User talk:Nableezy/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Huge sigh of relief

I can't tell you how much of a pleasant surprise it was to see 11Fox11 swept up in that Hippeus sockpuppet investigation - I absolutely knew they weren't a new user, knowing the ins and outs of the arbitration process after 500 edits and delighting in 'gotcha' moments. While amusing myself with editing in other areas, I also caught my own first sockpuppet. Where do we go to collect our medals for services rendered to Wikipedia? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I only just put two and two together and realised that it was THAT Eostrix that was nearly an admin! Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your reward is more socks. Sorry lol. nableezy - 12:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Hunter award

Sockpuppet Hunter award

For your fantastic work defending the integrity of our project over so many years. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix shows how, without you, things could have been. The Eostrix account was careful to stay out of the two controversial topic areas which Icewhiz is obsessed with – I can only imagine the plan was to use this admin account to permablock those with whom he disagreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good grief! The plod sickens. In theory one would expect that tactic, but who can afford the time to read every corner of Wikipedia? The terrible thing about this place is that practiced users probably know after a dozen I/P edits by a newbie whether we have an old stager or a promising recruit to an area starved of talent. In lieu of the only evidence that counts (the kind of analysis Nableezy excels in) one must quietly WP:AGF through massive sheafs of argument, feeling that these exchanges are not serious, but shadowboxing. There should be some mechanism whereby successful reports made at ANI/AE by people who are later revealed to be sockpuppets (for that is their aim_ to provoke conflict in order to force editors into an exasperation that can be used in a report) have their validity repealed when the sock's true nature is exposed (often months or years down the line).Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That one I had no clue about, and legit a tad concerned at how close he was to becoming an "uninvolved admin". Wish Id looked into Hippeus before he got to run through as many bullshit reports as he could. Somehow doubt the users that for some reason keep ending up supporting him (waves to some talk page watchers) will reconsider their actions. nableezy - 12:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Can't waste your life or mind looking into them all. It's in any case, unhealthy because it can tip the scale from balanced assessment based on reasonable guesswork, into a kind of paranoid urgency, as I'm sure you know. The problem is always informal vs formal knowledge. A decade or so of experience will give editors a fairly reliable sense of tone, style, interest focus to spot likely socks - that is how we operate in relationships in real life. But in a workplace (I.e., wiki), only formal empirical proof counts, and, even if it grieves one to see quite often obvious socks let off the hook (the more the evidence given, the more they apply themselves to self-protective camouflage in their recycled identities), that's fair. I was certain Hippeus (lit.one who qualifies for an elite regiment be cause he owns a warhorse - an implicit allusion to bellicose intent whatever the urbanity of the riding style) was a sock, despite a cultivated effort to be 'evenhanded' now and then, almost from the outset, a perception strengthened by the slow but sure shift to AE and to targeting the usual suspects. I don't think the lockstep support editors, some of them of longstanding, will change their mechanical defense since they seem to think that whether an edit gets in or not has no rationale in evidence, sources, but is a matter of coolly calculating the numbers game. There is informal evidence of a distinct rallying of forces since 2019, but, well, patience. Anyone can learn to weaponize protocols, but actually mastering the topic's historical details requires more Sitzfleisch than your average sock possesses, and that itself is one of a number of dead giveaways.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Kudos

AOK, hombre! Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Was nada. nableezy - 12:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If I wasn't so slothful, I'd also be digging out a barnstar for you. Please take it as read that I'm very, very, very grateful for the sockpuppet weeding work you've been doing over a very long time.     ←   ZScarpia   13:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

AE

Hello Nableezy, just a comment IRT the now closed AE: my only suggestion is to try to avoid invitations to "return the favor" (others have already pointed this out though). I think it's the only point there that had potential to show your editing in a bad light. It's always good to remember that there are community processes like dispute resolution and noticeboards instead of biting the bait... Happy editing, —PaleoNeonate – 19:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I know tbh, I just try to give them a way to seeing how they might feel if somebody did to them what they are doing to others. But you right, and will try to refrain from offering lessons on the golden rule here again. nableezy - 19:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, the same message should be conveyed to one of the editors mentioned in the request, Inf-in MD, but with more reason.     ←   ZScarpia   20:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That was the mimicking act, most famously portrayed by "the artist formerly known as NoCal100". nableezy - 20:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And I was just reading the current AC/N saga just now... —PaleoNeonate – 22:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay Sherlock. this time you'll have to wear a no-fuss barnstar

		The Detective Barnstar
		For palmary achievements in rooting out the plague of sockpuppetry in the I/P area (a significant percentage of the 560 identified over the last two decades), most recently in catching three major disrupters (Geshem Bracha, 11Fox11, and whoever) in as many days. That alone cornered almost half of my own private list of obvious sock/meatpuppets active here.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to admit, while I am very pleased at the outcome, I am also quite jealous. I have been making a real effort at WP:SPI to catch these guys, but I am simply not in Nableezy’s league. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Console yourself. No one is. The cantankerous mug hates brown-nosing so I'm embarrassed even to throw a barnstar his way. He's welcome in his usual Chicagoan style to tell me, for one, to fuck off and let him get back to his usual quiet solitary trudging down the darker alleys, a dozen guns and knives shying shots at his back. Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Just curious if the defenders of the socks of Wikipedia legion will finally just shut the fuck up and let an SPI go without the typical bullshit backing up the team. nableezy - 12:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether the Wikimedia Foundation is looking into how to give Nableezy some decent sock-hunting competition? Things like SocksCatch...

SocksCatch: Automatic detection and grouping of sockpuppets in social media,

Knowledge-Based Systems, Volume 149, 2018, Pages 124-142, ISSN 0950-7051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.002.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705118301205)

Abstract: Since 2004, online social media (OSN) have evolved hugely. This fast development had interesting effects to increase the connection and information exchange of users, but some negative effects also appeared, including fake accounts number growing day after day. The sockpuppets are the multiple fake accounts created by the same user. They are the source of several types of manipulation such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization or to manipulate public opinion. In this article, we present SocksCatch, a complete process to detect and group sockpuppets which is composed of three main phases: first phase is the data collection and selection; second phase is the detection of the sockpuppet accounts using machine learning algorithms; third phase is the grouping of sockpuppet accounts created by the same user using graph theory. Experiments have been performed for the three phases using real data crawled from english Wikipedia. The results compare six machine learning algorithms for the detection phase and show that SocksCatch detects between 89% and 95% of the selected sockpuppets depending on the algorithms. We also compare five community detection algorithms for the grouping phase, and show that SocksCatch’s grouped sockpuppets and the real sockpuppet’s groups are similar between 80% and 88%, according to the cluster’s comparison measures: normalized variation of information (NVI) and normalized mutual information (NMI).

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Back from the dead! But 85% isnt competition, cmon man put some respeck on my name. nableezy - 15:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, your excellent efforts merited a comment. That paper was from several years ago. Imagine if they had continued to train the system in the meantime in collaboration with Wikimedia, it might be quite good by now. A sock-hunting copilot would be pretty handy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

But that was you, it was always you. nableezy - 16:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, what a nice thing to say. Careful now, you might be getting too soft to deal with the psychopaths. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Nableezy. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC).

Nableezy. Just as a matter of curiosity, how many AE/ANI denunciations have you copped in the last few months/or this year? And how many were laid by editors who turned out to be socks? I know they were all dismissed, but it looks like the 'no smoke without fire' approach: in lieu of a single convincing case, one just keeps throwing someone's name into arbitration until something sticks. Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Not that many actually, though we have gotten back to a place where there are multiple ummmmmm "low quality" complaints about me at the same time. Think my record is three in one archive. nableezy - 13:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Blasted with small calibre blank bullets mostly, from what I can see. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Closed, details here. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, there's a relevant WP:ANI thread here. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

Commendable.If editing profiles in this area are quietly watched by admins, the less need for editors on either side of the perceived (but not clear-cut) POV divide to fall into that lamentable vice of fussing and niggling AE/ANI with predictable comments. If a complaint is legitimate, then 'plaintiff's evidence, and respondent's reply' should be the ideal, without third party partisan rooting (though sometimes, if a cogent point is overlooked, the urge to intervene is often felt to be imperative) I've always thought, and tried to observe the principle, that recourse to those venues should be self-restrictive to avoid weaponization or even wasting everybody's time. No piffling whingeing, only serious issues like socking, or intransigent IR violations and the like. It just looks bad, indeed is bad, to be dragged into a game none of us here, if our remit is to be constructive, should play. There's far too much reading, research and article problems to take care of.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Inadvertently reverting you

In an attempt to undo a sockpuppet, I have also undone your edits as they were laced in between. Sorry about that. I'm trying to restore your edits now, but if I miss something, please restore it yourself.VR _talk 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The user actually implemented my suggestion in those edits, and there was agreement on the talk page for it so I just restored it. But ty for the heads up. nableezy - 14:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see the consensus.VR _talk 15:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. nableezy - 15:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sigh

after all that] Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Question on 30/500 edits

Just out of curiosity, how do all the 30/500 socks on Wikipedia make their 1-character edits correcting spacing grammar/errors, etc.? I'm assuming it is automated or semi-automated, presumably through software programmes run outside of Wikipedia and interacting with the platform through accounts? Is that correct? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure tbh, could be automated or just dedicated manual editing. nableezy - 19:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Amended

close Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not overly bothered about it but since the closer has left the door open for a different title, what do you think? It should be killings at least, no? Murder even.Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirect

If the move discussion closes with no consensus, how do we delete the redirect Palestinian citizens of Israel to allow the new page creation? RfD? Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You just edit it. nableezy - 15:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Right:)Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In general, it is better to have a more fleshed out article prior to creating it. If this already included material on demographics, and income, and locations, and whatnot would be much more difficult to propose a move to a subtopic that currently has the majority of the article (identity). nableezy - 03:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I requested Check User at SPI

[1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well done.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, nableezy - 15:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That was quick.:)Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, quicker than I ever would have noticed tbh. Getting lax in my old age i guess. nableezy - 15:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy,Nishidani and Selfstudier -->[2] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Was previously checked as Icewhiz, has always felt more like Yaniv to me. nableezy - 22:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s in line with other blocked Icewhiz’s sock puppets ( changing “a” to “an” and vice versa to get to 500/30), however, keep in mind they both coordinate their actions occasionally. It’s time to give this tactic away. I have more of the same on record but they are stale now. I don’t think he will use them anymore because of the latest blocks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy - What now might follow (I'm letting him know too, they read this). He will ask one of his banned mates with different technical details to use their sock puppets to mimic that exact behaviour. Just to get reported and confuse admins. Keep in mind that we are dealing with sock-puppetry on a massive scale with more than one soul involved. In my view, all accounts that so closely match the behaviour of blocked Icewhiz’s sock-puppets should be barred from editing immediately, even if they differ on a technicality. GizzyCatBella🍁 01:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There was this earlier effort that went nowhere. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Counting to 1

1RR Violation

Your edit[3] on the 2013_Tapuah_Junction_stabbing page seems to be in violation of 1RR. You deleted the description of terrorist, and then after it was restored, added addtional qualifications.

Please revert your own change, and get consensus on the talk page before making any further changes. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

lol what? What did I revert there? nableezy - 20:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

1) You deleted a long standing reference calling it a terror attack.

2) I restored this text

3) You added new text which had the effect of dramatically changing the meaning.

Reliable sources call it a "terror attack" and it was listed as such, you modified it to make it appear that only Israeli police were saying this. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding attribution, per the cited source, that was not there previously is not a revert. Please read what a revert is. Thanks. nableezy - 20:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Contentious labels section of the Manual of Style would also apply, so that the nature of the stabbing should be presented as a point of view rather than a fact.     ←   ZScarpia   09:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably 1RR violation

First you revert my change[4].

Then immediately after you delete a bunch of text that I that previously added[5].

This is in net-effect a violation of the 1RR.

Please undo those latest changes.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You really need to learn what the 1RR means. Consecutive edits are a single revert. As far as a bunch of text that [you] that previously added, if you dont make things up that the sources dont support others wont have to remove it. Maybe dont make things up that the sources dont support instead of asking that I restore some made up stuff that the sources dont suppot? nableezy - 23:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

He didn't "make things up that the sources dont support"! You either can't read or you're lying. Everything that you removed in this edit is clearly supported by this sources in "He has been a fierce critic of anti-Semitism in the Palestine solidarity movement, in particular the supporters of Gilad Atzmon." and by this source in "I have campaigned in both the Palestine solidarity movement and in the fight against anti-Semitism for over 10 years." and "One arena where this is acutely apparent is on social media. It's common for comments and posts to cross the line, moving from criticism of Israel into anti-Semitic territory. Conspiracy theories, repeating anti-Semitic Jewish power tropes, and vilifying those Jews who do identify with Zionism are regularly in play. I've often witnessed a 'Good Jew' vs 'Bad Jew' paradigm being used by activists."

Your removal of content is nothing but censorship.RafaelJC12 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You clearly have no understanding of what that was about. Because that articles is about a specific group, not the "Palestine solidarity movement". And material not related to the group being used to smear it is indeed WP:OR and does not belong on its page. Maybe dont think youve figured out Wikipedia after 61 edits? nableezy - 19:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've figured out that some people like to use their positions to censor information they don't like. When the source says He has been a fierce critic of anti-Semitism in the Palestine solidarity movement, what do you think this is referring to? If you think there should be more context in his edit, then add context, don't censor it.RafaelJC12 (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Any number of groups or organizations, and claiming it is related to one specifically when the source does not say so is indeed making things up. Now kindly find somebody else to annoy. I give literally 0 care to what you think is censorship. Like the opposite of caring is what I do about that. nableezy - 19:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Because you dont understand what consecutive edits means? Ok, thats cool. Will be bringing up your edit-warring and violation of WP:ONUS tho, fair warning. nableezy - 23:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 00:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop making threats

if you're going to report me, then report me. But I think your accusations are groundless.

But stop making threats implied or otherwise[6] [7]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Cool. nableezy - 22:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahem

! Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC) and done.Selfstudier (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: This certainly appears to be WP:CANVASS. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

lol Bob maybe just once consider the people who have 15-30x the edits that you do know a thing or two about the rules here. nableezy - 01:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's what it says:

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.

So, you're claiming that Selfstudier notified you in order to better achieve consensus, instead of stacking the deck in his favor? If so, so be, it but it does give every outward appearance of being canvassing. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs: If you wish to complain about something you think I have done, please do it on my talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Jfc, have you even read WP:CANVASS? Do you see the section on appropriate notification? Do you see where it has On the user talk pages of concerned editors. and then gives these two example Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article and Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Do you think youre going to ArbCom about a discussion I am involved in does not make me a concerned editor? Do you think I have not participated in previous discussions on this topic? Seriously, consider maybe you dont know quite as much about the rules here as people who exponentially more edits than you? nableezy - 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Nableezy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 19:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Well done

Well done on your successful challenging of the sock-infested Jewish Chronicle RfC. Also, please accept my personal thanks for defending me from the absurd insinuations of another user.

Boynamedsue (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries, people making bullshit insinuations of racism tend to get me a bit annoyed. nableezy - 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

AE

I am perplexed by your comment at AE that Maneesh's statement males or females can identify as males or females or ... alien beings is a comment about genetic sex, rather than gender identity. How could this be so? Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No, that is explaining that the article edit is about sex, not identity. I think that diff is his saying that what people identify as, regardless of what they identify as, is not relevant to the sentence in the article, as the sentence in the article is not about gender. I dont think that was the best way to put it, but I dont think the level of offense it seems to have caused was at all intended. I think you and Maneesh have largely talked past each other, with your edits relating to gender and his to genetics, and I think that has caused two well intentioned editors to come in to dispute. nableezy - 03:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, I understand genetics, and Maneesh's arguments about genetics, perfectly well. But there is a non-semantic difference between making the point "this section (or article) is about genetics, so gender identity doesn't apply here", and "gender identity is an absurdity" (or. as Maneesh later stated, a "folk idea") "so the article shouldn't refer to it". It seems clear to me that the diff indicates the second thing, and only the second thing makes sense of Maneesh's subsequent edits.

Let's be clear: I would still disagree with the first thing, and the idea that the WP article Man should have all references to gender identity removed and that the only relevant context is genetic sex is absurd to me. But it is because Maneesh argued, and continues to argue, the second thing against both CIVILity and all mainstream scholarship on the topic that I found the pattern of edits disruptive and filed at AE. So your posting effectively erasing the difference between what Maneesh actually wrote, and the more policy-compliant argument that he "could" have made, seems inexplicable to me. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont think the argument on whether or not the article Man should primarily refer to gender or sex is one to be settled at AE though. I agree that the comparison made by putting in alien was improper, but I also dont think the level of offense people have taken was intended. I dont think he meant folk notion the way you seem to be taking it, I think he meant folk as in popularly understood, as opposed to scientific. He was saying when people say man or woman it is commonly understood to refer to gender identity, but when he did so in the article he was referring to genetic sex. nableezy - 03:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, since I suspect that I've spent more time parsing Maneesh on that meandering Talk page, I think I'll have a go as to what he is actually saying on that interminable section. (1) He believes that, in the context of that article, "man" means "male human" means "person with a Y chromosome". (He would give you some much more nit-picky statement of the latter, I'm sure, but that's the essential point.) (2) He believes that all intersex people are "simply" (definitionally) male or female by chromosomes, and that there is nothing especially complicated about intersex gender identities, because (3) he doesn't think gender identities matter for articles like Man and Woman, because people holding trans identities are an almost immeasurably small group, and because gender identities are basically incidental and arbitrary beliefs people may happen to hold, as opposed to male and female sex which are important for our physical and social lives.

I'm not going to diff all this now, but each and every step of this is based on Maneesh's actual diffs in Talk. I'm not saying that any editor who holds this worldview will necessarily be disruptive, but Maneesh (partly because of the strategies, as well as hyperbolic rhetoric, he uses to push this perspective) will continue to disrupt as long as he is allowed to make edits that affect GENSEX content and discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Im sure you are right that you have spent more time with Maneesh, and you may well know his intent better than I do. Honestly, the only reason I said anything is it seemed that the justification for a ban was the holding of unpopular opinions, and as the holder of unpopular opinions in another area that concerned me. I dont know what else Maneesh has said about identity, but the edit and the justification brought up there read, to me, to be about genetic sex and attempting to skip past any identity discussion entirely. And that if you read his posts, at least the ones Ive looked at cited there, to be about gender and not sex then yes you can come to believe that this merits some sanction. But if you read it the way that it seems to me it was intended, then no not as much. nableezy - 17:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)