". Their language. I joined Knowledge 19 years ago to edit medical articles as "someone's dad". I'm frequently reminded of the limitations of

6839:

I don't see a functional difference between a warning not to close discussions you're involved in and a topic ban. The result of doing it again is likely to be the same. so I think a warning is fine in that instance. A more sternly worded reminder that editors should not be closing or removing

6095:

And just to be extremely clear, I disagree completely with Barkeep's message below that he does not consider threatening another user (BilledMammal) on their talk page to be evidence that should be considered here. Levivich is weaponizing AE, and is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by

6032:

by deleting a discussion isn’t POV-pushing itself by the pro-Pal folks either… I saw the admins saying that ARBPIA states all rules are more especially enforced in this area, but maybe the request for ARBPIA5 could resolve such matters by putting in place much more explicit rules within ARBPIA

5878:

There was no deliberation involved beyond that I thought that all of the three alternatives were shorter and less awkward that the then current title for the page, nor did I expect the current title to get the most votes at the time. I do not recall voting in a preceding survey before the very

4067:

I linked to their 3000 word "note to self" on their user page earlier in this discussion as well. I don't think they're really the core of the problem, but they need to moderate their response, and as they've already been warned we need either a warning with some teeth, or a tailored sanction.

4874:

Regardless of the 1R problem, this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior. There was a well attended recently concluded RM that in addition went through MR and nothing has changed since. Rather than specifying anything new, the presented nomination is chock full of personal opinions such as

4508:

Damn, SFR. That first RM was just about the disambiguator. It said "It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording." That's why the second RM was OK in that instance. Not comparable to this case. Your

5152:

if you're going to imply hypocrisy in voting in support of a RM which was opened not long after another was closed and then voting procedural close in another RM in similar circumstances you need to demonstrate that editors were aware of that. I certainly wasn't aware of the prior RM for the

10452:

the original report was with-in word and diff parameters (technically I count 22 diffs but the extension is granted retroactively) and so I will not be asking them to limit it further. But to your point the exception I'd be willing to make about sprawl are people who don't follow behavioral

9650:

which country is more transphobic … In media it's also the BBC, the Guardian, the New Statesman, every outlet big or small across the entire political spectrum regularly runs pieces on how "trans women are here to replace biological women" or "should seeing a trans person in the bathroom be

8894:

of time and effort to type up something that comprehensive to explain the confusion that results in the misuse of language used to describe the cohort, and that misuse appears to have substantial consequences. Some editors have a hard time with Colin's typical command of the facts and the

10654:

definitions from a research paper. I don't think either thing is really sanctionable, that is Colin could have been more tactful and other editors should be attempting to understand technical points but the failure to do so on either end doesn't turn this into a "must act" from AE admins.

10359:

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

3416: 7355:. There's a work factor, a knowledge factor, and a risk factor that might prevent others from wanting to mess with AE. The fact someone is more willing to do it is not necessarily evidence of disruption by them. It may simply be they're the only one with both the capacity and the will. 5647:

Just like targeting the title of the Gaza Genocide article is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, the targeting of Selfstudier is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, in my view. I find this concerning, not because of anyone's opinions on the

8539:

These systematic reviews, which form the evidence-base for the Cass Review, have been repeatedly attacked on the basis that they are from the UK, and thus prejudged transphobic, and should be no more considered reliable than if they were published by the government of Putin's Russia:

8006:

I'd tend to agree with Barkeep49. "Not actively checking my talk page" is really not a great idea; if you're in the middle of making a series of edits and a talk page message notification pops up, it is probably unwise to carry on with the rest of your planned edits before you go see

3485:

tgeorgescu claims category error — and my claim is that anthroposophy is no more scientific than the subject of philosophy. in my edits — i did not dispute or remove his claims, and took care to preserve his references/links and to make it clear that anthroposophy is not scientific.

12273:

The events in Lebanon in recent months catch me at a sensitive time, and the suffering of my people from the situation in my homeland is unbearable. I apologize if I didn't reply in time. I tried to respond to everyone who wrote to me on talk pages. I'll try to look at my talk page

9308:

format: "I felt ____ when he ____. Instead, I think he should _____" – and if the words you want to put in the second blank sounds anything remotely close to "disagreed with my POV/a source that supports my POV", then don't post it here, because that's not actually what AE is for.

9053:, I think you could strike "what a bizarre post"; viewed logically, you make valid points explaining why you see the post as bizarre, but the statement only adds heat, and your points are understood without it. Having looked at the alleged "aspersion" diff, now working back by date, 8594:

later refer to it as "a theoretically top MEDRS source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org". But they are referring to the same conspiracy theory as YFNS. There is no reliable evidence that "SEGM and Genspect were involved at almost every step of the process". Every step?

6509:

Regarding the suggestions for mass topic bans - I do want to point out that the disruption in this topic area is ultimately coming from external sources and is the result of a broader conflicts outside of Knowledge. While many editors are behaving in a subpar manner, that's not the

6125:

Levivich has now taken to claiming that AE shouldn't review the whole circumstances of the situation when a report is made (in other words, that they want a first mover advantage), and claimed that they intend to "appeal" this even further because they think they should be able to

6052:- I'm fine with receiving a warning for battleground, apologies for targeting BM in an underhanded phrase, but looking at the list Ealdgyth has, if I have a warning for a single phrase in a paragraph, I would also like a warning for everyone else in that list Ealdgyth also quoted. 7445:

is there any appetite for any sanction out of this report? The most concrete proposal - topic bans all around - has no support. But I do so see some consesnus that there were conduct violations here so just closing it as no action doesn't seem to reflect the consensus any better.

9255:(that'd be "Fringe", right?) of the trans advocates (otherwise known as "activists", right?) started saying that every single kid who got a referral needed medical transition (e.g., puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) and should be expected to have a lifelong trans identity. 6177:

To Sean, I say that the mere fact he is reporting potentially valid disruption does not justify his immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere). There are plenty of other editors who can continue to bring editors to this noticeboard and discuss them without Levivich's

6760:

has been through several recent RMs in close proximity so another, though not great, isn't so flagrantly out of process, e.g. started by a non-EC editor, that heavily involved editors should have stepped in. This should have been brought to AN or an uninvolved administrator,

8050:

A consensus of administrators warns Colin against further uses of inflammatory language in this topic area. There was also a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised during this discussion.

3577:'s sentiment above, and I would caution admins to be mindful to check out what they link at FTN. I’ve been noticing that problem at the noticeboards and tgeorgescu’s frustration too often handling a lot of fringe stuff and now apparently becoming a target off-wiki for it. 10489:

mouth then? It then continues with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light, to characterize 20 more diffs of Colin's. In the full context of the quotes it becomes clear that Colin is responding to perceived shortfalls of others when it comes to using

9256: 6770:, and contributions can not be reverted simply on suspicion of sockpuppetry.In my view the shutting down of a discussion started by an extended confirmed editor in good standing by two involved editors is more of an issue than starting an RM too soon after the last one. 3792:

and debunkers of pseudoscience." this sentence (which is sourced to the pile of independent sources) is replaced with "Anthroposophy does not belong to the study of the physical sciences, any more than Plato's Metaphysics should be considered Physics — doing so would be

9122:

As some may recall from the Venezuelan arbcase, even with livelihoods threatened, the initial toxic positioning against one editor at ANI was never dealt with. First-mover advantage stands today, and the content area was gutted, as other editors were left reluctant to

8495:

There's text in quotes and green attributed to me but that I didn't write. And it seems most times Snokalok has confused me attacking the authors of weak sources and claimed those words were directed at editors, which would be clear with careful reading in context. --

4820:@Selfstudier, if you didn't like WikiFouf's RM, you could have voted against it instead of deleting it. Removing the proposal is a TPO violation and a third editor doing it doesn't make it right. There was an RfC and no moratorium was agreed on page name move requests 1111:

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

10615:, I don't see how it is defamatory, and I don't believe it rises to the level of revision deletion either; questioning the credentials of a source is a necessary part of content discussion. Colin's language is too harsh, but that is something I've already alluded to. 5761:

I do not think that Levivich or Selfstudier should receive any punishment. People who disapprove of the current page title keep forcing us to vote over and over and over regarding the same topic, with very brief breaks in-between, until they get their desired result.

8650:

weren't fooled by the misrepresentation by Snokalok, and could decide fairly whether this was an editor they want editing in this area, and make a reasoned decision as a result. I was seriously tempted not to write anything more and just let what will be will be.

8743:

theories they have read about in the lowest quality sources. I don't think we can say that the writing style in the Cass Review or the BMJ is to blame for editors making outrageous claims about them. At some point this is going to need examined and dealt with. --

12294:

towards me. Now I see that the same editor who opened the case against me is trying to change Hezbollah's definition on Knowledge to be a resistance group instead of militant group! that's just amazes me. Anyway, I promise to be more communicative in the future.

9327:, it has indeed been difficult to get editors who are familiar with MEDRS to work on these pages for any length of time. I think this will get better over time, when we will have a greater number, and hopefully better quality, of academic sources to work with. 8643:"I'm more than keen to learn from the admins how I might have wiser responded to this or that post, but I don't think this venue, with its opening post of mischaracterised diffs, and quotes and green text that I didn't actually say, is a great place for that." 5901:

Never mind. It seems like you are talking about a renaming discussion for another page. My adhd unfortunately strikes again. Anyway, I do not recall reading your own quoted comment there. I likely just voted for what seemed to be a less inappropriate title.

10722:, for instance, is very clearly in reference to the patient cohort examined by the Cass review: the report presents the diff as though Colin is dismissing the use of "trans kids" to refer to trans kids in general, which he is not doing, at least not there. 6207:. We report facts, not what we want people to hear. Attempting to pass off disruption as okay because you think they're trying to be "right" is the exact sort of disruption that makes us violate our core content policies in this topic area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | 10755:

I'd agree others are also reading them in the worst possible light, but Snokalok filed the report. I think filers in particular should be extremely careful not to misrepresent, because those who come along after may take their word for it when responding.

8830:, and we have a valid claim by Colin that another editor in the topic area (Loki) is acting in bad faith also. To close this with the only actual "sanction" (being used liberally to refer to any action taken against an editor) being against Colin would be 7182:? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. We can do that with a rough consensus here without having a lone admin eat the inevitable dozen hours of shit at all the appeals. 980:

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

9737:

the Los Angeles Blade in this case, with its relation to the generally reliable Washington Blade. Never mind that editors have questioned the Cass Review, questioned British sources (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Times, New Statesman)…

9559:

British media doesn't change that. The only thing it changes is the reliability of British media, especially regarding LGBT+ issues, in the same way that we treat Russian media with a fair degree of skepticism, especially regarding contentious topics.

4739:@Seraphim: this isn't about just commenting on my AE threads. You'll notice many people have commented on my AE threads, and many of those comments have raised issues with editors other than the editors I was reporting. I only left such a message for 9639:

This paper was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable

5286:

In general, I think the editors closing this discussion, but especially Selfstudier who has been involved in these issues before and appears to be espousing a double standard, have behaved far below what we expect of editors in a contentious topic.

576: 10581:

is inflammatory. If editors cannot conceive of a position between "X is transphobic" and "X is the gold standard of medical knowledge", this topic is going to remain a disaster and the editors in it are likely to find themselves unable to edit it.

4841:

there have been a number of editors who have objected to the page title since the last RM, and the MR that was closed a month after it. The RM discussion itself was very tight and should have been closed as no consensus, leaving the page name as

4691:

There is nothing uncivil in my message to BM; it was direct, but polite. What BM has been doing -- using my AE reports as an opportunity to complain about Selfstudier, which has now happened multiple times -- is the "battleground" behavior here.

4556:

FWIW I'm 100% going to appeal this to AN, TBANs or not. Reopening the RM was massively disruptive. I don't believe the community will decide that it was OK to launch that RM or that the right thing to do was to let it run. AE got this one wrong.

1047:

placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

12829: 4954:

Not that it has anything to do with this case but seconding what Levivich says and that's not the first time you have taken out of context "otherstuff" to bolster your argument together with naming me in the process. Quite wrongly in my view.

9414:

I stand by my characterization of that source, and in fact knew that from the beginning. We don't usually question our source's sources here. If a newspaper is willing to republish a blog post, it's endorsing the factual content of the post.

7573:

So a warning for opening without any change to the status quo for WikiFouf, removing an RM when involved for Levivich and Selfstudier, edit warring for IntrepidContributor, and battleground for Berchanhimez, Bluethricecreamman, and Levivich?

6604: 6027:

Will point out the obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process. Won’t argue against the fact that violating

12488:

It looks like only two of these edits are after they were made aware of the CTOP designation. At first blush my largest concern is the lack of communication, which is absolutely necessary on Knowledge, and even moreso in contentious topics.

7177:

There were some warnings above that Barkeep and I were roughly in consensus about, although as I asked above, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not

5925:

about that Levivich is a highly knowledgeable member who helps to bring order, structure, and fact-based resolutions to discussions, so getting rid of him would cause active harm to the parts of Knowledge where he is active, and contrary to

5333:

Effectively, these editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not - and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce

10572:

I don't know why a Wikipedian of two decades tenure needs to be told this, but if an editor is bringing sub-par conspiracist sources to a contentious topic, the appropriate response is to bring them to administrator attention, not to post

10355:

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

9983:. After taking mine on board I was hoping things would settle, but clearly not. Nobody wants another of these, so I would please ask that any decision consider seriously whether it will cool down or further inflame this contentious topic. 9846:

Colin is the sort of editor I can only aspire to be. Methodical, precise and absolutely focused on the best possible sources - and we disagree hugely on much of GENSEX, having butted heads many, many times, but always scrupulously fairly.

6581:

can you please address the substance of why you are restoring the RM, not just why it is/isn't 1RR, and why it is not disruptive. Namely, why a new move discussion is appropriate now given that the previous move review closed 17 days ago.

7593:

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite

10111:

The original published Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Cass Review’s assurance group explicitly excluded trans expertise, stating that it “deliberately does not contain subject matter experts or people with lived experience of gender

4026:, tgeorgescu is far from the only frequent poster there, so maybe some sort of "If after X amount of discussion, consensus has not been reached, engage further dispute resolution or drop it" sanction could be applied there in general? 3877:

On a broader note, this issue comes up a lot where a milder sanction might be able to end disruptive behavior, but we end up warning a few times instead, and eventually we hit a tipping point and we end up with a more severe sanction.

10083:

I hope this is a wake-up call for Colin, because I think he's overall a valuable contributor to GENSEX, but am frankly sick and tired of his knee-jerk defense of the Cass Review from any and all criticism and his incivility doing so.

7389:

I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each

6007:

For what little it may be worth, just a note that I also do not think that Levivich did anything remotely deserving of a warning due to his comment. It seemed like an attempt for honest but polite communication, not actual hostility.

3626:. You honestly were fine from what I can see initially until your interactions with theleekycauldron here. It wasn't until that moment I was seeing AE comments with a bit too much bite towards editors, so it didn't appear anything 9651:

considered rape" or something like that, in government it's also Keir Starmer, it's also Wes Streeting, it's both major political parties, like half the SNP, half the Green party … not just the elected politicians either, it's the

8885:

I consider myself a friend of Colin, and consider him our finest medical editor; I saw the AE notice on his talk page. Considering Barkeep49's comment about the length of the original post, I looked only at the most recent diff

8267:

against trans people (as documented by the UN and the Council of Europe), as well as citing criticisms by reliable orgs against the particular source in question (the widespread MEDORG criticism of the Cass Review for instance).

8569:

Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS England and NHS Scotland, who enthusiastically support the Cass Review and are in the process of implementing it.

8274:

attack on anyone of British nationality, and assert that editors or reliable sources from outside the UK have less right to doubt the British government than British ones do, accusing those who do of being political activists.

10531:

9433:, I would like to politely suggest that you're going a little beyond assuming good faith there for Colin and consequently a little below assuming good faith for everyone he's arguing with. So for instance, I'm very aware that 6515:

conflicts without the same knowledge of our policies and procedures. Obviously warnings and such are needed and people who don't improve or who are obviously part of the problem need to be removed, but topic-banning basically

3598:, so that was a serious red flag when I instead saw tgeorgescu making very short replies and largely behaving properly at the time. The only little knock against them was that they should have stopped interacting before the 1242: 10816:

does that is ArbCom and I don't think the misconduct in this area is such that it needs ArbCom intervention at this point, as compared to just regular attention from AE for a while until (hopefully) things calm back down.

10629:

I will note that I did look at this claim of possible OS when it was first made and found it lacking. I can find no evidence (including on the draft bio page) that what Colin wrote is wrong: Horton appears to have done no

9188:

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

7946: 7674:

interaction ban or something like that. If you make a thread on a public noticeboard, you should expect others to make comments, and that may include people who disagree with you and people who you don't like very much.

6164:

think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom. They are wasting administrator and other user time at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |

5768:

Also, they are knowledgeable, constructive, and well-behaved editors. Putting them on restraining order for such a limited reason would cause longterm damage to the overall wellbeing of the pages concerning this topic.

5359:

Off topic, but I don’t have a position on the reliability of +972, and I don’t express one in the discussion you linked. I also don’t seek to remove all references to Al Jazeera, although I do question its reliability.

5561:

If it had come from someone with a history of incivility I might have taken an issue with it, but up until recently I have never seen any problems with Levivich's behavior and so am happy to dismiss this as a one off.

5026:

Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of

10029:

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

8287: 705:

requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an

12168:. Added "A day after Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel, Even though it was unprovoked Hezbollah joined the conflict in support of Hamas by firing on northern Israeli towns and other Israeli positions." Two problems: 1042:

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

7268:

No opinion on whether this is the wrong venue for 1RR in this case, but starting a new RM that quickly simply because you disagree with the previous one is clearly disruptive, and I do think 1RR should apply here.

9258:

Colin asked all of us to be careful and precise, which IMO is fair. However, when you pull Colin's comment out of context, or just glance over the discussion, it can be unfairly twisted to sound transphobic.

8676:: "Knowledge is not ... the place to carry on ideological battles" and yet you accuse me of it ("an approach some some of the comments by others above also reflect") by taking at face value the attacks on me by 7905: 6875:

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best

1080:

request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.

8457:

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

5305:

In this AE, we have a number of editors objecting to opening an RM proposing moving the article to a less definitive title just two months after the previous was closed in favour of the title they supported.

4118:"you're limited to 1000 words a month on the topic of Anthroposophy," or "you're limited to three replies per week on the topic of Anthrosophy." That way it's not a warning that requires another trip to AE. 3419:) will regain its upper hand. Anti-fringe editors will be reluctant to intervene, since they lack a deep understanding of the topic. So I will have to get unbanned as the only person able to restore order. 7492:

Frankly, how many times have folks here been warned for some of this? But, if that's the best we can agree on, I can support that. I really wish that warnings didn't feel totally toothless and ineffectual.

4438:

here to see if these accounts are a technical match, which I expect they will be. If you want more behavioral evidence before requesting a CU, or if you want me to file a separate SPI, let me know. Thanks,

7068:

Both of those RMs had no prejudice towards another RM, as did the RM at the center of this report, which had a consensus against a moratorium. We're, again, looking at standard behavior in the topic area.

8694:

such a warning to other editors in prose. Why on earth does everything need to be done with the tools? I am an adult human being, Aquillion, not a child to be made an example of in front of the class. --

7386:

I definitely agree with the approach Vanamonde suggests in the second paragraph. Though admittedly I'm not sure who all that means would get a warning (where the 1st paragraph seems to be going). Per the

5875:

and Knowledge page title precedents backing them, and then put them to a vote by pinging all of the previous participants in the discussion, in order to help bring some order and structure to the chaos.

3935:

It looks like the topic ban has pretty clear consensus, so as far as tgeorgescu goes out seems like we just need to decide on the level of reminder/warning, or discussion restriction we want to go with.

11081: 6854:

That all makes sense to me. I do want to note the general warning will only carry so far - for instance I would not expect everyone in the topic area (even "regulars" at this forum) to see the message.

6250:

Levivich did not mind his own conduct being examined in the same AE thread, he just wanted other editors to be examined in new AE threads. I look forward for berchanhimez's false claim to be retracted.

3755:

isn't), but I don't think it'd be ridiculous to say that it's relevant to the onwiki portion of this spat. I'm also considering the sum of other threads they've started since the SamwiseGSix AE thread.

863:

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

6110:

more than ripe to have the behavior of others involved brought up when evaluating a AE request, because the actions of others influence and inform the evaluation of the reported user. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |

5798:

In addition, even from my, likely very limited, observations of BilledMammal's own activities here in Knowledge, he has very actively participated in several attempts to remove all references by both

7878: 7210:

ArbCom has a procedure for temporary injunctions to handle the kind of situation described above. I am opposed to AE usurping that authority for itself. I remain open to the warning expressed above.

6702:

PS: ArbCom can't make policy. It can only make decisions within its remit. Which includes this conflict and 1RR. So the decision to update the policy page is up to the community to include (or not).

5387:, which proposed moving the article to "Israel-Gaza war" was opened 19 or 13 days later, depending on where you are counting from. Of the editors objecting to the move request under discussion here: 10072: 9572:

as being on par with that of Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. We would not uncritically trust Hungarian news sources to determine our description of gensex topics, we shouldn’t be doing so here either.

4879:

and regurgitates everything that was already discussed in the recent RM. Yes there are editors that actively dislike the current title, that is not a sufficient reason to go through all this again.

6752:

did here, and it was clear that such involved closures were inappropriate. Although the RM didn't bring anything new to the table, this is not an uncommon situation in the topic area. Selfstudier

3726:

500 words per thread) in a calendar month; and placing them under 1RR. They are reminded to seek out admins before engaging in disruptive behavior in their attempts to combat disruptive behavior.

10222: 10188: 10142: 10639:

requiring Oversight. One disconnect that this does raise is just how much of the Cass Report is biomedical information requiring MEDRS sources and how much are other kinds of science/research.

4538:

made the same mistake twice, comparing RMs that explicitly said no prejudice to another RM. I went over this in detail on BM's talk page. You need to fix what you wrote, not double down on it.

3856:. I'd be interested in scaling back that type of engagement with the topic. I don't know if a word limit per month or discussion would be helpful, but even some advice or a warning might help. 12597:

taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see

10093: 7745:

taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see

6073:

overturn (but not necessarily meaning there is a consensus that it was correct and proper)". The closure of the last RM "overturned" what was about a 3-to-2 majority (if not more) for a title

5934:'s claims, I think that the attempts to shut up editors who are highly concerned about human rights violations via this arbitration discussion seem considerably more prevalent and concerning. 939:

This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

5765:

It is to demand too much from Levivich and Selfstudier to expect them to know exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or is not allowed in every possible development in this regard.

12733: 12346:

I'll also add that I find it extremely odd to see VR here speaking on POV-pushing while also changing Hezbollah's description from "paramilitary group" to "resistance group" in Wiki voice

7704:

There is no consensus for repealing the topic ban at this time, but some administrators expressed an openness to doing so in the future after there was more time editing without problems.

6146:. I'll say again - if there are disruptive editors there are more than enough other people who can bring those editors to AE. But Levivich's participation in this topic area at this point 11280:

that explains ECR in plain language and bold text. It may be more likely to explain ECR to a new editor than the CTOP alert template, which I also use when leaving that welcome template.

10433:

Snokalok this is already a very comprehensive report. I'd ask you to consider what you feel the biggest issues are and the strongest diffs are and use that rather than going much longer.

10286:- are your or another admin going to address the report I made above in my statement to tell Colin to stop his continued BLP violations/defamation of his misrepresentations of Dr Horton? 10209:. Nobody has called for your ban because even those who disagree with you find you a generally valuable editor, but are sick of being accused of stuff like this by you if we consider the 10024: 3954:

mean it this time", but I sure don't love the idea of rewarding a harassment campaign either, and it seems there's at least pretty credible evidence that something like that is going on.

10263:

One a separate note as it appears Void if removed is still hounding my edits as they are posting a diff to a comment that is not actually in the live comment that I made to another user

9858:

I agree completely with whatamidoing’s assessment of "trans kids" - in this specific context, it is unhelpful language, and its better to stick to the Cass Review's phrasing. There is a

3811:

Topic ban for Johnrpenner sounds good. I don't necessarily disagree about a word limit for Tgeorgescu, but I'm not sure it's going to work or be easy to enforce. Call me agnostic on it.

11623:(see the system log linked to above). Because the template was not placed correctly the first time, when the template was substituted by the bot, it did not generate an abuse log entry. 9246:

This content background is necessary to understand why Colin objected to me using "trans kids" to describe these kids: "getting a referral" isn't the same as "being trans", just like "

4877:

I wholeheartedly believe that "Gaza genocide" is a premature title and does more harm than good, risking the erosion of public confidence in Knowledge for a wide swath of the population

4492:

it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs

3353:

to that extent. Merely giving us his own opinion won't do. Again: his assertion that the label of pseudoscience is a category mistake, is solely based upon his own opinion. He did not

7180:

edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.

6914:

edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.

6599:

the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus

12877: 8023:

I'd need to see a firm commitment to checking your talk page and really any pings, too. Just get into the habit of checking to see if there are notifications at the top of the page.

6741: 5272: 9119:

admins having already taken a position with bearing on only one editor? How will you all avoid those editors not having a first-mover advantage? The main reason I ask is because ...

6982:

Editors from across the spectrum can't help but to show up and accuse each other of bad faith editing, to make bad faith accusations that everyone supporting an option in an RM are

5153:

Israel-Hamas war article and can't be expected to have known given that my contributions to the PIA area is sporadic. What you present shows nothing unless there is something more.

826:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or

680: 8930:, I also request that admins on this page strictly enforce the need for diffs; the post by Licks-rocks is replete with undiffed assertions amounting to a diffless personal attack. 7147:"obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process" 5879:

lengthy sprawling discussion that eventually resulted in the current title, but if I did, I probably just voted for what I thought was the least bad available option at the time.

5817:

Also, for the record, I have been subjected to death threats and multiple serious personal attacks from people who support the current military actions of the Israeli government.

3496:

in short — this issue could have been more constructively solved with some friendly edits aimed at improving the article, and making a subject more understandable — for example:

1249: 9694: 3543: 12105: 11538: 6096:

claiming that if they make a report on AE, their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at, because they made the report. Should not be allowed whatsoever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |

3406: 9361:, and they're not the only two diffs like it from that discussion), so it's definitely not just "crusty vet defending MEDRS sources against those who don't understand MEDRS". 9285:

of England. This is IMO just to be expected. I believe this article will be a lot easier to write in five years. In the meantime, we have to muddle through as best we can.

9262:

Snokalok's contribution to this discussion is to say that the Cass Review is so controversial that INTEXT attribution is appropriate even when it's saying something undisputed,

7931: 7559:

disruption is ongoing from editors with thousands to tens of thousands of edits who have never edited the page before and aren't familiar with sourcing in a contentious topic.

9872:, with several editors on GENSEX UK topics repeatedly attempting to use a partisan political statement from a subcommittee of the Council of Europe as a trump card against UK 7969: 7964: 3688:

yelling at people about how wrong and stupid they are is the best way to make them go away, the pseudoscience topic area will lose a valuable editor. perhaps a topic ban from

8299:

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

5697:"immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere)" - this is not what I see. I see an editor documenting what they regard as inconsistencies between actions and rules. 584: 9822:

and berated me for referring to it as anything else, in doing so again repeatedly insinuating that I and YFNS don't understand how peer review works. The paper in question

7507:

My quick check of the log earlier this week said there hasn't been warnings about this for the people involved her I found troubling. As such I support SFR's path as well.

12754: 12665: 9471:

by Colin, as well as some of the context. It seems that there was a discussion where five British sources were brought in to back up a certain point. The British sources,

7974: 814:

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

10116:

He links to me noting the Cass Review denied a FOI (a very uncommon practice) as evidence of supposed xenophobia, and he continues insisting "they denied a FOI" requires

9865:

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

9448:

I could make similar arguments for the other things you've argued are misrepresentations, but I'd go way over the word limit and frankly I think you already get my gist.

11101:

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

10257: 3827:

A topic ban for Johnrpenner from Anthroposophy is reasonable, and some sort of anti-bludgeon/anti-thousands of words restriction on Tgeorgescu wouldn't be amiss either.

3684: 12776: 10250:

transgender care who has dedicated several years of their career to it. To show how systemic this repeated denigration from Colin on this has been, admins can refer to

6383:

Apologies for the tangent, but I think this is worth clarifying while we're here: The applicability of 1RR to talk pages is not clear from current policy/Arbcom pages.

12159:. Restored material that gives Netanyahu's statements undue weight in the lead in an edit with a summary that misleadingly claims consensus. No consensus on talk page 4595:

BTW could you please tell me: I suggested two masters above, and your answer about CU mentioned one of them. Is it also "unrelated" as to the other (o.max/"icewhiz")?

4417: 1000: 11910:

Well I'd say an arbitrator showing up to announce a block and a warning is an action one way or another and nothing requires a consensus on orders to close a report.

11674: 10577:

on their talk page. I'm also seeing that sort of inflammatory language from other editors though. Making over-the-top analogies to other countries isn't appropriate:

9380:

repeats an internet conspiracy theory that the Cass Review was actually ghost-written by a secret cabal of evil gender-critical feminists in cahoots with Ron DeSantis

6740:

First, I'm in agreement with Barkeep that the 1RR question is adequately addressed by Arbcom, and there is no violation here. This is very similar to a repeat of the

12882: 11716: 4846:

or accusation. The MR brought up the fact that at 30 on 30, with three choices of names, the closer should have weighted it according to the similarity in two names

5822: 5820: 12847: 12824: 12819: 12234:

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

7297:

Yeah, I get it. I missed the discussion, but I'd have said reverts on talk pages at CTs are disruptive enough, too. Not going to reopen that recent discussion. :D

6668: 6406: 6378: 4799: 236: 11656: 10568:

It bothers me that Colin's reply does not in any way acknowledge that his language was inappropriate, and as such I would support a logged warning, per Barkeep49

5232:, what you state to be general isn't universal. It's being debated because you are implying the motives of other editors and I happen to be one of those editors. 12578: 10129:

The note on my talk page speaks for itself. Multiple RS say these organizations had some levels of involvement. Colin apparently considers that "misinformation".

10033:

That being said, I think a logged civility warning and/or bludgeoning restriction are probably for the best. Perhaps also a cool off block from the topic of the

8296: 7713: 7583: 7421: 6995: 6787: 6223: 6022: 5791:, although going by my, possibly flawed, memory, most of them were by new editors to Knowledge who did not have extended edit-confirmed rights to respond to the 3551: 11311: 11289: 10542: 10453:

expectations (such as criticism without diffs - Lim-rocks your statement could have waited until you had time to support it with diffs) during this discussion.

7813: 7608: 7096: 7078: 7044: 7012: 3887: 3865: 3399:

It was not intended as mockery. I don't think he is unintelligent, and if he appears as unintelligent, that's for flamebaiting purposes (just to make me angry).

1119:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.

12676: 5672:

The statement can therefore be re-expressed as "There is a strong case to disable one of the countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity in the topic area."

4781: 3614:

more often on article talk pages. I have seen you give in-depth answers at times when not needed or just posting on the talk page not clearly tied to any edit.

424: 12498: 11010: 3505:

iii) the article talks about 'perception of the spiritual world' — but it fails to mention the key role Anthroposophists place on Intuition in this regard.

2996: 2991: 2986: 2981: 2976: 2971: 2966: 2961: 2956: 2951: 2946: 2941: 2936: 2931: 2926: 2921: 2916: 2911: 2906: 2901: 2894: 2889: 2884: 2879: 2874: 2869: 2864: 2859: 2854: 2849: 2844: 2839: 2834: 2829: 2824: 2819: 2814: 2809: 2804: 2799: 2792: 2787: 2782: 2777: 2772: 2767: 2762: 2757: 2752: 2747: 2742: 2737: 2732: 2727: 2722: 2717: 2712: 2707: 2702: 2697: 2690: 2685: 2680: 2675: 2670: 2665: 2660: 2655: 2650: 2645: 2640: 2635: 2630: 2625: 2620: 2615: 2610: 2605: 2600: 2595: 2588: 2583: 2578: 2573: 2568: 2563: 2558: 2553: 2548: 2543: 2538: 2533: 2528: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2508: 2503: 2498: 2493: 2486: 2481: 2476: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2456: 2451: 2446: 2441: 2436: 2431: 2426: 2421: 2416: 2411: 2406: 2401: 2396: 2391: 2384: 2379: 2374: 2369: 2364: 2359: 2354: 2349: 2344: 2339: 2334: 2329: 2324: 2319: 2314: 2309: 2304: 2299: 2294: 2289: 2282: 2277: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2252: 2247: 2242: 2237: 2232: 2227: 2222: 2217: 2212: 2207: 2202: 2197: 2192: 2187: 2180: 2175: 2170: 2165: 2160: 2155: 2150: 2145: 2140: 2135: 2130: 2125: 2120: 2115: 2110: 2105: 2100: 2095: 2090: 2085: 2078: 2073: 2068: 2063: 2058: 2053: 2048: 2043: 2038: 2033: 2028: 2023: 2018: 2013: 2008: 2003: 1998: 1993: 1988: 1983: 1976: 1971: 1966: 1961: 1956: 1951: 1946: 1941: 1936: 1931: 1926: 1921: 1916: 1911: 1906: 1901: 1896: 1891: 1886: 1881: 1874: 1869: 1864: 1859: 1854: 1849: 1844: 1839: 1834: 1829: 1824: 1819: 1814: 1809: 1804: 1799: 1794: 1789: 1784: 1779: 1772: 495: 11738: 11715:: I did not realize that posting on the talk page required the same rigorous citing that is required in the article. The article has the needed references: 11706: 11688: 11405: 11262: 9953:

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

9192:

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

9159:

I meant to add ... is it within the remit of AE, as WAID suggested, to remind editors advocating the use of certain sources that they should be approaching

7941: 7936: 6496: 6463: 5824: 4863: 4832: 11460: 10484:

I feel like we're seeing, in miniature, the disputes I've now read about in this report and Void's, play out in in this AE report. It starts with a quote (

10369:. I was near to quitting Knowledge over how it made me feel (so my reluctance to comment now isn't new). And here is the evidence I provided in that case: 7696: 5378: 1767: 1762: 1757: 1752: 1747: 1742: 1737: 1732: 1727: 1722: 1717: 1712: 1707: 1702: 1697: 1692: 1687: 1682: 1677: 1670: 1665: 1660: 1655: 1650: 1645: 1640: 1635: 1630: 1625: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1605: 1600: 1595: 1590: 1585: 1580: 1575: 1568: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1548: 1543: 1538: 1533: 1528: 1523: 1518: 1513: 1508: 1503: 1498: 1493: 1488: 1483: 1478: 1473: 1466: 1461: 1456: 1451: 1446: 1441: 1436: 1431: 1426: 1421: 1416: 1411: 1406: 1401: 1396: 1391: 1386: 1381: 1376: 1371: 1364: 1359: 1354: 1349: 1344: 1339: 1334: 1329: 1324: 1319: 1314: 822:

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

12589:. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 11841: 11743: 8447:

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

7737:. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 6440: 6061: 5384: 4814: 721:

Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as

7549: 7025: 5896: 5869: 5846: 5563: 5539: 5517: 5492: 5458: 5361: 5338: 5288: 5229: 5203: 5177: 5149: 4181: 3836: 1309: 1304: 1299: 1294: 1289: 1284: 1279: 1274: 1269: 382: 181: 12545: 11177: 9979:

We've now had two back-to-back reports involving the same editors, in the same articles, with much the same arguments and diffs that are presented with

6042: 5662:

Regarding "I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom."

4425: 4138: 4127: 4077: 4062: 4050: 3975: 3960: 3945: 3870:

So the topic ban has consensus. How do we want to move forward with Tgeorgescu? Another warning, or something with a bit more oomph? I like the gist of

3403: 12264: 9859: 8854: 8799:

There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this.

7381: 6822: 6541: 5723: 4969: 4448: 1227: 12570: 10782: 7485: 7196:

I could get behind topic bans imposed by a consensus of admins here, although I really wish that we didn't have to treat other editors like toddlers.

6519:

the highly-active experienced users in a topic area that is seeing substantial external disruption is probably something to be avoided if possible. --

5558:

Speaking for myself, while I felt it was inappropriate, it also didn't bother me, being very minor compared to much of what we see in this topic area.

5488: 3765: 3735: 687:

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the

655:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a

12324:). Maybe VR's taggings all around could be sometimes hard to follow? (this link VR shared doesn't seem to be a genuine attempt for discussion anyway 11870: 11487: 8858: 8517: 7455: 6591: 6572: 6067: 5957:

about human rights violations in general, regardless of who is doing them, and others who seem to act in a more partisan manner regarding this topic.

5609: 5259: 4236: 12814: 12303: 12024: 11526: 10796: 10018: 9992: 9974: 9799: 9727: 9609: 9513: 8018: 7654: 7568: 7470: 7278: 7172: 6925: 6904: 6864: 6849: 6834: 6815: 6801: 6697: 6480:. And in that section, 1RR is explicitly defined as being analogous to 3RR with a few specific changes (none of which mention excepting Talk pages). 6309: 6269: 4017: 4003: 3989: 3966:

a consensus here that if the behavior continues after a warning any admin can institute an anti-bludgeoning sanction as an individual admin action?

3701: 12586: 12391: 12246: 11000: 10773:

I don't think general reminders are terribly effective, but I guess that's what comes between nothing and a warning, so I wouldn't object to that.

10524: 10218: 10184: 10138: 10089: 9462: 7734: 7622: 7235: 7205: 7191: 7118: 6244:

Don't use my report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people. Please respect the time I put into this.

4869: 4302: 4263: 273: 140: 108: 12283: 11830: 11522: 9928: 9893: 9756: 6370: 6343: 5375:

For the editors asking for an example of editors who objected to this move request, but had no objection to others opened within a similar period:

10741:

I would prefer a more general reminder to AGF because I don't think reading Colin's comments in the worst possible light is limited to Snokalok.

6284: 4298: 4108: 3930: 1235: 414: 11802: 11181: 10264: 10102:

he says I repeat internet misinformation by saying the Cass Review explicitly excluded trans people from the Assurance Group, linking to himself

10074:

He has then accused Loki of being in "moon landing conspiracy territory" and threatened them with a TBAN for saying the Cass review is fallible.

8001: 7283:

We could choose as AE to impose 1RR on that talk page going forward, but I don't think we can decide the previous reverts were a 1RR violation.

6756:, and even if they disagreed with the RM procedurally, they should understand that editors often disagree about when another RM is appropriate. 5249: 5223: 5197: 4428:. I could go file at SPI, and this account was on my list of SPIs-to-file, but it would save a bunch of paperwork if reviewing admin could just 4149: 12760: 12090: 10260:) tried to repeat Colins earlier defamatory comments about Dr. Horton and those were revdeleted due to the defamatory nature by another admin. 8032: 6744:

specifically dealing with involved editors vetoing consensus establishing processes. In that report we issued a final warning for exactly what

6504: 5180:, I don't think it's an absolutely wild suggestion that a lot of editors wouldn't have read each and every comment in such a large discussion. 3606:

However tgeorgescu, I do have some advice after seeing your comments on talk pages over the years. Remember to center yourself on the ideas of

3428: 3147: 377: 11204: 11066: 10410: 10054:

Colin came in to say I'll be TBANNED and was pushing "conspiracy theory bullshit". When I back the claim I made with multiple RS (saying that

9336: 9318: 9177: 9071: 9045: 8971: 8944: 8873: 8847: 8817: 8792: 8777: 6215: 6191: 6172: 6158: 6118: 6104: 5571: 5547: 5525: 5500: 5466: 5369: 5346: 5170: 5143: 5120: 5078: 5048: 5011: 4102:

I think we're largely in agreement at least in principle, and the devil's more in the details. How would you envision a "warning with teeth"?

3924:

action is needed here, so I'll try to take a look. For the moment, just commenting to avoid the bot carting this prematurely to the archives.

781:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;

12086: 11969: 10727:

with the impression that Colin's contributions are also being read in the worst possible light by the OP, and that's not a helpful approach.

10574: 9841: 9625: 9591:(and some others of Colin's comments) was prompted by assertions made by other editors in the topic area who are involved in this complaint. 8586: 8561: 8383: 8352: 8342: 8290: 8278: 5717: 5577: 4975: 12469: 12442: 12413: 11062: 10624: 10606: 10591: 9424: 9294: 9153: 9095: 9014: 8909: 7680: 6890:

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines and follow best practices. Why are we making sure everyone gets a notification that they

6089: 5712: 5686: 5657: 5642: 5627: 5296: 4905: 4032: 3915: 3806: 12475: 12051: 11343: 8755: 7599:, followed by a demand that someone with whom you have a disagreement stay away from a community process falls well short of expectations. 6487:

section be modified to reflect the ArbCom decision? It's on a policy page, but that section starts off saying its material is from ArbCom.

5756: 5302:

Given the recent comment by David A, particularly their second sentence, I want to call out the obvious POV pushing that is occurring here.

5088: 5058: 4646: 3468: 3213: 710:). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. 11226: 10945: 10914: 10870: 10825: 10810: 10750: 10736: 10713: 10648: 9836: 9457: 9404: 9370: 8585:

Wrt Loki's "ridiculous and inflammatory accusation", I didn't make any of that up. It is all there in the sources YFNS cites above and in

7401: 5283:

in relation to RM's on that page. As part of that, they were warned against reverting closures, and told to go to an admin in the future.

4964: 4942: 4928: 4888: 3525: 12309: 12149:. Added material in wikivoice with two sources: one reliable but misleading quoted, the other apparently written by former IDF member. I 11027: 10887: 10852: 10699: 10563: 10390: 10214: 10180: 10134: 10085: 9942: 9781:

I would expect every ‘defendant’ at AE to meticulously scrutinise the AE complaint against them, this is not cause for sanctions at all.

7842: 7627:

I don't know if I would call it battleground either but I would call it an inappropriate comment as I do think it reads as intimidation.

5669:

Like it or not, Levivich is one of the topic area's countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity. They are part of PIA's immune system.

4413: 3209: 443: 216: 58: 11236: 10663: 10507: 10462: 10385: 10345: 9698: 9666:

much weight would we give that? It just happens that the UK government and most of its subsections, have a terrible record on the topic.

7668: 6729: 6711: 6680: 6654: 6636: 6617: 5057:, in which they engage in personal attacks and aspersion casting against every editor who has voted for a procedural close in the RM at 4894: 12561::) no formal restrictions are imposed, but it'll be something to note if you ever end up back here or in another user-conduct setting. 12364: 12328: 11958:

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

11933: 11919: 11905: 11888: 11836: 11481: 11431: 11394:

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

10934:

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

10765: 10612: 10479: 10442: 10234: 10105:. In that comment, he repeatedly mocks and denigrates Cal Horton, handwaving their peer reviewed criticism as "opinions someone's mum" 9935: 9889: 9881: 9183: 8881: 8163: 8097:

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

7636: 7532: 7516: 7502: 7331:

NM, I realize you were responding to a post above, sorry! The context there was the closure itself, which actually invited another RM.

7306: 7292: 7219: 6240: 5265: 4979: 4916: 4421: 4170:

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

3450: 3081:

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

969: 372: 221: 12383: 12358: 11250: 9682: 9384: 7896: 7364: 7340: 7326: 7257: 6536: 6528: 5206:

and why would they have been more likely to read the first comment than the comments further down near where they placed their !vote?

4854:. But I don't think this is the right venue to arguing the case for the a new move request, and that should be left to the community. 4757: 4734: 4719: 4701: 4686: 4672: 4658: 4622: 4604: 4585: 4566: 4547: 4532: 4518: 4503: 4483: 4469: 3820: 11199: 10498:

and so passing equivalent sanctions would understate, for me, the severity of harm to the editing atmosphere in evidence with Colin.

10301: 9962: 9804: 9344: 8229: 7854: 7314: 6912:, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not 4638: 4257: 3584: 418: 12340: 10295: 9827:

back a bit. This agressive, uncompromising, and accusatory attitude is extremely tiring and grinds discussions to a complete halt.--

5972: 5911: 5861: 5751: 5604: 12627: 11995: 11652: 11620: 11374: 10971: 10350: 10245:. Dr. Horton has several years of research experience and is an expert on transgender healthcare. You're welcome to read the draft 9279: 8225: 7872: 7860: 5818: 3174: 201: 11154: 11150: 10276: 8270:

Colin’s response on this topic is often to come in and deliberately misrepresent anything less than total deference as a personal

6017: 6002: 5943: 5888: 5838: 5778: 12182:"A day after October 7" (i.e. October 8) Hezbollah didn't attack northern Israeli towns, nor do the sources say that it did. See 11231: 7890: 7848: 7107:

multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing

4576:

says it's the same as 3RR, which explicitly applies on all pages. (Also it doesn't make much sense to exempt talk pages anyway.)

4457: 3530: 3385:—I don't think that's just a coincidence. When multiple accounts misunderstand Knowledge in the same way, we may suspect they're 3118: 3092: 808: 737: 591: 544: 314: 12872: 10370: 7922:

to help them continue the edit war. Then in early August they violated their topic ban several times, which I blocked them for.

5031:

Where's your evidence for coordinated meatpupperty? If you don't have any you need to retract your personal attacks/aspersions.

3994:

The topic ban? I don't think there's a rush on that part, as they haven't edited in two weeks. No reason not to log it, though.

3563: 3493:

sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

12697: 12449:

ABHammad, "military-resistance organization" is verbatim from a scholarly source written by Dr Farida and that is published by

11777: 11769: 11761: 11696: 11694: 11574: 11569: 11564: 11559: 10367: 9000:

here; my view is that more concrete and valid examples of what Colin might do differently would be more useful at this point.

8618: 7866: 6138:

without repercussions. If this isn't more than enough evidence that Levivich is one of the biggest problems in this topic area

3894:

Johnrpenner has been an editor since 2005 but is not yet experienced, having under 1800 edits. Their first edits (example from

3668: 3482:

things are — when i dont see as much effort towards contributing anything that might help provide insight on the given topic.

3061: 993: 841:

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

537: 309: 231: 103: 12156: 11861:), it becomes increasingly unlikely that future reports will lead to anything else than a topic ban or a site-wide block/ban. 9556: 8750: 8730: 8714: 8701: 8661: 8636: 8609: 8580: 8503: 7153:"editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed" 6916:? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. 12045: 10228: 9877: 8134: 7775: 6792:

SFR: I'm not being glib here: are you saying that the "trout" noted in the closing summary was in actuality a final warning?

6408:), 1RR is meant broadly to address article content, and specific talk page 1RR "violations" were deemed to not be violations. 4207: 3752: 1192: 674: 600: 470: 211: 150: 9916: 7150:"Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV" 4022:

Maybe an "anti-bludgeoning" sanction could be applied at page level, rather than to a specific editor? Having had a look at

3950:

I'm rather torn on that. I don't generally like to give more than one warning, or it turns into "Stop that, I really really

3748: 3657: 3055:

processes if a discussion reaches an impasse rather than continuing discussions which have become fruitless or intractable.

910:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),

887:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),

12785: 12709: 12419:

And the pattern of reverting without discussions continues. Makeandtoss removed Hezbollah's terrorist designation from lead

11819: 11791: 11589: 11021: 10336:

strict with him, not less. Experienced editors whom others emulate should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. --

9788: 9745: 9716: 9653: 9598: 9530: 9502: 8769:

and cherrypicking sources/words to support their view are completely accurate, even if not worded ideally. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |

6359: 6332: 6298: 6258: 3568: 3047:

is warned for talk page participation which is at times both excessively voluminous and excessively frequent, resulting in

549: 289: 206: 12165: 12150: 12136: 11123: 11114: 11105: 8839:

in other discussions) to justify you opening targeted AE cases against them and I encourage you to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |

7032: 7029: 7021: 6753: 3663: 3639: 774:) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. 12727: 12715: 12519: 11425: 10470:

who don't understand MEDRS" (though I definitely did see some examples of editors failing to understand MEDRS as well).

9897: 9862:

and sticking precisely to what sources say and how they say it helps navigate, even if editors don’t personally like it.

8646: 8490: 5448: 4642: 3550:'s comment at the end of the collapsed "Extended content") All that effort expended when it turns out an editor was just 1130:

More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

409: 334: 189: 120: 10415: 9855:

at this attempt to remove an editor of Colin’s calibre. This looks like an attempt to bully and "win" content disputes.

9630:

a lot easier to take the Cass Review seriously if SEGM and Genspect weren't involved at almost every step of the process

9551:

We are not going by how pretty much the entire press in "the country in question" treats various Russia-related topics.

6473: 5986: 5809: 5789:

this was not the first time that there have been attempts to overturn the recent page title move within a brief timespan

5280: 12889: