Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer 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 extended-confirmed restriction). 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. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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 section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

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.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

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

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

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.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ 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.

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

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.

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 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.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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 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.
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 special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
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 discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

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.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
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 "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354

M.Bitton

No consensus to act after nearly a month; closed without action. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning M.Bitton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Closetside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

[1] Refuses to acknowledge a map of a RS and calls my reading of it an "interpretation." Furthermore, incredibly arrogant by refusing to recognize there even is a dispute, considering themself a mere purveyor of what the RS say.
[2] [3] Insists I wait for a 3O despite stating they don't disagree with me on those points (I previously assumed they did)
[4] Baselessly calls my perspective OR, despite previously providing sourced despite previously providing RS to back up my position
[5] [6] [7] [8] Again, refuses to acknowledge the sources I brought up to support my position, even though a 3O explicitly told them they were ignoring my sources beforehand.
[9] Despite the dispute being hashed out well already and advised by a 3O, they insisted we go to DRN. While this may be fine, they subsequently haven't opened up anything on DRN yet despite their insistence.
[10] Refused to acknowledge a legitimate rebuttal to their interpretation of the sources they cited.
[11] Insisted on coming here despite me giving them one last chance to correct their behavior and avoid this report.
[12] Violated WP:STATUSQUO in Emirate of Bari, despite me warning him such an edit would be added to this report. Incorrectly invoked WP:ONUS to remove material that previously had informal consensus and cited the supportive WP:3O, even though 3O is not binding.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[13] Blocked for disruptive editing (quite similar behavior) 2 months ago.
[Page blocked] in January 2025 for one week, edit-warring
[14] Blocked for disruptive editing in 2015.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[15]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Closetside's statement contains 461 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Additional comments:

I rewrote the lede after the RM was resolved. At the time, I thought the dispute was whether the Wadi Gaza and Besor Streams were one stream or two, and I thought the RM settled it as one. I was unaware of M.Bitton's notion of it originating near Hebron and did not revert their revert once they reverted it. My other rewrites were bold attempts at compromise per BRD and I did not revert their revert.
Furthermore, it seems M.Bitton is politicizing the non-political, claiming the RS consensus "erases Palestine" without evidence, even though the definition pre-dated the existence of the West Bank. While such a definition relegates its West Bank tributaries, this is straight-up RGW, especially without one RS to back up the claim unambiguously. There are other ways to bring that fact to the general reader's attention.

In conclusion, this editor has returned to their disruptive editing despite being blocked for a month a mere two months ago due to it. I wish they took the off ramp, but alas they didn't, so here we are.

Considering he has disruptively edited in Israeli and Palestinian geography, German and Morrocan relations, and Islamic Italian history, this is a wide-ranging problem a topic ban cannot remedy. @FortunateSons

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning M.Bitton

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by M.Bitton

M.Bitton's statement contains 833 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

This report is in response to my question to the admins, as well as what I said to them.

Please see AE reports about Closetside: 1 and 2. After the last one, they went straight back to the article that they edit warred on, and despite what they claimed in that report, they did not reinstate the sourced content that they removed; and a month later, they removed the mention of Palestine (without consensus).
Closetside removed the mention of the "Palestinian Authority" (West Bank) and Gaza (including the category) from a related article, even though both are mentioned in the the only cited source only cited source in that article.
They edit warred over this nationalist content removal until they were blocked.

There was no 3O response.
Here's what an experience editor said. Closetside didn't agree with them. They also previously drove them up the wall during the RM discussion that Closetside bludgeoned (while refusing to compromise).
I didn't open a DRN because I didn't edit for 3 days and I was awaiting a response to this request. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, I don't think Closetside is capable of editing PIA related articles without pushing a nationalist POV, as evidenced by the two previous reports and the PIA related block. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I was told that I couldn't complain about them in the other report because the scope of a discussion is limited to the "conduct of two parties". This report was made after they saw my request. I responded to what is worth responding to, the rest is them complaining about the fact that I don't agree with them and their attempt to censor properly sourced content. M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MilesVorkosigan (a non EC editor at the time who violated the ECR policy) accused me of ignoring the sources, and when asked which sources they are referring to, they provided this non answer, with a battleground attitude to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source mentioned by Fiveby was used to prove that even the author of the map (presented by Closetside as a source that contradicts those that I cited) does not deny the West Bank origin of the stream. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: the two are related. I cannot ignore the fact that they only started this report after realising that I was about to start one about their behaviour. That I don't agree with their interpretation of what happened is a given: they removed properly sourced content (the root of the issue), dismissed all the reliable sources that don't align with their pov, cited less explicit sources (not to prove another origin, but to disqualify the other and justify the sourced content removal), insisted on only using their preferred description (which they characterised, without a shred of evidence, as the " typical description"), etc. Luckily, Richard Nevell (who followed the discussion from the start) provided a third-party perspective. Had this been a one off, I would have dismissed it as a simple content dispute, but it's not, and the fact that, in the middle of the dispute, Closetside did the same thing to another PIA related article (mentioned above) is a serious cause for concern. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Samuelshraga's claim: 1) I didn't really get involved in the RfC until they finished !voting and commenting. 2) When I left a comment, MilesVorkosigan replied to it with this uncalled for accusation of ownership (after they did it before and doubled down on it in their comment above). 3) They then added this one (about me "going to get blocked again"). 4) This is their response to a question that was meant for Closetside (even though Closetside later claimed that they weren't aware of ...). 4) Their response to me mentioning a policy (they attributed some nonsense to me). 5) They then accused me of trying to right great wrongs. As if that wasn't enough, Closetside wrote this editor got blocked two months ago for this exact behavior and will probably get blocked again. Thanks for having my back.. In other words, they opposed all possible solutions for a compromise (as suggested by myself and Richard Nevell) and personalised the RfC from the get go to prevent me from expressing a view that they don't like.

As much as I would like to ignore certain things, I can't help but notice that all three editors (Closetside, Samuelshraga and MilesVorkosigan) have at least one thing in common ([1], [2]), [3]), leading me to believe that there is more to this than meets the eye. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: what do you think of the diffs that I provided? M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: they are not "new", and even if they were, that still wouldn't give them carte blanche to abuse me. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I'm not used to this board, so I didn't pay attention to the word limit. What do you suggest I do to address it? Can I delete comments that have been replied to? M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fiveby

Fiveby's statement contains 220 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

For a quick primer on the content dispute here i'd suggest admins take a quick look at figure 1 in "Analysis of extreme rainfall trend and mapping of the Wadi pluvial flood in the Gaza coastal plain of Palestine" (WPL Springer link) (the abstract of which MBitton has quoted on the take page) which illustrates the main channel of the stream and the drainage basin of all the tributaries. Not to decide the content issue but to determine if editors are making valid arguments and representing sources appropriately on the talk page. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell, there is no controversy or confusion as to the physical geography here, a mundane bit of content with concepts and terminology we should have all learned in middle school. How and why such controversy and confusion has been manufactured on the talk page is an exercise for the admins here. While there are many ways of describing our water body we should not entertain those which move the source to the Hebron Hills nor those which have the course somehow reaching the Med without passing through Gaza. I submit that neutral editors would realize both that there are important issues concerning the tributary waters from the West Bank and that there is no need to alter the course in order to provide that content. fiveby(zero) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

MilesVorkosigan's statement contains 379 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

In his statement, M.Bitton says that there was no 3O. That is only very, very technically correct, because I saw the request on the 3O page and went to the talk page for the article. I asked both users some questions, ClosetSide responded, M.Bitton refused to engage and just kept repeating that he would only use the one source that agreed with him. He would not explain why he chose to ignore the other sources mentioned on the talk page or why he would not discuss them. After I reminded him of policy, he filed a complaint here, trying to pretend that asking him about his sources violated the Arb decision about Israel/Palestine.

Then he removed all of my comments from the talk page.

MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that M.Bitton is perhaps slightly misleading in his most recent reply when he calls me a 'non-EC' editor. As he knows, it turns out I was at *that* time eight edits way from EC, and I am now well past that number, as pointed out by neutral editors in his complaint against me.

That is the reason that the most recent recommendation in his complaint is to close it without action.

As to the 'battleground' statement, I'll point out that M.Bitton has ~~three~~ two blocks for edit warring in that last few months. I have none.

MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He edited his prior statement with an unclear edit summary, so now, after I mentioned it, it is correct. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there is another clear inaccuracy in M.Bitton's statement, where he accuses Closetside of WP:Canvassing. Closetside didn't need to bring this new complaint to my attention, I obviously noted it because I was already watching the page, it was on my watchlist because of M.Bitton. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that I'm apparently being accused of being in a conspiracy of some kind, here ...more to this than meets the eye.?

I don't really know what to say about that, but did want to add one last diff, where M.Bitton made the same kind of vague accusation that someone was violating NPOV and upon being asked for specifics, first wrote a poem of some kind, and then this reply. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard Nevell

Richard Nevell's statement contains 438 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I am commenting here as both parties have pinged me in their comments. My previous involvement on the talk page largely been around the article title. I have watched the discussion about the current points of contention unfold but contributed little as my available time is unpredictable and I didn't want to join a conversation and go quiet.

There is some talking at cross purposes and not much meeting in the middle. M.Bitton has been quoting explicit statements from sources (eg: "The Khalil Besor river originates in the West Bank") whereas those used by Closetside are less explicit. Closetside has been making special pleading that the sources provided by M.Bitton define the watercourse in a different way to other sources. Even if that is the case, that does not negate the sources provided by M.Bitton it means we need to work out how to reconcile those differences.

Though not raised by Closetside in their opening statement, there is also the issue of the removal of sourced content about the Wadi Gaza Nature Reserve, which Closetside justified as being undue. Five sentences explaining the reserve's extent, ecological issues, and rehabilitation not only seems like useful information but an appropriate level of detail for the article in question. On reflection, I should have said as much on the talk page as the situation unfolded.

Closetside's approach is to make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them. It is a rhetorical approach which attempts to control the discussion and treats it more as a debate to be won rather than being based on consensus building. The contribution of the 3O giver was unhelpful as they misunderstood the ARBPIA restrictions and reacted poorly to being informed that they were not yet eligible to engage by accusing M.Bitton of owning the page, and I thought the mention of a topic ban read like a threat.

As a non-expert in this subject area I would look for secondary sources explicitly stating "the Besor Stream originates xyz". Speaking of which, thank you to User:Fiveby for pointing to fig 1 in Bergman et al 2022. That and the text from the same source quoted by M.Bitton suggests that there are different ways to describe the stream. It would explain how the sources M.Bitton and Closetside have been taking different approaches. Reading more of the article I think the way forward, content wise, is to emulate the description in the 'Introduction' section, noting the main channel and tributaries. As the source describes the Besor as having multiple headwaters trying to select a single one may be overly reductive. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

Samuelshraga's statement contains 499 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Full disclosure: M.Bitton and I have a history, and I am the one who filed the recent AN/I thread which led to their month-long block.

I am commenting because I don't think that M.Bitton's behaviour has meaningfully changed. They are fresh off a block for behavioural violations. I detailed then, for one, IDHT and invoking contrived interpretations of policy (then it was NPOV), without specifying what in the policy supports their position. In the dispute here, they similarly invoke WP:OR vaguely even when confronted with sources[17], [18], or just throws it at any opposing argument.[19]

This behaviour is not specific to this dispute or topic area. The other POV-pushing is still evident - here they tell an editor that their content doesn't belong on the Morocco page and to place it in the more obscure Germany–Morocco_relations [20], only to then revert that editor there 3 times in a row [21][22][23]. M.Bitton proceeds to template this editor (twice) for edit-warring. That editor has 352 edits by the way, so WP:BITE is a concern, but this is improper to anyone.

One reason that M.Bitton got blocked before is that after being reported, they doubled down and went on the offensive. This is another instinct that has not changed since their block, if their first response above is anything to go by.

All I sought last time was for M.Bitton to recognise the problematic behaviours and change them. M.Bitton ended up apologising when caught for block evasion, but I am not aware of any instance of them recognising why they were blocked in the first place or undertaking to improve. Rather they've returned and within a month are embroiled in intractable content and conduct disputes across multiple topic areas.

Is it possible that this whole dispute with Closetside could have been avoided by starting it with a touch more civility and a lot fewer aspersions and assumptions of bad faith?[24][25] I think so. And if M.Bitton doesn't see the problem with their behaviour, is there any chance they're not going to be brought back again by the editors who they've attempted to beat into submission? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having kept an eye on the Besor stream RfC, the problematic behaviour is ongoing there. M.Bitton has provided about two thirds of the last fifty edits. Closetside, after re-engaging, managed to stay civil and then disengage. Other editors (notably not Closetside) unwisely raised the temperature of the discussion. However, M.Bitton returned in kind [26][27], asked questions that seem to be based on a contrived reading of prior discussion to make a point[28][29][30], assumed a whooole lot of bad faith[31][32] (and then linked back to one of those multiple times). It's hard to believe that this environment is not dissuading potentially constructive outsiders from participating.Samuelshraga (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If admins consider the recent charges of nefarious conspiracy something that needs to be addressed, I'd request 100-200 words extension for it please. Otherwise I think I'm done. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've condensed my comments to stay within the word limit. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FortunateSons

FortunateSons's statement contains 384 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Making no statement on the content, perhaps it would be beneficial to either close this with or without action. FortunateSons (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new diffs by Samuelshraga are really not inspiring confidence that M.Bitton can edit within this topic area without being disruptive and hostile to others, particularly those he disagrees with. And doing this right now - though I know that there is no official expectation of being on one's best behaviour while having an open AE discussion - indicates to me that the threat of imminent sanction, as would be provided by a (last) warning, is insufficient to curb this behaviour FortunateSons (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton, I haven’t had the opportunity the look at them yet, but they do put you at 1.1k words based on my rough count, and adding ~ 200 words after an admin complaint about word limits is probably something to avoid in the future. FortunateSons (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton the first one and the last three are the only ones accessible to me. It's possible that this is a case of user error on my side, but do you mind checking that the others actually work? FortunateSons (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton those work now, thanks. The behavior of those 3 editors isn’t great either, but they’re all relatively new editors (and if they aren’t, now might be a good time to have that checked), who - unlike you - don’t have 10 years and 50k edits worth of experience, or 3 sanctions within this year alone. I‘m not an admin, but if I were, this would be a case for an „indefinite means appeal it in 6 months“ sort of tban, maybe with a warning for conduct associated with ctop enforcement, if nothing else than for writing 1.1k words without an extension after the whole drama from last time.

On a personal note, I genuinely believe that you are a skilled editor and could be a productive contributor to the topic area, but honestly, you’re not being one right now based exclusively on the way you engage with some editors. No matter which way this ends, I think that spending a bit of time editing something less adversarial, or maybe returning to the area after the current war ends might cut down on the problematic parts while allowing you to shine at the stuff you do best. FortunateSons (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning M.Bitton

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

Hello, M.Bitton, it seems like your comment in this discussion is making further accusations against Closetside and not responding to the points they brought up in their complaint against you. Since Closetside opened this complaint and not you, it would be helpful if you could consider the examples they brought up and either confirm them or contest them rather than starting a brand new complaint against them. Otherwise we have two separate complaints going on at the same time. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, you are correct that due to recent changes, complaints at ARE now can only concerns details about two editors, the filing party and the editor whom the complaint is about. So, that is why your comments about Closetside were not welcome on the other complaint but suitable for this one since Closetside is the filing party. But my own comment made yesterday was to encourage you to engage with Closetside's opening critique rather than bringing up unrelated complaints you had against Closetside. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not agree with all of the ways M.Bitton is characterizing Closetside, I do think he is correct to have noted that the 3rd opinion giver was not qualified to do so; given the complexity here it would be the incredibly rare editor who is capable even at 500 edits of being capable of understanding both the content and policies at play and so 8 edits short of extended confirmed or not I think he's right to give short shift to that. While on the narrow question at play here, I come to largely similar conclusions to Richard Nevell on the broader behavior questions I share Samuelshraga's concerns even if the evidence presented post-block do not appear to be in this forum's remit. I antcipate that I may not have time to further weigh in on this dispute and so do not need to be consulted by any admin(s) attempting to form consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: I am not suggesting a compromise nor do I see Richard Nevell doing so. Instead I agree with his comment that you, even in this comment I'm replying to, make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them. which isn't actually how consensus - not compromise - can be built. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've only skimmed this and have no position on the overall merits, but I am disappointed to read So far, he is uninterested in arguing or conceding gracefully, instead beating the same drum like a proponent of a canard, and this behaviour is harmful to the encyclopedia. and it seems like your comment in this discussion is making further accusations against Closetside and not responding to the points they brought up in their complaint against you in light of my recent block of M.Bitton. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons, no one has investigated this issue yet. Which would probably be easier if folks stuck to the word limit. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since participants in this discussion continue to blow past the word limit, I've added some templates to help you count. Please adjust accordingly. -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton I wouldn't advise removing anything someone's already responded to (but let it be a lesson to all about how tit-for-tat isn't really helpful for anything other than driving up word count). But I expect you can significantly condense what you've already said, and certainly you can avoid responding to anything further without asking for an extension. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yarohj

General informal warning given to both Yarohj and UtoD about the need to discuss --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Yarohj

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: UtoD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Yarohj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SL

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

6 May 2025 Continously removes content from the page of Mullivaikkal massacre insisting there is no RS despite the other user who added it again naming the RS and the same RS being discussed in talk page.
7 May 2025 And again reverting to remove the same content while insisting no RS. No talk page activity and clearly didn't even check it out.
6 May 2025 Adding large blatant WP:SOAPBOX copy-paste section dumps on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page. No talkpage explanation either as the exact issue has been discussed and solved through RC.
7 May 2025 Uses reverting to try and force back the content and again, no talk page activity.
7 May 2025 And reverted again. No talk page activity which makes me give them a warning and notify them of CT sanctions despite them being previously active in SL pages under CT just in case if they are unaware.
7 May 2025 Ignores the warning and reverts yet again and dumps the massive WP:SOAPBOX section despite already being warned and notified of the CT sanctions in place.

@Femke: Note that user Johnwiki states the main citation is the UN panel report in Mullivaikkal page which is also present in the in-line citations. Also note that for Sri Lanka Armed Forces the issue has been discussed before and also an RfC decision for the page not to content dump WP:SOAPBOX sections which are already present in more relevant pages on it but to have a concise section in History explaining the things and give links to relevant articles which is already present. However the issue being reported is user Yarohj edit warring and trying to push them through by force even after being warned -UtoD 10:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: It appears the user is unaware of what WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Also separate headings for Human Rights issues had been solved by RfC where it was decided controversies be concisely mentioned under History similar to IDF.RfCs handled the wording on that section. Undoing years of consensus building is tiresome thus better for user to explain issues in wording than WP:SOAPBOX WP:CSECTIONs by mass copy-paste dumping . -UtoD 05:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [33]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

Discussion concerning Yarohj

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Yarohj

The source you linked literally says "The UN says most of those civilians died in government shelling as they were crammed into ever-diminishing “No Fire Zones” – though the Tamil Tigers are also alleged to have committed grave abuses including suicide bombings and the use of human shields.", I don't how you can mention allegations as established information, and make a big claim that LTTE has done massacres against Tamils in NFZs, while its well known established fact, that Sri Lanka Armed Forces have committed countless genocidal atrocities against Tamils in NFZs, backed by a lot of sources as mentioned in that article and @UtoD has removed a whole section of content from Sri Lanka Armed Forces page too, it was relevant content copy pasted from other articles with attribution, I don't know how any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, significant notable activities that happened in the civil war, how can that be WP:NPOV, portraying as if nothing happened, like there is no cases against them of genocide, war crime and human rights violations, not mentioning any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, a propaganda recruitment page for Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Yarohj (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Yarohj

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

Yarohj: I see you've not yet found your way to talk pages. When an edit is reverted, the standard route is to open a talk page discussion, to see if you can come to a consensus, for instance via compromise. This is called WP:Bold, revert, discuss. When you repeatedly revert, this is edit warring. I don't see any recent discussions of sourcing on Talk:Mullivaikkal massacre on either side. Can you explain why you believe the cited source ([35]) did not support the statement? Maybe you're unaware that the infobox does not always repeat citations for the rest of the article. Or do you believe that Channel4 is unreliable? These discussion need to happen on talk, not via repeated reversions in edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the discussion as a normal admin action may still be warranted. Yarohj: do you understand that thinking you're right is not an excuse for edit warring? Especially in contentious areas like this, you need to talk and reach consensus instead of edit warring. When you want to change the direction and tone of a page, you need to convince people on the talk page that the previous version was not neutral and did not reflect how the very highest-quality sources describe the topic. How much attention you give certain aspects of a topic impacts the neutrality (for good or worse), so text that is neutral is one article can be WP:UNDUE weight and non-neutral in another article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am right, it is what the sources say, that said as you can this is a contentious topic and yet very sensitive too, even now Sri Lanka Armed Forces page doesn't seem to show any neutral point of view, as the editor who reverted everything could have started discussion too WP:DRNC, anyway I get it, I will discuss in talk page to reach consensus as I have done before, this single instance was different. Yarohj (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your commitment to avoid edit warring. Two more comments:

I don't think I am right, it is what the sources say. That's a concerning attitute, in the sense that you still think your reading of the sources is right about 'due weight'.

as the editor who reverted everything could have started discussion too. While true, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, the etiquette is for the person who makes the initial edit to start a concise discussion if they disagree with a revert. Can you indicate whether you understand this?

On holiday now, so I won't respond for a while. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will just say (without having looked at the complaint in detail) that this is not a valid CT notice: the rule on awareness is that Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and more importantly I don't think "CT sanctions apply to these articles" is at all useful for a new editor who likely has no idea what CT even stands for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've given them the CTOP warning now. @Yarohj, can you please respond to Femke's question above? -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would close this thread with no action due to a lack of evidence of disruptive behavior by Yarohj after they became aware of the sanctions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If someone closes this before Yarohj responds to Femke's question, could they please copy the question over to their talk page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of it and will be mindful of it in future. Yarohj (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWiki159

No AE action taken at this time except advise editors to engage in dispute resolution rather than reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning JohnWiki159

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SL

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

18 December 2021 Adds LTTE as perp to infobox, despite a source that he himself had cited making it clear LTTE was noted for its absence of sexual violence (pp. 134, 143, 146) barring few allegations.
29 December 2021 First revert, re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox after being removed by another editor who thought it misleading.
9 April 2024 Reverts my removal, and re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox, without addressing my edit explanation weeks earlier where I explained that one anti-LTTE source can't be given equal weight to other reliable sources in the lede contradicting it, although a talk discussion about this issue had been active since 27 March 2024 and even there he refused to engage my comments addressing him. Another editor issues an edit warring warning on JohnWiki159's user talk page.
14 April 2024 Re-adds LTTE as perp to infobox after another editor had removed it, without even engaging me in the talk, even after I had notified in the talk page that an admin had issued an edit warring warning on the issue. On the next day, I once again asked him to engage me in the talk and warned him that he could be topic banned but he ignored me.
16 May 2025 Re-adds the same disputed content an year later after another editor had removed it without engaging the active talk discussion.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 20 April 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is an years-long slow edit warring without talk engagement.---Petextrodon (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that JohnWiki159 has brought it up, I want admins to take note of the fact that he has now admitted to adding grapevine against Wiki policy. Not only that, but has also misrepresented the source by presenting it as a fact despite the source itself explicitly describing it as a grapevine. He has also misrepresented the other source, whose author is merely noting that UTHR has made these allegations, without commenting on their veracity and on several instances comments these allegations lack details (pp. 146-147). His "POV editing" accusation applies to his own behaviour, not just on the article in question but also on main article of the LTTE where for the past several years he has been adding excess weight to its negative representation. JohnWiki159 has further pointed out that several other editors also opposed his edit to the infobox. If that were the case, wouldn't the right course of action have been to open a talk discussion than to continue reverting over the years?---Petextrodon (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, isn't reverting my edit three times (see diffs 3, 4, 5) without talk page engagement with me a violation of guidelines?---Petextrodon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, wouldn't that constitute slow-motion edit warring? Without at least a warning, this user might be emboldened to continue this behavior an year later (since he only edits once in a blue moon). Only reason I reported it here instead of ANI or other avenues was because I thought the guidelines were more strictly enforced on contentious topics, otherwise it seems to defeat the whole purpose.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, alright. If the editor persists in this behavior, what course of action should I pursue? I don't want to be regarded as vexatious with another complaint.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE Notice

Discussion concerning JohnWiki159

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by JohnWiki159

Dear all, I have added LTTE as Perpetrator to the info box because the article contains incidents of sexual violence by LTTE members against Tamils. The source cited lists cases of such violence against Tamils by LTTE members. Moreover, UTHR has reported such cases by LTTE and the source lists the cases reported by UTHR. UTHR has reported on violence perpetrated by both the state forces and LTTE. Petextrodon calls UTHR anti-LTTE but at the same time, Petextrodon uses the same UTHR reports as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces as shown here. The article has several incidents which use UTHR as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces. But when the same source is used to list the violence perpetrated by the LTTE, that source becomes anti-LTTE for Petextrodon. In this edit, Petextrodon adds a phrase "According to the anti-LTTE" for a LTTE violence reported by UTHR. Isn't this POV editing? The talk page discussion is about whether to include a LTTE violence in the article. Users Petextrodon and Oz346 have objected including an incident in the article reported by the the UTHR source where a forcibly recruited child soldier who had managed to escape faced sexual violence by LTTE members after being caught. The UTHR source says that the sexual violence of the escaped child soldier by LTTE members came to be known later through the grapevine straddling all sections that inhabit Batticaloa's interior. In the talk page, Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino argue that "things heard through the grapevine are explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia hence this incident cannot be included in the article". However, my opinion is that this incident can be included in the article by mentioning the grapevine straddling. Moreover, the source talks about this incident as well. Since these users are objecting the inclusion of this incident in the article, I decided to only update the Perpetrator list since the article contains other incidents of sexual violence by LTTE members against Tamils, to maintain the neutral point of view of the article. It should be also noted that there have been several other attempts to remove LTTE from the List of Perpetrator and LTTE violence1 2 3 4 5 This gives the question why some users are so focused on trying to only remove the LTTE out of all the Perpetrators from the info box when there are LTTE violence incidents in the article. --JohnWiki159 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Petextrodon's comment

I believe Petextrodon has misunderstood what I wrote. I summarized the talk page discussion to help readers understand the points being raised. What I said was Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino argue that "things heard through the grapevine are explicitly forbidden from Wikipedia hence this incident cannot be included in the article". I included the argument brought up by these users in quotation marks and then provided my own opinion afterward. I haven't admitted to anything.

Regarding Petextrodon's accusation that I am engaging in POV editing on the LTTE article, I have used reliable sources to add content to that article. I reject Petextrodon accusations of me adding excess weight to its negative representation. When examining contributions of Petextrodon, Petextrodon's edit count is more than twice mine in the LTTE article. Then as per Petextrodon's logic, this implies that Petextrodon has been adding far more excess weight to its positive representation. I believe all content, positive or negative, should be supported by reliable sources and presented in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Regarding the accusation of misrepresentation by Petextrodon, the source summarizes the specific incident reported by UTHR in which a forcibly recruited child soldier who had managed to escape was subjected to sexual violence LTTE members. There is no mention of "grapevine" in the source. Since Users Petextrodon, Oz346 and Tame Rhino have objected the inclusion of this incident in the article, I decided to only update the Perpetrator list. However, my opinion is that this incident can be included in the article by mentioning the grapevine straddling as highlighted in the UTHR report.

Regarding the content removal by different users, the content removal occurred gradually over the years, often in different stages. Most of the removals were made by IP users or newly created accounts. When the content was restored with proper explanations, there were no ongoing back-and-forth reverts or edit wars. Therefore, there was no need to open a talk page discussion at the time.

Petextrodon calls UTHR anti-LTTE but at the same time, Petextrodon uses the same UTHR reports as sources for violence perpetrated by the state forces as shown here. This inconsistent treatment of the same source appears to reflect a POV editing approach and compromises the article's neutral point of view. Selective application like this risks misleading readers.--JohnWiki159 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (JohnWiki159)

Result concerning JohnWiki159

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

Everyone involved should stop reverting and start discussing. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. There's not enough here to support any sanctions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Petextrodon, only one of the reverts is at all recent. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  We are more likely to sanction slow-mo edit warring in contentious topics, but there are limits to how stale a diff can be. Guerillero has delivered a warning, and I agree with it. Not a formal warning, but a warning nonetheless. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Petextrodon, consider working at the talk page (or higher forms of dispute resolution) to build consensus for your preferred version. It's easier to establish misconduct if the content question is more settled and if one side of the dispute is more diligent about discussion (meaning recent discussion). I don't consider this request to vexatious, so a little tidiness on the content side is likely to make future enforcement requests here acceptable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin

No consensus The discussion among admins feels fairly equally split between imposing a warning and imposing a topic ban from Transgender healthcare or some subset of articles. While normally I would read all of the admins who supporting the topic ban as implicitly supporting the warning, the fact that some made it clear that they see the two as mutually exclusive nixes that option. At this point, we are left with allowing for further discussion by admins and closing without a consensus. In the last few days, the majority of the comments have been from admins who are entrenched in their position going back in forth. More time is not going to make this close any easier. Additionally, this has been running for more than 2 weeks fairly continuously.

Everyone: Please be less verbose.

Colin: It is painfully clear from this discussion that you are on extremely thin ice. Not in a "you might be topic banned from trans issues" way, but in a "shown the door from the project" way. Based on my two terms on the committee, discussions such as this are normally the start of someone's entrance to the circling the drain stage of life on Wikipedia. Very few people have any trust that you are going to change your communication style. This is particulary true after you decided to scold an admin responding to this discussion on their talk page. Do not take this close as a victory.

Arbs: If you would like to take this issue on, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions and do it. This "I'm going to take a half bite of the apple to both preserve my ability to rule on this in the future while also guiding the results" is absolutely infuriating for both participants and admins trying to get a consensus here. You are now both in the way of a consensus forming and going to be forced to recuse. Further, your presence here shapes the discussion in unhelpful ways because you are arbs. If you would like to be an AE admin, please resign from the committee.

Admins: The endless and unnecessary back and forth made this close difficult. If you would like to do vote counts and horse trading I know of something that may interest you in November.

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Colin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RelmC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Colin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision

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

11 December 2024 During Raladic's Arbitration Enforcement, cast aspersions against Administrator Black Kite.
12 December 2024 Creates a talk page topic on Black Kite's User page which includes "But it does indicate to all that you are prejudiced and have already put editors into two boxes: pro-trans and anti-trans. Which is awful. You may think it is harmless to be prejudiced on the side of the angels but all that shows is a simplistic view of Good-Correct people vs Bad-Incorrect people. And the real world is complicated, and I sincerely hope you are wiser and more intelligent than that would indicate." clearly displaying a continued Battleground mindset.
5 February 2025 After YFNS, who wrote the majority of the article, opened a DYK nomination for Transgender health care misinformation, Colin launched into several attacks, beginning with: "Readers of this sorry wiki article would be forgiven for thinking it was written by a really enthusiastic teenager who nobody had told NPOV was a core pillar, nor explained the difference between opinion and fact."
6 February 2025 Colin continued with the attacks against YFNS: "I guess this sort of tripe works on gullible twitter/blog-reading people already minded to hate, but it is Trump-level argumentation that does not impress at any intellectual level.", "This is simply hoax put about by activists to attempt to discredit the finest and most comprehensive review of youth trans healthcare yet published. And meanwhile, outside of your activist silo, it is being accepted and implemented by professionals who are not bigots.", and "As I said, this article reads like a teenager wrote it as an activist pamphlet to address problems they only see from a US perspective, fighting a certain kind of US bigot and thinking the rest of the world is like that too. It doesn't belong in an international encyclopaedia that claims to use professional sources. It certainly doesn't belong on the main page. This sort of subject needs to be written by editors with a commitment to NPOV, not a commitment to The Cause."
8 February 2025 and concluded with the most egregious remarks by calling the article an 'activist screed' and directly stating to YFNS "And you are an activist single-purpose account. Throwing stones at me doesn't change that."
2 March 2025 After the comments from Colin, the reviewer paused the review while a Good Article Re-evaluation could occur. Colin then continued with the animus against YFNS at the discussion for how the Re-evaluation should occur.
15 May 2025 Casts aspersions against Lewisguile.
16 May 2025 Shifts from aspersions to more directly stating: "I'm rather tired of editors who don't understand what 'assume good faith' is or what a 'personal attack' is, but more than happy to fling those terms about when butt hurt." in reply to Lewisguile pointing out the aspersions."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Sept 17th 2024 Arbitration Enforcement concluded "A consensus of administrators warns Colin against further uses of inflammatory language in this topic area."

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Subject of a previous GENSEX arbitration enforcement [36].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Colin has shown that they contribute without issue outside of the topic of GENSEX, and despite the previous warning they consistently launch into a battleground mindset approach when editing GENSEX; casting aspersions and directly making accusations against other editor - typically through belittling their intelligence. --Relm (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Colin: relative to when I started editing GENSEX, they have made an impression on me even if I have not made an impression on them. We've been part of the same discussions, GAR and FTN discussions included. I am a historian, not a medical professional, so I try not to stick my head too far out and stick to very simple things and evaluating other editor's arguments, which may be why Colin does not recall me. In February I was taking a break from GENSEX and primarily dealing with this category to get it down to the few dozen [37]. I saw the comments by Colin and they stood out to me, and I saw it on the FTN, so when I looked at the Cass Review talk page after hearing the Noone report had been published and saw the same behavior I believed that it was appropriate to file given they had already been warned for this behavior recently. I've been apart of too many AE filings already, and would prefer to avoid the process entirely going forward. I was harassed during the last one which soured me on the process. When checking to see how common of a problem this was for Colin since their warning, I saw [38] which suggested that a simple talk page topic would be insufficient or received with the same tone. I have no particular end or solution in mind, just a hope that the conduct is corrected sufficiently and that the admins are capable of weighing what the best measure towards that end is. Relm (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The context to what VIR mentioned is that they edited the page to include just the desistance rate [39] without the context of why the source lays out that this number is inapplicable due to inconsistent or lack of definitions, poor methodology, and so on which make all of these low quality studies. I opened a talk page discussion where it was discussed and re-added with that context to avoid a false balance. VIR had already brought it up on the talk page [40] and been dissented to by atleast 4 editors [41] [42][43][44] two days prior to adding it to the mainspace of the article. I reverted [45] and explained why. When the GAR began, VIR attempted to rehash the same argument from [46] the earlier discussion, at which point I responded that they had already been dissented to about it [47]. Specifically, presenting "83% is the best quantitative estimate we have" while ignoring that the source it comes from explains why it is insufficient to describe what VIR attempts to employ it to describe. I stand by all of my statements VIR linked given the context. Relm (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

Discussion concerning Colin

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Colin

Extension granted to 1750 words. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite's comments and the negative reaction of at least three editors can be found here. IMO his statement at 19:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC) is the very definition of a battleground mentality, with no room whatsoever for editors occupying a middle ground, and prejudices any decision such an admin might make.

Transgender health care misinformation is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to exist in a NPOV exclusion zone. What is described above as "attacks against YFNS" are about the false claim "The Cass Review—a non-peer-reviewed independent evaluation of trans healthcare within NHS England". It is false because the Cass Review consists of seven peer reviewed systematic reviews. Claiming it is not peer reviewed is a fine example of activist misinformation: our article on misinformation makes that false claim.

I reject the "casts aspersions" and "belittling their intelligence" claim entirely. My criticism of Black Kite is evidenced and agreed with by others. In the recent discussion there is no "misbehaviour" being alleged at all, evidenced or otherwise. Editors who are intelligent and working in good faith can also be wrong or misguided in their approach. I have absolutely no doubt that the editors on the above pages are intelligent and working in good faith to improve the encyclopaedia, as they see it.

WP:MEDASSESS warns editors of rejecting (or disparaging) higher level sources in favour of lower and "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". Which is what the most recent discussion was doing, where editors were assessing Noone on the basis of whether they agreed with it rather than on P&G merits. The authors of the Noone paper are spectacularly lacking in authority or relevant experience, and the contrast with the York team is something I spell out clearly and forcefully.

I accept my language criticising the weaknesses of sources or in statements in or drawn from them is robust and having an inflammatory effect on those who would seek to push those sources or statements. Clearly that's not working or helpful.

I have never engaged with RelmC before, nor was she in those discussions AFAICS. That her first ever interaction with me is to post the above breaks so many rules of behaviour I'm boggled. I'm struggling to think of a clearer example of WP:BATTLEGROUND than that, frankly.

It's clearly this isn't working. I've never shied away from calling out bullshit and bollocks when I see it and don't think that's going to change. Those who know me know I am strongly sympathetic to the trans cause and oppose those who attack out of bigotry. For this reason, a topic ban would be deeply shaming, frankly. I propose a voluntary end to my editing in the GENSEX topic, and feel that I can be trusted to adhere to that. -- Colin°^Talk 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93, can I request you close this with the acceptance of my offer. Admin actions are meant to be preventative not punitive, and you have my word the preventative aspect is already done. Continuing this will only lead to "punching me when I'm already down" comments or editors using this AE to attack each other. I hope others have the grace to spot an easy victory / hopeless case when they see it and do something positive with their time instead. -- Colin°^Talk 18:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing back-and-forth among participants. Colin, I'm being generous here and leaving intact 912 words, which I'll consider a retroactive extension. Please request an extension from an admin on WT:AE if you need to comment further—but I'd suggest you have reached the point of diminishing replies here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Snokalok, you don't "know" me at all, as you demonstrate in abundance. Feel free to ping whatever admins you like, I fail to see how pinging the admins who were robustly critical of me last time and most likely to be disappointed in my lack of improvement is me loading the dice in my favour, but clearly you see it how you see it. Sweet6970, this isn't helping. BlackKite's comments were made six months ago. Please can everyone just watch Eurovision instead of being hateful. -- Colin°^Talk 19:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin and Vanamonde93. Thank you for your carefully considered comments. I think your assessment is fair and I do acknowledge that my tone/approach/language is a serious problem, particularly in a contentious topic. "Uncivil NPOV-pushing", as Vanamonde93 isn't appropriate, or, frankly, working. Wrt my "dogged" approach, I am trying to adopt a pattern of posting and then taking a break for a day or two.

While I enormously appreciate Tamzin's comments about transphobia, as the author of WP:UPPERCASE, I know nobody will read them after this closes. I know that a mention of such a ban would be gleefully used as a weapon against me in any future disagreements anywhere on the project. I don't think there is any fuller move I can make than, or expression that the problem is not "everyone else", than to drop out of the topic completely, which I'm doing regardless of what you decide. -- Colin°^Talk 23:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More back-and-forth among participants. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re Parabolist. Horton has a "Doctor of Philosophy, Applied trans studies": they are not a medical doctor nor have they any experience or training in clinical research into drug treatments. Their professional work would amply qualify them to discuss and criticise Cass's recommendations on social aspects of trans youth. It does not, IMO, remotely qualify them as an expert in the the GRADE tool that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (who kinda know a thing or two about systematic reviews) used for their two systematic reviews on clinical studies on drugs. WP:MEDASSESS does not allow us to dismiss top tier evidence on the basis of criticism from random people with a PhD. Same goes for the psychology lecturer from Galway. I accept I have at times mocked the unqualified, which is what us Brits do, and clearly isn't appreciated by this audience. You'd laugh perhaps if I was mocking an unqualified transphobe, I guess. Parabolist, I suspect your impression of me as one-sided is because of the Cass Review, and I've previously been involved in other discussions, such as about LBG Alliance or trans-inclusive word choices, where you'd likely say I was on your side. Wrt RGW, my reality is Cass Review#NHS Scotland and the professional healthcare response documented here. It is a world away from the transphobic report the US Government has recently published. The multidisciplinary clinical team that produced the linked documents are qualified experts, have everyone's best interests at heart, and more importantly, their report matters, and should matter to Wikipedia. Republished blog postings in Mother Jones do not, I'm afraid. -- Colin°^Talk 09:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re YFNS. Wrt the FRINGE discussion, I've already received and responded to criticism of my dogged approach. I can't find the accusations of bad faith you mention, vaguely recall them, but people saying things doesn't make them true, no more true than the accusations of casting aspersions in this AE report. The very opening sentence of WP:AGF is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I think the approach to settling open controversies in medical science with a vote of Wikipedians is wrong, and doubly wrong for culture war topics. I think it is misguided and harmful for the project. Despite good intentions. There are three admins below saying I am wrong, am misguided and in this topic at least, am actually harming the project, but none of them believes I'm deliberately trying to harm the project. Nor are you.

Wrt the last comment about "german clinical practice guidelines" the source I was opposing was not them. I have no idea why I could be hypocritical about a source I've never discussed or am even aware of. Its existence would not magically make Chris from Galway a reliable source on systematic reviews of clinical research into drug treatments. I do think this demonstrates a fundamental difference to RS between me and you (and you and P&G). You think that if a RS (like those clinical guidelines, say) is critical of the Cass Review, that magically makes all and every other source that is critical of the Cass Review into a reliable source. But reliable sources are not reliable because of how they concluded or whether you or I agree with them. A systematic review of puberty blockers, say, may be a reliable source no matter whether it concludes positively or negatively. Reliability is something something has even before you read it.

I wish those MEDRS systematic reviews had concluded differently about trans healthcare, as I'd my talk page would be full of Defender of the Wiki barnstars from you guys rather than AE noticeboard links. -- Colin°^Talk 11:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC) This isn't to excuse my behaviour at all, but I'd be criticising editors you hate, so wouldn't care. -- Colin°^Talk 08:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re YFNS, wrt "followed to DYK", that's diff-worthy hostile allegation if ever I've seen one. Well done. The DYK nomination page is on more watchlists than the Village Pump. But fyi I saw the discussion on WAID's contribs. I'm sure I'm not alone in occasionally peeking at what wiki friends are up to. I didn't and don't care who wrote that article. I'm not going to respond further to you, em, ever. -- Colin°^Talk 19:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, with all due respect, what you think about editors having topic bans on this subject is not the point. It's what the rest of the site makes of it and how that will get cited as a personal attack (the previous AE report already has). My retirement from the topic is already in place, regardless of your decision, and will be enthusiastically enforced by a large number of editors. As RelmC demonstrated, even editors I've never interacted with want me removed. I'm sure Tryptofish will help too and you can be sure the universe will be cold before he stops hating me. The AE report has already done its job. Doing something else because that's what you typically do or feel is expected at this point isn't I feel really considering me as a human being. You did X to me because "it's just neater and easier" is depressing, frankly. -- Colin°^Talk 08:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re RelmC: I'm responding to YFNS who has just described Void if removed as "the most blatant MEDRS ignoring activist I've seen on WP" and that they are "an anti-trans pov pusher" on Black Kite's user talk page. His nor my talk page is not the place for arguing about them. -- Colin°^Talk 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "wild overly dramatic allegations of misbehavior" from me. The claims above of "casting aspersions" are false. I'm confused by Barkeep's request: Wikipedia is full of amical discussions I didn't participate in. So?

The bold text is not entirely hypothetical. Nor does it or I suggest any editor is NOTHERE, so that doesn't "predicate" anything. Nor do I say in that discussion that any editor is an activist (vs source authors, and others do likewise).

Here are some examples of "something that has not occurred": The words "hate group" currently appear 25 times at WP:FT/N. Here a BMJ paper is dismissed as one of the five authors is "head of a pro conversion therapy group". Here Hilary Cass is linked to the far right. Here the source authors are "infamous conversion therapists or board members of pro-conversion therapy organizations". Here is one of many xenophobic comments about the entire UK being as bad as Russia. These authors are not just incompetent but hateful people or from a hateful country.

My comment about YFNS at the DYK was very wrong but wasn't repeated at the Cass Review discussion, so I fail to see how that becomes a "live controversy", any more than YFNS's ("the most blatant MEDRS ignoring activist I've seen on WP" "an anti-trans pov pusher") is live. -- Colin°^Talk 22:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 if I ran a drug trial with two participants, and one of them, their headache went away after an hour, and the other's didn't, what could you reliably statistically conclude? Your experiment is no better. And my comments mainly concern sourcing, not NPOV. There's a current 40,000 word sourcing discussion at FTN(SEGM) with bludgeoning and personal attacks all without my involvement (I made two tiny helpful comments). This topic is incendiary and toxic and if you believe that it only becomes that way when I enter, I have a bridge to sell you. Even the discussion Loki claims was fine "until Colin comes in and makes wild aspersions" actually derailed here when Lewisguile made false allegations of ABF, personal attacks and not liking young people. My reaction to that inflammatory post was not cool, but I wasn't the one making "wild aspersions".

We're seeing a pattern here. In the previous AE, Snokalok offered quotes that, weren't quotes ("Why put words in Colin's mouth then" said Barkeep) and from that false basis, "continues with the strongest possible language, in the worst possible light, to characterize 20 more diffs of Colin's." Lewisguile inflamed the recent discussion at Cass Review with false allegations of misdeeds by interpreting my text in the worst possible light. RelmC's two "Casts aspersions" are false allegations, interpreting my text in the worst possible light. Many more examples possible. Tamzin's rationale for a topic ban last night I'm going to put that down to them using up their mental energy on the essay they just wrote. But I would appreciate a retraction and apology. -- Colin°^Talk 07:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamzin Did you read the above, starting "The bold text is..." Your description and claim about my "treatment of the hypothetical editors critiquing them" is literally incompatible with what I wrote. No editor (hypothetical or otherwise) is accused of being "activists and not here to build an encyclopedia". Such forms of "editors critiquing authors" exist in multitude and I didn't pass judgement on whether that was acceptable/good, only remarked that was how it is. You are accusing me of an current behavioural problem that is imaginary. Come to my talk page if you want to examine it. -- Colin°^Talk 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamzin I can only repeat that you are misinterpreting my words in the worst possible light. My comment is not "would be acting like assholes". Is someone editing at race and intelligence and dismissing sources because they are written by a hate group "acting like an asshole"? Is someone editing MMR and dismissing a source because the doctor author is well known for fraudulently misrepresenting his work "acting like an asshole"? Is someone dismissing what Trump claimed, because of his well known personal failings an asshole? No. These can be valid criticisms. I have received complaints that my criticisms of some authors are over-harsh. The psychology lecturer from Galway is not a reliable source on how to do systematic reviews. I was pointing out that there are even harsher criticisms routinely dished around, nearly always against authors perceived as being anti-trans. That's just how it is. Neither a good thing or a bad thing.

The "asshole" and "activists NOTHERE" comments are completely untrue misinterpretations of what I wrote. Please do not ascribe malign motives (battleground mentality) to words that have a perfectly straightforward explanation. If you aren't sure what I meant, you could have asked. That would have been, em, civil. -- Colin°^Talk 14:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I am not arguing that my comments have not at times had "heated rhetoric". But if you go inventing stuff about asshole activist editors who are NOTHERE, and use those words as a rationale for a topic ban, can you not see why I'm upset? Those are your attitude problems with said editors, not mine.

User:Vanamonde93 I cut down my participation after the last AE and serious personal real world events pushed Wikipedia further down my priorities for several months now. I don't see how lack of recent participation is justification to escalate sanctions to a topic ban.

Wrt "you have no plans to change" that's just not true. Maybe there's a cultural communication problem here, and you're expecting what I consider obvious to be spelled out. I've repeatedly agreed with your criticisms (well, excluding the fictitious one about assholes -- your inflammatory language, not mine). My approach, tone, language, rhetoric is not helpful, is inflammatory and rubbing people up the wrong way. I'm not sure what sort of human accepts all that and doesn't intend to do something about it. A psychopath perhaps. So yes I have plans to change. I bought a book yesterday on managing my emotions. But I have made the decision to edit other topics, which as a volunteer I'm entitled to do, and won't change that decision. There's one neurological condition article that I've neglected for too long. Maybe I'll be a happier, calmer, kinder editor after a break from the culture wars. I'll leave you to decide which colour form to fill out now. -- Colin°^Talk 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like a good final comment as I believe you are once again way in excess of the allotted words. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to Voorts wording -- "his failure to assume good faith" -- when Barkeep49's "the DYK comments were unacceptable" was accurate. I have repeatedly said I don't believe any editor in these disputes is here to harm the project: they are all working in good faith, even if some are deeply misguided. Assigning malign and false motives behind my words is exactly the sort of thing you guys should be admonishing others for, not doing yourselves. It is completely unnecessary and inflamatory. This forum and this topic needs people who can neutrally describe what they saw, and no more, without projecting imaginary mental concepts into other people's heads. A mindset that takes "that was uncivil" into "he's failed to AGF" is a lazy harmful assumption, and doubly hurtful coming from an admin who has repeatedly stated he only read a small amount of the text here and presumably hasn't read any evidence at all.

False claims of ABF are a common form of personal attack to disrupt a content discussion. If you include this in my AE report, you've just added an extra weapon with the additional personal attack of "and Colin's been admonished at AE for this [ link ]". Frankly, at this point, all you can do is make things worse by being so careless in word choice. -- Colin°^Talk 07:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voort, I confused you with Asilvering and misunderstood your words that you "only <did X>", which is not "bad faith", and not reading the evidence hasn't stopped others commenting. Admins, when you add to your 5300 word response to my 3000 (2200 collapsed) words, please consider the lasting effect of your word choice carefully. -- Colin°^Talk 17:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement for which no extension was provided. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sarek, a "no action" means "no official admin sanction/ban" but doesn't mean I can shrug this off and imagine continuing unchanged, emboldened even. I am taking to heart and working on the very serious criticism of my conduct. My very first response was to recognise I am a problem and to retire from the topic entirely. I am a human, not a hypothetical statistic. Civility is accepting the word of an editor of nearly 20 years, and pragmatism is recognising the community is more than willing to enforce. No admin action required is a reasonable and civil response to that. -- Colin°^Talk 21:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Void if removed

For context, the diff in [1] referenced an admin quite blatantly implying I was an "anti-trans POV pusher" and questioning my motives for bringing Raladic to AE, and Colin was objecting to this sort of unchecked incivility (same with the talk box followup): It does not, at the moment, appear to be very good at combating anti-trans POV pushers (unless they are obviously offensive), because many are civil and policy-compliant. The cynic in me wonders if this is trying to remove an editor who is trying to push back against some of this behaviour.

Complaining about such incivility is not "casting aspersions". Pointing out that this sort of lack of neutrality added nothing and undermines faith in the AE process is not a "battleground mindset". The rest of this complaint is a trawl through mostly months-old comments for anything that can be interpreted the worst possible way, with no consideration of the context. Void if removed (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as that's looking like the disappointing outcome, I'll just say that FWIW I think GENSEX can ill afford to lose editors of Colin's calibre and commitment to NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Relm raises and its GA review, they repeatedly tried to exclude the best (with caveats) quantitative figure of desistance (83%) from a systematic review, cited in a section titled "the desistance myth", arguably misrepresenting a MEDRS by omission. As of now, the page omits and explicitly calls this figure a myth. This sort of selective citation of MEDRS is why experienced medical editors like Colin are vital to the topic area.

1 January 24th (initial removal, improved and re-added by another editor with consensus here)

2 March 2nd (False accusation of misquoting)

3 March 2nd

4 March 4th (Accusation of tendentious editing)

5 March 11th (Battleground, ignores past consensus) Void if removed (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin began this AE volunteering to leave the topic. I question the value (and the effect) of a further sanction which won't do anything to actually improve a topic everyone seems to know has bigger issues. Void if removed (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE threads are limited to discussion of the conduct of the subject and the filer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@RelmC in your latest diff to justify bringing this here instead of Colin's talk, you omit the context of it being a reply to what I now see are incivility and personal attacks from YFNS directed at me in an untagged thread - such as "the most blatant MEDRS ignoring activist I have ever seen" and "anti-trans POV pusher", all freely made, unasked for, on an admin's talk page. Not only was this never sanctioned - not even a note of caution or disapproval - but YFNS' GENSEX topic restrictions were lifted a few weeks later. Seems like an uneven standard of behaviour being demanded here, but of course YFNS did not bring this report so this is not behaviour that is under scrutiny. Void if removed (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snokalok

I'm going to address a couple points here:

In regards to the Cass Review, we're obviously not here to dispute content, but as has been said to you a thousand times on this topic, Colin, The Cass Review is a different document from the systemic reviews it commissioned, and it draws different conclusions as them. Thus it cannot be treated as the same thing, AND ALSO we have reliable sources saying the Cass Report itself is not peer-reviewed.[49] And beyond that, a quick look at the Cass Review page shows the entire global medical community outside the UK ripping it to shreds - including but certainly not limited to America, Canada, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Austria, Poland, Japan, Switzerland. Editors don't NEED to do academic peer review, the entire world already has and they're not impressed.

Those who know me know I am strongly sympathetic to the trans cause and oppose those who attack out of bigotry As someone who has edited with you extensively (as shown by the diffs in my previous AE thread linked above), I know absolutely no such thing. What I have seen is a relentless defense of the honor and credibility of what are widely recognized as pieces of anti-trans propaganda from a government with a long and reliably documented history of deliberately seeking to erode trans rights, being defended not in service of an anti-trans position, but rather in service of what I would characterize as British institutional exceptionalism. Your editorial stance, as I would characterize it, is not one of a directly anti-trans pov, but rather that if the right and proper institutions publish a non-peer reviewed report that cites right wing youtube channels to say that being trans might be caused by pornography and that conversion therapy is the answer - then that is vox dei; regardless of how much of the global medical community says "This is a hit piece backed by anti-trans lobby groups from a government and media apparatus that has been targeting trans people for a long time", regardless of whatever reviews or guidelines they publish tearing it apart, the fact is that the right and proper people in the British government have said X and therefore all other editors must uncritically abide by it and any criticism of it is mere trans activism that has no place on its page regardless of who-from, which has to be either watered down or excluded from the article entirely.

This all would be one thing, everyone has a position on everything, but as was said in this AE and the last one, you do kinda, go off the rails a little for it. I don't think you're a bad editor, but I do think you turn your brain off when it comes to GENSEX in a way that I don't think you're entirely cognizant of.

I support your promise to stay off of GENSEX, but I would support it being formalized - not in disgrace, and I would support a note saying that it's not in disgrace - but simply because I feel like if it isn't, we'll end up back here later on. Snokalok (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I don't like the tagging of Barkeep, Raddish, and Vanamonde, because while they did handle the last thread, to me this feels like some degree of admin-shopping; and if the accused can tag the admins they want, anyone can. Snokalok (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You are at 562 words. Please request an extension on talk if you need to make any further comments. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok: Per talkpage request, you are granted 138 words specifically for the purposes of proposing a resolution. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, my proposal is that rather than give a full GENSEX TBAN, for which there are understandable concerns about the collateral impact such a thing would have on Colin's reputation, instead simply ban him from anything to do with the Cass Review, broadly construed. That's like 90% of where this all comes from. Snokalok (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

1) I am one of the editors who complained about Black Kite’s comment at the AE discussion on Raladic, as linked by Colin. I stand by my comment: it is Black Kite’s comment which is shocking and worthy of sanctions, not Colin’s.

2) Regarding Colin’s offer to cease editing in gensex: this shows there is a very serious problem with Wikipedia’s attitude to editing in this area. Colin has said that he is pro-trans. But he is also an experienced medical editor (which I am not). If he cannot, under the current conditions on Wikipedia, call out bad medical editing, then the medical articles to do with gensex are going to be in a dire state, and probably would be better deleted than left to deteriorate and bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YFNS

At the last AE report I spoke against a TBAN for Colin, and expressed hope that he'd 1) stop being incivil towards and insulting me and 2) stop accusing anybody who slightly criticized the Cass Review of misinformation and "activism" and etc. He has not. I was thinking of reporting in February but decided against it because I was scared it would look like the last case, walls of insulting text and a slap on the wrist, and didn't have time or energy to deal with it. At this point, I regrettably think a TBAN is necessary.

This year, he's made about ~100 edits, the majority of which were about trans topics and to some degree, uncivil. He has not been particularly active since his rounds of insulting me in February across the DYK and the talkpage of WP:FRINGE and participating in the GA in March, until resuming bludgeoning at Cass Review which sparked this.
I would not describe his behavior as "incivil-NPOV pushing". His POV, eclectic and principled as it may be, is not NPOV. His continued arguments that all critics of the Cass Review are american twitter activists and etc is not NPOV. At the DYK nom, he made the claim This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. I'd expect a Wikipedia article to state that clearly and give examples of both., when I asked for sources for that claim he kept insulting me, when I again asked for sources and a cease to the insults, he kept insulting me. Claiming people are pushing misinformation and demanded it be included without providing an RS is not NPOV.

I would like to note that there were further instances of incivility:

Feb 8: But a deliberate category error. That last sentence in YFNS is written to mean organisations we hate (and thus regard as FRINGE for believing the Wrong Things) must only be written about by, em, sources that hate them.[50], the last sentence being a proposal for a FRINGEORG paragraph of FRINGE saying Articles on organizations known solely for fringe advocacy should be written using reliable and independent sources and avoid the pitfalls of determining the notability of fringe theories themselves., based on the current WP:BLPFRINGE guidance
- He left 32 comments at Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories#FRINGEORG over the next few days, being repeatedly asked by editors to stop assuming bad faith
Later in February, at WP:FTN, he left a mocking and off-topic diatribe against the RFC question Is the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness WP:FRINGE within the bounds of mainstream medicine and international human rights?[51] (permalink to closed discussion[52])
- Followed by snarky off-topic comments like Are we just going to work through every single contentious issue in the field of transgender topics and ask editors to declare it WP:FRINGE? Is that how Wikipedia works today. FRINGE or not-FRINGE.[53] and Oh I can guess the fifth. Conversion therapy. Or did we have that one already? The common thread in all these steps is the Cass Review. There are sources claiming each of the things we've declared to be FRINGE with the Cass Review. Well done.[54] - the fact that the fringe theories noticeboard found many claims fringe, and that RS keep pointing out these claims are made in the Cass Review's report, speaks to this issue with Colin repeatedly accusing all criticism of the review with "activism".

There is a general pattern across his comments of calling any social sciences researcher, particularly LGBT ones, "activists" without explanation or sources and doubling down:

At the latest discussion at the Cass Review Writers who have an obvious agenda (as every one of the Noone paper authors and all the York PDF authors have in abundance, claim by a bunch of writers who's only pertinent qualification is "activist" that "Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews" is an extra ordinary claim., (the "critical analysis" here being to systematically apply the ROBIS criteria, the go-to method of reviewing systematic reviews for risk of bias)
In March at the GA Horton is employed at a business school and most of their published work consists of interviews with groups of like-minded individuals on social media. They have no medical qualifications or clinical research experience and are a well known activist (a scholar with a PHD in trans studies who has written multiple articles about the impacts of discrimination against transgender people)[55]
I raised this at the previous AE report for him, noting he'd been referring to Horton's works as "the opinions of someone's mum."

Even in this discussion, there's no real apology and further doubling down:

Transgender health care misinformation is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It appears to exist in a NPOV exclusion zone. - this is a GA, he participated in the GAR and subsequent GA and was asked repeatedly to put forward sources or suggest improvements and just doubled down on insulting me and walls of text
- Claiming it is not peer reviewed is a fine example of activist misinformation: our article on misinformation makes that false claim. - it doesn't even say that anymore, per the GA he was a part of...
I reject the "casts aspersions" and "belittling their intelligence" claim entirely. - this is despite saying I write like a teenager, am obviously a single purpose account, etc
This latest comment WP:MEDASSESS warns editors of rejecting (or disparaging) higher level sources in favour of lower and "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review". feels hypocritical to me, considering that higher tier sources, such as the latest german clinical practice guidelines, have repeatedly criticized the Cass Review.

I wish a TBAN wasn't necessary, but his behavior has been unacceptable in all the same ways since the last AE report Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee - Frankly this in the DYK by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist looks like baiting. YFNS, were you seriously suggesting that This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. is somehow a controversial statement?

1) Colin completely skipped raising concerns at talk and went straight to insulting me and claiming the article wasn't NPOV, but somehow asking him for RS is baiting him? Insofar as there was any baiting in that discussion, it was probably the person leaving long insulting diatribes in an off-topic place, then refusing to provide sources when asked...
2) Yes - because RS frankly don't back that up. I should know, I have read every academic/medical paper published in the last few decade talking about trans healthcare misinformation. What Colin calls for is a WP:FALSEBALANCE.
- Imagine if somebody said climate change denial isn't neutral because "both sides do misinformation", and then just insulted you when asking for sources
- Or somebody said "both sides have indulged in misinformation" about Vaccine misinformation followed by insults when asked for sources.
- On CTOPs particularly, you are expected to politely discuss things with RS. Not leave diatribes insisting other's find sources to back a position you think is true.

Collapsing back-and-forth among participants and repetition of previous arguments. YFNS, I'm being generous here and leaving intact 1,189 words (I would rather have cut more, but it's mostly in one long comment and I'll give some leeway for a lot being quotes), which I'll consider a retroactive extension. Please request an extension from an admin on WT:AE if you need to comment further. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Tbh, I'm kinda shocked that anyone can look at someone pop up to DYK, insult an editor, claim they're biased, and then double down on insults when asked for sources, and take the position that the person he followed to DYK is baiting him for daring to ask for sources. Then express incredulity that a controversial statement that no RS support is controversial.

What is well documented is that Evangelical groups and ex-gay groups and etc make many false claims about trans healthcare and use these to seek to limit it. What is well documented is medical orgs and academics and researchers and etc call bullshit on that. The claim that trans people/doctors are engaged in misinformation to promote trans healthcare is not supported by RS - if I am wrong that is trivially disprovable.

@Colin

I think the approach to settling open controversies in medical science with a vote of Wikipedians is wrong, and doubly wrong for culture war topics. - whether trans identities are caused by mental illness is not an "open controversy" considering there are dozens of MEDORGS saying they aren't and none saying they are. Claiming things are more controversial in trans healthcare than they are is a recurring pattern with you
Those german clinical practice guidelines cite Noone et al and consider them reliable for their critiques of the Cass Review. So did the British Medical Association. When MEDORGs and overranking sources like CPGs say "this source's critiques of these reviews are valid", we listen.
I wish those MEDRS systematic reviews had concluded differently about trans healthcare, as I'd my talk page would be full of Defender of the Wiki barnstars from you guys rather than AE noticeboard links. - If you were civil there'd be no problem. Nobody disagrees the evidence is poor. This is a strawman you keep shadowboxing. What MEDORG's around the world agree on is: "we need better data, the evidence we have is poor, but it suggests that the only method that has ever worked for GD is helping them transition".
- Re "you guys", the last time at AE I opposed sanctions for you. It hurt to suggest they'd be needed now. I used to look up to you somewhat and for the past few months you keep popping in to insult me and jumping in with a battleground mentality. You lump all the editors disagreeing with you as activists or etc

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

Perhaps it's having read enough of these discussions, but I would absolutely not describe Colin's approach to these articles as purely NPOV like the admins below. When Colin agrees with sources, he is rigorous about how editors should respect the experience and skills of the doctors who wrote them. When he disagrees with sources, suddenly the doctors who have written those are no longer doctors, and are now activists, which seems to be defined as anyone he doesn't agree with. Look the discussions from the previous complaint, and see how he talks about Dr. Cal Horton, who he repeatedly denigrates as only having the qualification of "being the mother of a trans kid", or diff 8 of this complaint where he describes a peer reviewed study's authors as "a bunch of writers who's only pertinent qualification is "activist"". Disagreement with his point of view strips you of your credentials. This is not the approach of an editor looking to find consensus, it is one of a RGW editor. This is all aside from the fact that there is no way to read his interaction with Lewisguile as having the sort of attitude we should accept in a CTOP as contentious as this. Come on. Parabolist (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's response to me is a perfect example. Immediately it's about how if I saw discussions where he was "on my side" I wouldn't think this way, and that I'd be completely fine with this if he was doing it to a transphobe. How is this not a battleground approach to a topic? Disagreement with Colin's approach towards describing sources makes me a partisan for a "side" now, and therefore my judgement is immediately compromised, unlike his. But hey, maybe the third warning will work, especially since everyone is making sure to couch it in how right he is. The lesson is really being baked in. Parabolist (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

Colin, walk away from the topic area of Gensex. I'm not accusing you (or anyone else) of misbehavior. Just walk away. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

My statement referred to above at the previous AE was Wikipedia is very good at combating homophobic, misogynistic and racist behaviour. It does not, at the moment, appear to be very good at combating anti-trans POV pushers (unless they are obviously offensive), because many are civil and policy-compliant. The cynic in me wonders if this is trying to remove an editor who is trying to push back against some of this behaviour. I stand by every word of it, because I believe it is the case. It is not a PA (because I don't mention any particular editor) and I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule on having opinions. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I have a long and unpleasant history with Colin, and I want to stipulate that up front. I think it's important for admins to remember WP:BRIE here. I also want to point out, because it hasn't been mentioned yet, that Colin's history with combative language goes back to a 2020 ArbCom case here: [56]. That was in MEDRS/Medical topics outside of GENSEX, so I question how much mileage can still be squeezed out of logged warnings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've had a history with Colin, and Loki's link to this, described by Loki as a discussion that went downhill after Colin entered it, made me remember some earlier discussions. In 2018, at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 3#Other antipsychotic feedback, the discussion was fine at first, I think. Part way into the subsection about "'Should' and similar language", Colin comes in, and I think there is, progressively, an obvious change. Similarly, at User talk:Doc James/Archive 134#Proposed solution, it happens again. That discussion includes an editor who has since been site-banned, and it's part of what led to the ArbCom case about drug prices, but I think that this goes to show that the pattern of Colin entering into a discussion, and it goes downhill after he enters, has been happening for years. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the admins are seeking something less than a block/ban, and more like a final warning. I've read and thought carefully about Colin's most recent statement, where he recognizes some issues and notes that he has gotten a self-help book, and that strikes me as significant. This AE thread is taking too long to resolve (hint: if you don't want so many words from editors, then don't leave things unresolved for so long – see also how an ideal gas fills all available space). So I think it might be best to go with a logged warning, with a not-too-narrow scope, but make it absolutely clear that any repeat will result in sanctions, no more second chances. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the discussion about "final warning", I have a wordsmithing suggestion. At the end of "... and responding administrators should place an appropriate block", add something like "without the need for further warning". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In light of subsequent events, discussed at WT:AE#Wrong section, I'm no longer inclined to feel the way I did in the two comments above, and so have struck them. At this point, I agree with Sarek, and I think it's well-past time to wrap this thing up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins need to make a decision about this – by consensus, not universal consent – and not just let this get archived with no action. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started to write something harsher, then thought again, and I'm going to say this. First, Valereee, you can see a blow-by-blow account of what was posted where on WT:AE, so you shouldn't need to ask. Graham's first post was here in my section, and the second post was in the uninvolved admin's section. Now to all of you, Colin is saying on the talk page how this has been needlessly stressful for him, and he has a valid concern. This is taking way too long. There are too many admins who are failing to modify their original opinions in order to get to consensus. There are too many admins who are finding excuses not to call this for what it is, and close it. If Colin asserts that he is choosing to voluntarily self-ban from the topic area, then it's not that big a deal to make the topic ban official. Or you can post the FoF/final warning. But if you close this without any action, you will be failing the community, egregiously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Loki

I have two quick things to add. Number 1 is that I agree with Parabolist: this is not a case of "uncivil NPOV pushing", this is just good ol' fashioned POV-pushing. Colin repeatedly expresses concern over NPOV and respecting MEDRS, but if you look at what he's actually arguing, it seems like he thinks the Cass Review is the only MEDRS source in the whole topic area and any other source that criticizes it is "activism" merely by the fact of their criticism of it. You can even see that with the argument over Noone et al where he engages in some weird credentialism to argue that because a certain place has done many good systematic reviews that means they cannot under any circumstances do a bad one and anyone who says they have are not only mistaken, they're malicious.

(To be honest, from having participated in the last time this went to AE I honestly do not think this is due to anti-trans animus per se; I think it's a kind of misguided patriotism and a refusal to acknowledge that, for example, the NHS is not immune to political pressure. But it's still POV-pushing, and the standard POV-pusher's defense of "I'm the real NPOV and you're all activists" shouldn't be convincing here even coming from Colin.)

But number 2 is, I would really like to invite the admins below to read the entire discussions before Colin enters them, and notice the effect of Colin entering a discussion. He's not good for the topic area even if you do think he's legitimately trying to defend NPOV because what happens every time he comes in swinging with wild overly dramatic allegations of misbehavior is that the entire discussion becomes about him and what he said, and no longer about improving the article. Loki (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked for more points of comparison, and I can actually give you a pretty direct comparison.

Here is a discussion on the talk page for the Cass Review about a particular recent source. Note that the discussion is almost entirely about the source and its merits.

Compare to this other discussion on the talk page for the Cass Review about a particular recent source. The discussion is again about the source and its merits... until Colin comes in and makes wild aspersions, at which point it becomes a shouting match between Colin and Lewisguile, with stuff like I'm rather tired of editors who don't understand what "assume good faith" is or what a "personal attack" is on Colin's side and Colin, it's not about being "butthurt"; it's about attempting to work together for the aims of Wikipedia with civility and avoiding yet another argument in this topic area on Lewisguile's side. It's really amazing how quickly the discussion left the topic of the source and became about Colin after Colin entered. Loki (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: "How do we know it's Colin and not everyone else?" is the point of the comparison. Same actors (including multiple opposing POVs), different outcome. Loki (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

I've been following this discussion, but refrained from commenting. However, I noticed Tamzin's comment regarding WPATH. I can't speak for other users, but I believe Colin's intended reference might be to this discussion, which resulted in no consensus after many months of debate. One can see that some users there dismissed sources like The Economist, The New York Times, and BMJ as unreliable, despite the general consensus at WP:RSP recognizing the first two as reliable, and BMJ being a peer reviewed academic journal. I believe the point could be to highlight the inconsistency where highly reliable sources are dismissed in one situation, while lower quality sources are upheld as authoritative in another. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Colin

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

I'll start with my standard disclaimer that I sometimes edit in the GENSEX topic area. I do not believe that there is anything in this case that makes me involved, but welcome feedback if anyone disagrees.
I saw the February remarks to YFNS at the time and considered imposing sanctions; if I'd known about the September warning, I probably would have. That said, sanctions are meant to be preventative, and if the only issues since then are the comments to Lewisguile, then I'd see that as an argument that sanctions weren't in fact needed, because these comments, while not great, in my view fall short of being personal attacks: In the first one, I read the claim of people "bullshitting you" as being about Noone et al. rather than any editor; and the second falls in that unfortunate category, so hard to moderate, of "uncivil but not a PA".
But I'd like to put a pin in that and zoom out to talk about Colin's behavior in GENSEX in general. I quietly lurk in a lot of GENSEX discussions, and I have found two things about Colin's editing:
1. He is one of the most truly nonpartisan editors in the topic area. To the extent his edits reflect any personal POV, it does not at all seem to be the orthodoxy of any ideological camp, but a well-considered set of views that leads him to sometimes agree with trans rights activists' views, and other times with gender-critical feminists. And when he comes into conflict with other editors, it does read as being out of genuine concern (correct or not) for their compliance with policies and guidelines, not based on a sense that they are on "the other side" and thus the enemy.
2. He is incredibly dogged in his style of participation, often bludgeoning discussions in a way that forces out all but the small number of editors who are willing to match his endurance, and often too quick to resort to emotional language. Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 10 § "Womb" v. "uterus" (for, apparently, the nth time) is a representative example. This can lead to incivility and personal attacks, as seen most dramatically with YFNS.
All of that is to say that, if Colin does not want the stain of a TBAN that would imply he is a transphobe, well, I'd like to make clear that in my expert opinion he is not. Many user conduct issues in GENSEX are a matter of substance (i.e. POV-pushing), but Colin's issue is one of style (i.e. bludgeoning and incivility). Personally, my philosophy as an admin is that if a TBAN is needed, then it's needed even if the person promises they won't touch the thing, and if you're not TBANning someone, it's because you're okay with the prospect of them going right back to editing that topic area tomorrow. I'm not sure whether I'd be okay with that. I think Colin's attitude is that the problem in this topic area is everyone else, and he's quite right that there's disruptive participation by lots of others in GENSEX, and many of his disputes have been cases of "it takes two to tango". But he is also part of the problem. An acknowledgment of that would go a long way toward avoiding a TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I have the capacity to get involved in this report. But I will say I do not find the ping of me, Vanamonde, and SFR improper. We were 3 people who landed at a logged warning of Colin at the last report, so while not a random collection of people it's also not one that is going to be unafraid to sanction him and in fact ones who are going to understand the history as well as any. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar: while I won't claim to have done as thorough of a job in this report as I normally do, where I read diffs+discussions+preceding discussions that relate to the discussions with the diff, I have read lots of discussion here and probably need to measure in megabytes the amount of Colin's prose in discussions I have read over the years. So I'm very familiar. What I am open to being convinced about, but have not been so far, is that the problem is with Colin as opposed to a group of editors who do feel Colin has an anti-trans animus. That is he could, at this point, enter discussions in the most collegial and collaborative of manners and it would still derail if he didn't agree with whatever was being said in the discussions before him. Do you have an example of an NPOV related discussion in this topic area not involving Colin that I could use to see the effect you're claiming? Procedural note: you're at 300 words. I would hope 200 words would be sufficient in reply. If not please let me know. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin I didn't ask for any amicable discussion. I asked for a discussion in this topic area that revolves around NPOV. Basically the kind of discussion we are discussing here but without you. Loki has presented one such discussion - which I haven't had time to read yet and so I don't know what it does or doesn't show so I have no idea what I will think after it. But it wasn't some generic discussion it was an attempt to prove the assertion being made that you are harming the topic area, something I have currently expressed skepticism about. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin I started typing a response yesterday that touched on how low the "hit rate" is in these reports compared to what I am used to in non-obviously closed reports. It was true in the last report and it is true here. However, in the last report while words were attributed to you that you did not write, I don't think it was in inaccurate representation of your comments in that discussion. I agree one discussion couldn't indict you. But if I am unconvinced by the single best example - and I've been clear that I'm skeptical of the claims Loki is making - then I don't need to think/research further. As it stands I'm not sure due to U4C obligations if I'm going to have time to give that discussion what it deserves - and thus I'm not sure how much I'm going to weigh in on the emerging outcome of this case - but yes I do understand the limitations of what I asked for. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding here primarily as an AE admin active on the previous request, and not because I was pinged - but I don't find the ping inappropriate, as it was of the three admins who handled the previous request, which ended with a warning to Colin. I am not impressed by Colin's language at the DYK nomination: this, in particular "you are an activist SPA" is not acceptable in those circumstances. I don't immediately see anything actionably in the rest of the complaint, though. Colin's language is strong, even intemperate, but it is directed not at editors but a section of the populace engaging in specific behaviors: and while I have not analyzed the entirety of Colin's recent behavior the diffs I looked at suggest he is attempting to rigorously apply our PAGs. We talk often at AE about civil POV-pushing - I would characterize Colin's behavior as the exact opposite, uncivil NPOV-pushing, which I'm much more hesitant to sanction. If there's evidence of aspersions against other editors in recent edits I'm not seeing it. I am not in general willing to codify voluntary TBANs because of the difficulties of applying them. If a sanction is applied it should be an AE sanction: but I'm not convinced we need such. If this had been brought here in February, I would have considered a sanction for the comments at DYK. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the GAR and the FTN discussion. I see more of what I observed before - frustration often turning into incivility, off-topic commentary, and an aggressive defense of what Colin believes to be NPOV. Some of this is inappropriate, as I have noted, but "inappropriate" does not immediately equate to "TBAN-worthy". I do not see aspersions about editors besides the egregious one at the DYK. Indeed the tenor of some of those discussions is better than what we observed many months ago - there is more discussion of substance, and less ad-hominem and off-topic inflammatory commentary, and I find this encouraging. I would like to see comments from other administrators. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of principle I'm not in favor of multiple sequential logged warnings: as others have noted, they can make the term lose meaning. But that does not mean automatic escalation either. The sanction still needs to be proportional to the offense. Had I seen the DYK comments at the time they were made I would have supported a block: today that feels punitive. I would not even then have supported a TBAN, and I can't get behind it here.
I see some scattered diffs about the conduct of other parties, but in the interests of both fairness and practicality I will not consider those - this report has sprawled enough. Anyone is free to file a separate report about another editor's conduct. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like what I'm seeing here is someone who has a hard time not expressing frustration slightly more strongly than is helpful, and as is often seen at CTOPs, that ends up with a gotcha filing here at AE to try to get rid of the person. Frankly this in the DYK by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist looks like baiting. YFNS, were you seriously suggesting that This is a field where both activist sides have indulged in misinformation. is somehow a controversial statement? Colin, I wish you could keep your temper, and it would help hugely if you'd just go back and edit yourself before you hit send with stuff like "butt hurt" and "you are a SPA activist account", which you know isn't helpful and also clearly know can be used against you in ways you'd hate. I do not see the need for a tban. I do see the need for you to either voluntarily get out of this topic -- which is unfortunate for the encyclopedia -- or learn to walk away when you're feeling frustrated rather than responding to people baiting you or even just being obtuse. If you can't do either, you eventually will end up with a tban that, yes, people will assume is for something very much more serious than "can't control his temper when CTOPs intersects with MEDRS".

I would support a logged warning for inflammatory language in CTOP:MEDRS discussions. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't find the pings inappropriate. I might have pinged the same admins for the same reason. Valereee (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YFNS, both activist sides is the key term here. My interpretation of the DYK discussion was not that Colin was advocating for presenting both activist sides but neither. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

500 words, people. 500 words total. Good grief. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut down Colin and YFNS' sections (not as much as I'd've rathered, but as much as I felt I could justify without confusing things) and instructed they and Snokalok to request on talk if they want extensions. As a general reminder to all participants, there is rarely much to gain at AE by arguing with other participants. Concrete rebuttals and new evidence are helpful to us. Repeating the same arguments and arguing the minutiae of others' comments is not. I get that that's hard—I hit double the word limit last time I was in an A/R/C, I think. But even just as a matter of rhetorical strategy, it is more effective to say fewer things, directed toward the people sitting in judgment, than more things directed to the people whose minds you are unlikely to change. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tamzin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only read the first 500 words of each editor's statement. If an editor has already exceeded 500 words, I will not read any additional comments. I generally agree with Tamzin's assessment of Colin's behavior (I don't know enough about his political views to comment on them), and agree with Valareee that a logged warning for incivility and bludgeoning is appropriate. I didn't read far enough in Colin's statement to see this, but I note that some editors have said that Colin has agreed to avoid GENSEX. That seems prudent to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a TBAN too. I note that Colin pinged me but I didn't read what he wrote. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the content Tamzin has granted a retroactive extension to and it doesn't change my analysis. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a warning is issued rather than a TBAN, it should be a final warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think of a Topic Ban as a "stain" but simply a formalization of editing restrictions of an indeterminate length. I think it is much more straight-forward to impose a topic ban, when it is warranted, rather than have an editor pledge to stay away from a particular subject. It's just neater and easier to manage a logged-in topic ban rather than have a voluntary promise which by its nature is fuzzy and self-imposed. If an editor imposes a topic ban on themselves, well, then they are really in charge of dictating the limits of the ban, what it covers and when it can be lifted. I haven't made a decision about whether or not a topic ban is warranted in this case but I think for accountability's sake, all topic bans should be logged in so they are formalized, easily found and not just a line of text on a talk page somewhere in Wikipedia or User talk space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally opposed to logged warnings for someone who's already received one for the same conduct (two, if you count the intersecting ArbCom warning for medical topics). If there's misconduct enough for action, then a binding sanction is needed. If there's a sense that there's mitigation, then that should be recognized in the form of the sanction being looser—time-limited and/or narrowed to a subtopic like transgender healthcare and/or one of those ugly-but-sometimes-necessary bespoke sanctions we do like "Cannot make any comments on the motives or affiliations of other editors in the topic area". But it would be better that we do nothing than give a "Stop and I really mean it this time" warning, which would not only be redundant, but make the previous warning seem like an empty threat. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping out of responding to the ping here as I'm on the body of final appeal for AE, but speaking generally I think my thoughts on repeated ineffective finger wagging are well known. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different feeling on warnings that SFR - and not for nothing was the one who pushed for it to be a logged warning rather than an informal one at the last AE. However, I do agree that "logged warning followed by new logged warning for the same thing" should not happen. Where I'm stumbling in this case is that based on the evidence presented here, I don't think the topic area would be improved by formally removing Colin from it altogether as Vanamonde points out. As a co-author of the original "Being right isn't enough" I definitely support the idea that it isn't enough. But being right matters for something. The consistency with which Colin is attempting to uphold our core content policies - I don't always agree with his interpretation but that doesn't mean it's not legitimate - in this topic area where, from the diffs provided, I don't always see that same commitment from some other participants is context that I'm not willing to completely dismiss either. I particularly note this because at both the previous AE and this one, lots and lots of diffs are provided and while some of them are useful in a context setting way of "here's why Colin's tone is particularly hurtful" many of them just don't, for me, prove what they're alleging. Instead it's one or two clearly egregious comments, combined with the aggressive persistent tone, that has been the focus of each of these last two AEs. The prevalence of so many diffs that don't show what's alleged then is in no small part why this gets more complicated for me than my normal "was warned previously, did it again, time to escalate sanctions." So the best I've come up with so far of threading that needle is a suspended topic ban, which I don't even love because well any editor in this topic already basically could have a topic ban at any time if they don't follow the expectations for those editing a Contentious Topic and that is especially true for someone with a previous logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde's opinion above that a timely block is the right response to the actual transgressions made is one that resonates with me and strikes me as an appropriate outcome for this case (that is if Colin makes further offensive comments, report them in a timely manner and an admin should place a reasonable block as a response). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going back and forth on whether there is a live controversy here. If the only sanctionable issue is the comments to YFNS, then any sanction would be punitive. However, I've now read through the latest Cass Review thread a third time over, at Loki's suggestion. I'm not really convinced of what Loki is saying, that something cataclysmic happens when Colin shows up in a discussion, and even if that were true, how can we say that that's because Colin is the problem, versus the others? However, what jumps out at me in the thread now is this, from Colin's final comment there (emphasis added): If this was on the WPATH talk page, and some gender-critical psychology lecturer, a Musk supporting lawyer, a lab researcher who once admitting enjoying a Harry Potter novel, and a vet who is English (so obviously a TERF) had written a paper criticising WPATH, we'd see highly dismissive comments. And the criticism would extend far more than their lack of experience in conducting such an analysis. It would be an voluminous stream of personal attacks about each an every one of them being a intrinsically hateful person, regardless of their experience or ability or what they wrote. Colin begins by critiquing the (allegedly) poor credentials of the authors, which is reasonable. But his hypothetical continues down a path of outrage about something that has not occurred, fundamentally predicated on the idea that editors at Talk:World Professional Association for Transgender Health are, collectively, activists and not here to build an encyclopedia—the same issue as in the YFNS incident. So I do see a live controversy now.
First I want to address the obvious question of "What if many of the other editors are activists and not here to build an encyclopedia?" The answer to that is that that is what the dispute resolution process is for. Colin is welcome to bring editors to AE if he feels they are pushing a partisan agenda, in any direction. I would hope that the attitude of admins in this thread shows that the AE team is very much open to the idea that POV-pushing in the GENSEX topic area can come from any number of directions.
But this needs to stay out of content discussions. So I would like to propose the following suspended sanction:
Colin is made subject to a suspended indefinite topic ban from transgender healthcare, broadly construed. If, at any point in the next 12 months, an uninvolved administrator finds Colin to have, within that topic area, engaged in personal attacks, cast aspersions, or personalized disputes by (except in appropriate dispute resolution venues) commenting on contributor rather than content, they may unsuspend this topic ban; this will be considered an extension of this AE consensus for procedural purposes. This sanction will lapse after 12 months if the topic ban is not unsuspended.
@Colin: You are granted 250 words to respond to this if you would like. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have some thoughts, disjointed for the sake of brevity. 1) An uninvolved admin can already impose precisely this TBAN, AFAICS: I don't particularly like us giving what is, in effect, a warning in different words. 2) Recent posts have made it clearer that the triggering issues here aren't transgender identity, but more specific issues, and specific editors: most pertinently, the Cass review itself is a nexus of difficulty for Colin specifically. While acknowledging that Colin's rather belligerent input at DYK did eventually highlight genuine NPOV problems, it is possible that a more narrow sanction may be in order. Does a TBAN from the Cass review feel workable to anyone? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on your first point, but I don't think a TBAN from just the Cass review would be workable given it's such a central document in the topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the obvious caveat that I have not read any of the evidence because I looked at it and said "good grief," as above, I think "transgender healthcare" is clearly enough not "transgender identity" that if the idea is to keep Colin out of only a narrower part of trans issues more broadly, that could succeed. The question is more whether that's actually warranted or if the broader tban from trans issues generally is appropriate. With the obvious strength that I have not read any of the evidence, I think the suspended topic ban is a bad idea - at least as worded, that would make me more hesitant to tban as an individual action, not less, because what it does is flag "this editor has previously been found impossible to tban by a consensus of admins at AE, so, lol, good luck my dude".

My general opinion is that if someone is being so persistently difficult to deal with in a particular topic area, they should not work there, no matter how good their contributions are; I think editors that are persistently uncivil cause incalculable harm to the project, because they keep away not just editors we know about but also editors who are thinking of participating, take a peek at the backrooms, and give up before they even start. A highly competent editor acting in good faith can still do a lot of damage this way, simply by burning out in public. I think tbans can be useful to protect present and future editors in the topic area and hopefully arrest that slide into deep personal burnout. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're broadly in agreement, so I'll try to be brief: I am willing to sanction for persistently uncollegial behavior from people who are right on the substance. My concern as above is with proportionality, and timeliness. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the objections to the suspended sanction, particularly asilvering's point. But if the choice is between no sanction and a TBAN, I think those are both bad options and with some trepidation would have to choose the former, for fear of chilling legitimate critique and perversely incentivizing more partisan critiques. Speaking as an individual admin, though, I am prepared to block or TBAN for any future comment that discusses the perceived motives, affiliations, or hypothetical future actions of other editors, named or unnamed, excluding evidence-based comments at user-conduct venues. (And @Colin, to be clear, my concern above is not with your treatment of the hypothetical maybe-gender-critical authors, but your treatment of the hypothetical editors critiquing them.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: My point is that the comment shows a battleground mentality, because it does. Pivoting to If this were some other page all the other guys would be acting like assholes (not a quote, but a simplification of what you were saying) is seeing things as a battleground. Again, bring user conduct complaints to user conduct boards. Keep content discussions focused on content. That's all I'm asking here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin, you're making a case here, but I don't think it's the case you think you're making. My view is that you're a good editor but resort too quickly and too often to heated rhetoric. I'd really like to find a way for you to be able to continue to edit the topics you want to, while causing less of this kind of drama, but the message you're giving is that you have no plans to change. It's up to you where to go from here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find a way to say this in my response and didn't like any of the ways I came up with so I didn't. But I agree with Tamzin's point here. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I agree. There isn't sufficient evidence of misconduct. That said, I skimmed Colin's contributions since we were last at AE. There isn't much evidence of conduct. In the GENSEX area, I see participation in eight discussions, and exactly one mainspace edit. With such scant participation the argument that Colin is a net positive in the area is weak, and it wouldn't take much for me to support a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk)

After having reviewed further evidence, I agree that a Cass Review topic ban is viable (as would be asilvering's transgender healthcare alternative, though I think the evidence for Cass rather than broader is stronger). I personally don't think it necessary - though as I note here I'm close to changing my mind on this - and instead still support closing this with a something along the lines of "The DYK comments were unacceptable. Had they been presented in a timely manner Colin should have been blocked. In the future such comments should be presented when they happen and responding administrators should place an appropriate block." Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a fine mess this has become. After I've had time to sort through it, I'm certainly not impressed with some of the conduct here, but I'd broadly agree with Barkeep49 that there's not a formal sanction needed right now. But, that could certainly change in the future, so I'd strongly encourage everyone involved to tone it down a couple notches. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I see a rough consensus for any kind of topic ban, suspended or otherwise; I think only voorts and maybe asilvering prefer a topic ban outcome. Instead I see some admins in favor of a message about blocking and some people in favor of a final warning (by my count Seraphim, Vanamonde, Valereee, Tamzin, and I fall into one or both of these groups). I suggest the way to rough consensus would be to close with a summary of Colin is warned that the DYK comments were unacceptable. Had they been presented in a timely manner Colin should have been blocked. In the future such comments should be presented when they happen and responding administrators should place an appropriate block. (or something close to that) and to also add this statement to the CTLOG. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we call this a final warning in the logged entry? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to skirt that issue truthfully. I think there are mixed opinions on the "final warning part" - I for instance think all warnings at AE should be considered "final" without saying so and SFR expressed similar opinions as did some others who I'm not going to try and summarize here. But yes I wanted something that the final warning people (including you as a second choice) felt reflected the desired outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts does Tryptofish's suggestion satisfy you? My plan was to include the entire statement in the CTLOG entry if I were to close it. So it would read Colin is warned that the DYK comments were unacceptable. Had they been presented in a timely manner Colin should have been blocked. In the future such comments should be presented when they happen and responding administrators should place an appropriate block without further warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Vanamonde pointed out, an admin can already independently block an editor for the type of conduct at issue here. Stating that no further warnings are needed implies that a consensus of admins at AE needs to bless blocking long-standing editors without further warning. I think the community already gives an astonishing amount of leeway to established editors when they act like jerks, and I do not think that AE precedent should reflect that. I propose: Colin is admonished for his failure to assume good faith and act civilly towards other editors. But for the fact that the complaint regarding his conduct at DYK is stale, he likely would have been blocked. This is a final warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with your wording until the part about the final warning. Because that implies that long-standing editors can ignore warnings until they get a final one. Given Colin's warning I would have readily blocked him if the DYK stuff had been timely; Tamzin and Vanamonde have said similarly. So he doesn't need a final warning to have ben blocked for that at all as the existing warning was more than sufficient (as arguably just the fact that it's a contentious topic meant he could/should have been blocked for such comments even if he'd had no warning). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine removing the last sentence. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: You didn't get permission for additional words. I'm granting it for this last statement. It's ironic that your defense is assuming, in bad faith, that I didn't read any evidence. I was quite clear that I adhered strictly to the 500 word limit that you and others blew straight past. The fact that you chose to ignore the rules here is not my problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, Colin got granted various extensions to 1750 and now whatever 1750 plus this latest statement would be with your extension so all of that should be considered "in evidence". This doesn't undermine your point that people shouldn't be blowing past the word limits, and indeed I'm guessing you read it all even if you didn't acknowledge it at the time or in the statement above. Substantively, I do see discussion about Colin above by admins that could be summarized as failing to assume good faith which is why I did not object to it when it was proposed yesterday. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before the extensions were granted, I only read the first 500 words of each statement, as I said above. Once the extensions were granted, I read up to the extent of those extensions. I think the evidence indicates failures to assume good faith on Colin's part. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, Colin posted this on my talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No specific preference here as I have not read the evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get Tamzin's discomfort with 'we really mean it this time' warnings, but I'm going to land here. Valereee (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remain of the opinion that the correct options are nothing or a binding sanction. Colin continues to show that he does not understand the concerns about his behavior, and rather is in (and adjacent to) this thread continuing the same kind of behavior that is at issue. Contentious topics are a place where we need to see patience and compromise, not bludgeoning and battleground mentality. I find I'm left with no choice but to support a TBAN from transgender healthcare, second choice any subset of that that can gain consensus. Despite my impression that Colin is in the distinct minority of editors who edit the area without a partisan agenda (which isn't to say that he's right, just that if he's wrong it's not due to deviation from Wikipedia's purpose), that doesn't exempt him from the behavioral norms incumbent on all editors in the area. This paradox is not uncommon: People who are on a mission to advance some agenda often are more careful in their conduct than people who are just trying to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines (again, correctly or not). I don't know what the solution is here, but I don't think it can be "Let TBANnable conduct slide because other people deserve it more". Instead, I would encourage those who've commented here to please bring GENSEX AE cases much more often. I can think of at least four topic-area regulars who compelling TBAN cases could be made for. (And since I said this to Relm recently, allow me to more publicly make this general offer: If any good-faith editor [construed generously] would like advice on how to compose a good AE case, always feel free to reach out to me. I'm not going to give advice on the specifics of a case [so as not to force my own recusal], but I'm happy to speak in generalities.)
All that said, my third choice remains no action, for the reasons articulated earlier. Although if we can get a rough consensus for a request for more GENSEX filings, I'd support that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tamzin on TBAN/subset, but unconvinced that "no action" is the correct third choice, because it gives Colin the defense of "they took me to AE for exactly this before, and nobody thought it was worth acting on". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved from Tryptofish's section)Given you took no part in the debates on the articles' talk pages, and came to this conversation late, this intervention gives me the impression that you are keen to settle old scores: If so, please do not do that. Graham Beards (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards, given that your only two substantive comments at AE prior to this were defenses of Colin, perhaps you should reconsider throwing stones about glass houses? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I said. Tryptofish has said above "I have a long and unpleasant history with Colin" and then mentions discussions from years ago that in my view have no bearing here. Colin has been an editor for coming up to 20 years and as the author of WP:MEDRS among many other contributions, as earned the respect of countless contributors. It seems WP is quick to censure and reluctant to thank. I think this all boils down to Colin's making a less than diplomatic comment about a DYK. This should have been quickly picked up at the time. Colin's only motive was to defend one of our core policies (and one he helped to write). Graham Beards (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, it looks like this was originally posted to Trypto's section? Perhaps Graham Beards didn't actually intend to comment as an uninvolved admin? Valereee (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]
I would love to see this closed, however the rough consensus I found received enough pushback from an admin that I decided not to be the one to close it and since then two other uninvolved admin comments from Tamzin and Sarek have weakened that rough consensus, though it was strong enough to begin with that it might still exist. At this point I think I'm too in the weeds to find the rough consensus that exists but encourage someone to find it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing no consensus. Can we all get behind this closing statement? There is no consensus to impose a sanction at this time. Consensus did not develop to impose a topic ban, and there were strong objections to issuing yet another warning. Several admins expressed the view that Colin would have been blocked and/or topic banned had the complaint regarding his conduct at DYK been timely. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing that this seems to be where we are, but I am really uncomfortable with what feels to me like we're saying "we're split between those who think a tban is too much and those who think a warning is not enough, so we're going to do nothing." Valereee (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think roughly as Valereee. That's not at all ideal, but I think it is an accurate summation of what we've actually got. Certainly, I don't have a better idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get behind something like There is no consensus to impose a sanction at this time. Consensus did not develop to impose a topic ban, and there were strong objections to issuing yet another warning. Colin has offered to avoid the topic area, so at this point we are taking him at his word and would expect him to come back here himself if he decides to start editing there again. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect that of him and this would in effect be a topic ban because he'd have to get permission before he edited again. I think Voorts summary is stronger because there was consensus that what happened at DYK was sanctionable. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We're not imposing a voluntary TBAN and that just confuses the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this discussion on my watchlist over the past two weeks and IMO a TBAN from GENSEX or transgender healthcare is the best course of action here, not because of Colin's viewpoint but because of their mode of participation. Ten days back, it appeared that a close with (1) a friendly nudge to a valued contributor to tone it down and (2) Colin voluntarily stepping back from the area, would be sufficient and sustainable. But seeing that even the strict word limits and admins empowered to enforce rules have not prevented this AER itself from turning into somewhat of a train wreck, I believe clear boundaries are in everyone's best interest.

I realize that my chiming in will perhaps delay even the proposed "no consensus" close and keep this AER open even longer but I believe admins should bite the bullet or we will be back here in a few months with everyone in the GENSEX area more weary. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we as admins are jointly more culpable for this being somewhat of a train wreck than Colin is (though Colin's actions have contributed to the difficulties); for instance it was not some action of Colin's which derailed what was then the consensus, it was admins. Which fair enough, it's our responsibility to figure out an appropriate response and to work out varying opinions on the right response to find a rough consensus (and indeed it's still fair despite your comment being one that could have been posted two weeks ago when it opened, a week ago when I proposed closing, or 4 days ago when Tamzin posted her most recent thinking). But holding our collective actions as a reason to sanction him feels unfair to me given this joint responsibility we as admins have. And if Colin is back here, it's not obvious to me the next step is going to be a topic ban, it might instead be a block so doing a topic ban now may be "biting the wrong bullet". Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so as of now my headcount is:

TBAN from transgender healthcare: 3 (me, Sarek, Abecedare)
Logged warning / finding of fact that previous conduct was sanctionable:
- And have commented since I proposed a TBAN: 4 (Barkeep49, Voorts, Valereee, Seraphimblade)
- And haven't: 1 (Vanamonde93)
Have not expressed a conclusive opinion: 4 (Rosguill, Asilvering, ScottishFinnishRadish, Liz)

So I'll ping @Vanamonde93, Rosguill, Asilvering, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Liz, and additionally will invite any lurking admins to chip in. I understand that some of you may not wish to or have time to comment in that regard, but if even one or two do, I think that could get us to a workable consensus in one direction or the other. (Failing that, my meta-opinion is that there's no such thing as "no consensus" between two options with a rough-consensus standard, and that, with all arguments having been reasonable, the warning/FoF would pass by simple headcount.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on rough consensus moved to talk page. Any admin can feel free to revert me. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking with no specific responses an AE while I'm on the committee, so don't wait on me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with a TBAN, but I don't feel strongly about it. I hope Colin does stay away from GENSEX for a while; if he doesn't, I think we'll probably see him back here sooner rather than later. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stepped away from this quite intentionally: I felt I had said my piece, and I lacked the bandwidth to shepherd us toward consensus. I agree that we as an admin body could have handled this better by exercising discipline in when and how we commented, but I will note that Colin had the power to nip this in the bud by showing us he would strive to be a net positive in the topic, and did not exercise it. I am generally loath to sanction for behavior during a discussion of behavior when the behavior that led to it wasn't sanctionable. As such I still prefer a closure akin to BK49's and Voorts's suggestions above: that addresses, specifically, the worst behavior. But I will not stand in the way of a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the TBAN because it is clearer and enforceable, and Colin's responses during this AER, quite apart from the difficulty in arriving at a consensus among admins, make me wonder whether another warning will prevent a reoccurrence of the issues seen at DYK etc. But I am fine with a warning if that is where consensus lies (as it seems to), and if it works out, that would be ideal! Either way, I would recommend closing this relatively soon since Colin's complaint about the stress this is causing them is completely legitimate and understandable. Abecedare (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wareon

Rightmostdoor6 is topic banned indefinitely from all pages and edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, for battleground conduct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Wareon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rightmostdoor6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wareon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

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

20 May - Falsely alleges Hindustan Times and Mint as poor 'no weighty' sources.
Reverts the productive edit by @Kautilya3:, signing summary as "no improvement". Later causing a pov template on the article.
Politely told to abide by WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN in order to challenge reliable sources. But in turn, the usual combative behaviour followed [57]. In all fairness, the user is engaged in typical stonewalling, which could be frustrating for good faith editors.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

5 years ago, but also recently

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Asilvering and Guerillero: Boomerang for asking to prove if the sources are unreliable? The user is repeatedly making WP:IDONTLIKEIT statements, you need to look at the given diffs. Another editor has also asked [58] them to either brief their revert or self-revert before it's too late. Wareon, I have likewise responded to the editor and suggested them to follow the same procedure, and you need a course correct in the entire page is full of discussions imposing the rule of discarding Godi media sources, we only recently saw this particular issue surging in. I'd ask you again to prove that these media outlets publish fake and poor news so that we can really avoid using them. I'm pretty much familiar with WP:P&G, surely this is not the general way to discard reliable sources. Hindustan Times has been cited more than 20,000 times, if we go by your way, we may need to remove every citation out there. Lastly, in order to divert this main report, you have completely misunderstood me on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. There the context of my comment was related to Indian english, which is also raised by another user [59]. For that you need to familiarise yourself with WP:TITLEVAR. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, no it's not BF, but I don't know how it would affect this report if I'm not an XC user. I can see on top of this page that autoconfirmed+ users can file the report, that would mean the general understanding of our project is that we expect editors like me to be able to file a report. All I can say is that, I'm a quick learner, way quicker that I ended up here this soon. Now, I would again reject Simonm's allegation that I'm knowingly involved in any kind of "kicked off" mentality, when we have two other cases on this board; over ARBIPA. In the last 3 days, since this report was initiated, there were relatively calm or no heated arguments for "Godi media stonewalling" (at least not between experienced editors), which is a good sign of collaborative approach and mutual understanding. Right there in their #3 defence, Wareon is still sharing the UNO-burden problem with the editors in disagreement. Not to mention their disregard [60] to the ongoing talk page discussion. I don't know if these egregious problems are for admin attention but simultaneously, I may not report any such cases from now on. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering and Guerillero: I have briefed on Firefangledfeathers' talk [61] that why a boomerang is not for me. I have learnt from these recent issues. Should I take a break from filing reports? - Yes. Should there be sanction in order - No, I haven't made any poor contributions. The campaign of "Godi media" resulted in nothing [62], and now editors have moved on with other proposal such as carpet ban over India-Pakistan sources, it only reflects that I was in someway right in noticing this repetitive pejorative label by Wareon and Orientls. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[63]

Discussion concerning Wareon

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Wareon

Yes Hindustan Times and LiveMint are both Godi media sources, and cannot be trusted for offering a neutral analysis on the India-Pakistan conflict. Rightmostdoor6 has already been notified about it by an experienced editor.[64]
Absolutely it makes no sense to blame me if someone else is adding POV template on the article.
Burden is on the person who is using Godi media sources to prove their reliability, especially since the entire page is full of discussions imposing the rule of discarding Godi media sources.

To sum it up, Rightmostdoor6 appears to be just another editor who believes that using systematically biased Indian sources for this conflict is a good idea. He does not respect the actual reliable sources and instead tries to rely on what he feels is more popular in India as clear from his message right here where he says, "I'll tell you a fact. You can choose to disagree out of your bias, no problem. But the locals of the country have always called it a riot and would naturally continue to do so. So even if you succeed in changing it to 'Violence' the locals of the country are still going to continue calling it a riot. Even with all your 'scholarly' 'unbiased' foreign sources..try changing the minds of the locals and good luck with that". Such messages and this report proves this editor is regularly engaging in WP:BATTLE.

I would recommend a topic ban for this editor with just 238 edits so that they can learn the basic policies of Wikipedia. Wareon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

I don't think this should have been brought here. Yes, Wareon made a poor revert, which necessitated a {{POV}} template, but that kind of thing is part of normal editing, avoidable though it was. The talk page discussion is proceeding fine.

As for the "Godi media" issue, the sources I used were not mentioined on that page, but somebody provided evidence of governmental interference. So I think it is fine to question them. That is again part of normal editing.

So we shouldn't be here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a real fault here, it is the fact that Wareon made an edit, while the issues were under active discussion. The resulting text is now worse than both the previous versions, and it is going to take even longer at arrive at WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HerakliosJulianus

With the large amount of repeated assertions on Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos in labeling sources by denouncing as Godi media. This needs to go through the current ARCA referral, as it's evidently tendentious editing and heated arguments from the multiple parties. A well required ARBIPA2 seems necessary. Heraklios 20:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to disagree with Orientls on that ANI filing and also with Firefangledfeathers. The user is actually passing poor aspersions [65] and for that a report may have been warranted. The continuous "Consensus exists" remarks [66] by Orientls is not helping either. The Godi media jargon is really problematic, especially when they fail to cite any consensus that debar such sources, as noted by Gotitbro. At this point, I don't think any boomerang such as T-ban from noticeboards or IPA would be helpful and the ANI report of Ecrusized shouldn't be taken in consideration, because serious problems exist around the user. Nor I have found any poor mainspace editing by the OP. My 4 cents. Heraklios 21:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Captain Jack Sparrow

While the statements and aspersions regarding "Godi Media" that were callously thrown around by editors were indeed quite egregious, even with a pattern of somewhat disruptive editing I'm not sure if this would have been sufficient for AE action. However, I note that Wareon's doubling down and their apparent defence of their use of "Godi Media" as a label to try and discredit sources is quite an unreasonable reaction. They are also incorrectly claiming that some sort of consensus exists against using any source they can label with the apparently arbitrary label of "Godi Media" - Indeed, the ongoing thread at RSN notes that users attempting to use the label as their argument can be effectively ignored, and I concur.

At the same time, I doubt that there is a sound basis for any boomerang sanctions. Most of the mainspace edits by the filer seem fairly reasonable, and I cant see any preventative value in a sanction unless a clear pattern of DE is established, which in this case there doesnt seem to be.

Statement by Simonm223

Having seen the page at the heart of this dispute pop up at, like, all the noticeboards I went there to see what was going on and found what is, frankly, a dumpster fire. SPAs abound with many editors even openly admitting to managing multiple accounts. The rate of discussion is extreme and the rhetoric is very heated. I've told some editors before I don't believe the term "Godi Media" is particularly constructive but I have noticed a lot of decisions about reliability seem to have been started from the position of "does this source agree with me" and then a judgment on reliability is made on that basis. My first engagement at the page was over several editors who were trying to claim Al Jazeera was unreliable because it reported on details of Pakistan's actions that pro-India editors didn't want to see there.

However there's another problem here which is more apropos to this board which has been the clear WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics of attempting to get opposing editors kicked off the project on minimal or outright inappropriate grounds. That seems to be the case here. Criticizing the reliability of a source is not, absent evidence of some sort of disruption, something we should be disciplining. I would recommend a boomerang is in order here.

And then somebody should probably put extended confirmed page protection on article talk. New single purpose accounts on both sides of this dispute are being highly disruptive in aggregate. At least one, blocked today, openly admitted that they have a second account "for personal and test editing" which I sincerely doubt hasn't been used for socking. As such, and it's ether protect the page or block them all and do it all over again when they sock. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

Not directly related to this AE report but I have placed the talkpage of the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article under 1 month ECP protection as an individual admin action, in response to it, this ANI discussion, this SPI report, etc. Shouldn't preclude admins applying user sanctions in response to this AE report.

Wondering if there is admin appetite for applying temporary WP:ECR to the "2025 India Pakistan conflict" topic area? IIRC there was a discussion between Valereee and Barkeep about admins as a group having the ability and remit to apply such non-standard sanctions in CTOP area and IMO we need better solutions than playing whack-a-mole. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers and Barkeep49:, you are right about the admin I was intending to ping and thanks for pointing out the topic/pages nuance I had misremembered. I think we can put a pin in the ECR, or even mass-ECPing, discussion especially since it is not really related to AER. Can re-open it, if the situation doesn't settle with a passage of time. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orientls

@Firefangledfeathers and Asilvering: The term "Godi media" is used frequently by the news outlets[67][68] and scholarly sources.[69][70] For more scholarly sources, see the discussion here. While our article on Godi media is ideal, I would also add that this is not a pejorative term but a term used "to illustrate the hyper-collusion between the state and press".[71] It is used for Indian media outlets that actively espouse the ideological talking points of the Hindu nationalist ruling party of India (BJP).

Rightmostdoor6 is not a newish editor but an editor who is misusing noticeboards to get rid of opponents, as clear from his recent filing of this unnecessary report on ANI which also faced much criticism. This is a contentious area and we should not take more risks. Orientls (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wareon

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

Rightmostdoor6, you haven't really explained how these diffs violate WP:ARBIPA. -- asilvering (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boomerang for asking to prove if the sources are unreliable? No, of course not. That would be normal behaviour. What is not normal behaviour, and indeed not acceptable behaviour, is taking someone to AE for no other reason than because they called a source unreliable and you disagreed. You say you need to look at the given diffs. I did. If you think those diffs are self-evident of an ARBIPA violation, one so egregious or chronic that it requires a trip to AE, it doesn't look like you have enough experience yet to work in contentious topics. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HerakliosJulianus, you also have not provided any diffs. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to go with a boomerang here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. Having watched that article for a while, however, another one will pop up straight away. But we can only do what we can do. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels a little ABF-y, so apologies if that's what I'm doing, but does it seem odd that an account with 250 edits gets here? I feel like that's unusual. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, they're in my WP:ARBIMH AfD data already as well. So they are certainly unusual, as far as new editors go. But as an editor who found myself at AfD before my 10th edit, I prefer to lean into good faith until it really becomes impossible. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, I'm pretty sure you mean Barkeep49. The "any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" part of WP:CTOP#Contentious topic restrictions that I think you're referring to, in my analysis, is still restricted by the "editor restrictions and page restrictions" mentioned at the top of its section. A consensus of admins at AE could surely apply ECR to a page or group of pages, but not a topic. If ECR is needed for a subtopic of ARBIPA, I think ARCA is the way to go. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was a discussion Valereee and I had recently. There I noted, AE admins can do ECR (or as Valereee was proposing something even more strict than ECR) for specific pages but couldn't do it for a topic area. So yes FFF has it all right in my view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49, @Firefangledfeathers, do either of you have an opinion on @Guerillero's boomerang proposal? The sooner we close this particular thread the better, imo, lest we get half of ARBIPA dragged into it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can review in a few hours Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion. Sorry, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My main question is: is it obviously unacceptable to object to another user calling specific sources "Godi media"? I'm unfamiliar with this topic area, but it seems like a pejorative label, and from the discussions I'm seeing it certainly seems to raise the temperature every time someone brings it up. I agree with asilvering that "taking someone to AE for no other reason than because they called a source unreliable and you disagreed" is unacceptable. This filing has the additional color of the "Godi" issue, and I'm not sure how colorful it is. There are certainly other flaws in the report, with points 2 and 3 both being very weakly presented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly pejorative, but at least in my estimation, not "immediately drag someone to AE over it" pejorative. I figure equivalent in tone/politeness to saying something like "that's a garbage, biased source", though that's my own understanding, so caveat lector. Some background: [72]. Recent example in The Hindu: [73]. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do suspect, based on what I know so far, that it's not a drag-to-AE-immediately kind of thing. That puts the dragging somewhere on a spectrum from [this is such an obviously bad idea that we should sanction a new-ish user for doing it] to [this is a mildly bad idea, trout and move on]. That's a calculation I'm having trouble with. In this space of uncertainty, I'd recommend something like a logged warning. I'd also be happy to put out a general, non-logged suggestion that there's almost always going to be a less inflammatory phrasing choice than "Godi media". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think a logged warning and the accompanying suggestion is a good one. @Guerillero?

@Orientls, all of those things (scholarly usage, intended meaning, etc) can be true at the same time as the phrase is pejorative. You don't call something "Godi media" when you're about to highlight its positive qualities. -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also the first linked scholarly source is not "using" the term but is describing use of the term by "critics". The second linked scholarly source is not actually a scholarly source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the logged warning. I had briefly seen the ANI filing that Orientis links but hadn't connected the dots. A boomerang TBAN seems warranted to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Well, again, I'm with you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cortador

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Cortador

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cortador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/AP WP:CT/BLP

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

07:24, 14 May 2025 20:38, 14 May 2025 20:55, 14 May 2025 15:11, 22 May 2025 Edit warring that obstructs article cleanup
07:25, 14 May 2025 08:19, 14 May 2025 21:08, 14 May 2025 Treating WP:CON as a vote rather than focusing on content (WP:FOC) and content policies, WP:BATTLE mentality.
17:20, 15 May 2025 18:35, 15 May 2025 WP:IDHT, failure to WP:AGF, failure to FOC, failure to WP:READFIRST - ignores that only the first ten sources had been reviewed at this point
19:15, 15 May 2025 failure to AGF, failure to FOC, obstruction of article cleanup
20:49, 19 May 2025 Refusal to address article content problems as described in detail in talk page discussion and FOC, failure to AGF, BATTLE mentality.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

12:49, 29 January 2021 16:36, 31 May 2023 05:40, 2 May 2024 Escalating blocks/bans for edit-warring

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:19, 21 March 2023 16:40, 31 May 2023(see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that the evidence here, and past discussions with others on his talk page, demonstrates violations of most if not all of Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Editing a contentious topic

Re Black Kite's comment [74]: I agree. Refactored.[75] I shouldn't have mentioned the tag at that point. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

17:10, 22 May 2025

Discussion concerning Cortador

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Cortador

This issue started because Hipal kept adding whole-article tags to Hasan Piker, when this discussion 1 had made it clear that Hipal was the only editor supporting the tags, whereas at least six other editors (LittleJerry, Bluethricecreamman, jonas, CeltBrowne, Alenoach, and myself) disagreed with the addition. The talk page consensus was clear, so I removed the tags. Hipal also made other edits against talk page consensus, as per this discussion. 2.

Following that, Hipal started this discussion 3 where they made it clear that their intend was not assess issues with the article and then add appropriate tags, but instead add tags and then look for a justification afterwards. Evidence for this is is that when Hipal stated that they planned to add the tag again, they only had found one issue with one source, which was missing an author, but speculated that there had to be nine other sources with issues ("That's one in ten, so I'm extrapolating that there are some nine more."). Hipal also falsely claimed that nobody was objecting to this when Ratgomery and myself did, both on the talk page ("As there are no objections based upon the state of the article, the tag should be restored.") and in a diff description 4 ("no dispute over content problems identified"). Lastly, Hipal admitted to this in their statement here, where they stated that "only the first ten sources had been reviewed at this point". It is not appropriate to demand the addition of whole-article tags after only having reviewed ten sources out of (as of the making of this statement) 104 sources. This, in my opinion, further demonstrates that it was Hipal's intend to just have the tag there instead of providing evidence that it is needed.

They also attempted to revert the burden of proof, stating on the talk page that "No one has indicated that no further problems remain to be found". Demanding that whole-article tags be added until proven that they aren't needed is an abuse of tags.

I'm willing to assume good faith with other editors. However, this does has limits, and those include editing against clear talk page consensus as well as openly stating that it is one's intend to simply have tags on the article and search for a reason after adding them, which is disruptive behaviour. Cortador (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

This issue was just discussed at ANI a few days ago.

Hipal was asked to drop the stick and communicate the specifics of their issue with the article using specific examples, not generalities or guesses. The filing of this request for enforcement suggests that this advice was not taken. I believe that the request is a waste of administrator's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesVorkosigan (talk • contribs) 11:36 May 22 2025 (UTC)

Hipal stated on my talk page that they had made (at least) two specific comments about the article and what was needed for it, one was on May 15 and it was addressed. The other diff goes to May 3 and as far as I can tell is Hipal saying that editors who wanted to remove the tag were not displaying competence. I don't see how that is helpful for their position, but there it is. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by (Ratgomery)

Commenting because Hipal has also left me an edit warring notice over a revert regarding these tags, and because I was named in the discussion. Incase it's been overlooked, let me point out there are 3 talk page discussions regarding this exact issue in total, as I believe only one of these discussions has been referenced so far. [| POV_and_BLP_sources_tags] , [| Disruptive_Editing_and_Removals] as well as [| Complete_citations_needed] which has already been linked. Hipal has engaged with a large number of editors over these tags.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cortador

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

I have to say I'm spectacularly unimpressed by Talk:Hasan_Piker#Complete_citations_needed, but with the filer of this AE. I would have expected that someone with 139,000 edits would know how tags work, and it certainly isn't, when you find one sub-par citation out of ten, to post this. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miles seems correct, this is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1187#Disruptive tagging and editing against talk page consensus by Hipal, moved to a different noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will close this as a content dispute if there's no proposal for sanctions against either party in the next day or so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CapnJackSp

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning CapnJackSp

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

10 April and 12 April - Gamed 1RR rule on Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 by making these two reverts in just 35 hours.
7 May - Made a problematic revert to restore the information sourced to an Indian magazine, but not an independent source even after knowing that he is required to use only independent sources for India-Pakistan military conflict information as evident from his earlier edit.
12 May - Resumes edit warring on Indo-Pakistani war of 1965.
18 May - Calls Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus a "massacre" and reverts another editor to impose this pro-Hindutva view. The sources are not calling it a "massacre".
21 May - Makes a problematic edit to infobox that waters down the independent claims about Indian casualties, and used France 24, a French state-owned outlet for discussing the loss of their own aircraft.
21 May - Attacking another editor by inappropriately accusing them of "serious WP:CIR issue" for not giving credence to unreliable Indian outlets due to the requirement of using independent reliable sources.
21 May - Attacking another editor for backing up their argument with links and is also inappropriately accusing them of stonewalling just because the editor (Slatersteven) correctly reminds editors of past discussions to avoid duplicate discussions.[76][77]
21 May - Confirms his ignorance of WP:RS by offering his totally problematic defense of the unreliable Indian media sources, frequently called Godi media, by proclaiming, "Most of the sources editors callously label as "Godi Media" are perfectly reliable sources, or as reliable as most news sources get. Them being sympathetic to the government for monetary or ideological reasons does not change that."
21 May - Using unreliable Indian media sources to make the claims where independent sources are required. Went to use even one of the poorest Indian website called FirstPost which is now well known for conspiracy theories including that "China and the United States have launched a propaganda campaign against India".[78]
23 May - Makes a misleading claim that the information according to third party sources about the losses of aircraft regarding India are not properly sourced. Does not explain how.

What I find even more ironic is, that CapnjackSp expects others not to commit the very violations he has committed in the diffs right above.[79] Months ago, he was promoting Hindutva POV on Goa Inquisition by claiming that Hindus faced forced conversions and destruction of Hindu temples. He provided 3 sources to enhance his argument and none of them supported his claims.[80]

In the last AE report against him, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive302#CapnJackSp, he was warned by Dennis Brown that "I am going to warn them firmly about copyright infringement in particular, as well as behavior. This means you have a short piece of WP:ROPE and you will simply be blocked without warning for either." To this day, his pro-Hindutva and pro-Indian editing continues even on highly contentious topics like India-Pakistan conflict where his behavior has been absolutely unproductive. Azuredivay (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [81]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I note that CapnJackSp, in his response below, has engaged in selective canvassing, dodged the concerns about a few diffs, failed to address his misrepresentation of sources, and has falsely accused me of violating 3RR.

Outside here, he is now unnecessarily making revert to restore an opinion piece[82] in violation of WP:ONUS saying that consensus exists when the recent discussion discarded the use of opinion pieces at the talk page.[83]

What is more astonishing is, that he is casting aspersions against SheriffIsInTown here, claiming the editor created "the thread" in order "to single out Indian sources". He also made an off-topic comparison between India and Pakistan by falsely asserting that spread of misinformation is higher in Pakistan in comparison with India, despite experts surveying for the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risk Report have ranked India highest over misinformation and disinformation.[84] His jingoistic and pro-Hindutva editing is continuing even after the report. Azuredivay (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: CapJackSp's voluntary acceptance of a topic ban from the India-Pakistan conflict addresses the problems with most of the diffs. Without any further ado, the thread can be closed with the topic ban he has agreed to. Azuredivay (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [85]

Discussion concerning CapnJackSp

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by CapnJackSp

I would like to respond to the report in a thorough manner - I find the report to be worded extremely deceptively. While I will note that much of this is a content dispute presented as WP:DE, I will still give my rationale for those edits that are challenged.

Going through the content disputes raised, if editors are interested - Collapsed for those who do not want to read through the rather large amount of text

The claim about "promoting Hindutva POV on Goa Inquisition" is a gross mischarecterisation - All I did was modify the material in the sentence in line with the concerns raised (The objection was "Hindus were not the only ones to be prosecuted as per the rest of body ", and I slightly modified to reflect this - After the editor raised concerns beyond the wording, I did not reinstate the material). After my edit was reverted, I did not edit war - I raised my concerns on the T/P and after discussing with the user, I added back the material we agreed on [86]. This textbook example of WP:BRD and collaborative editing being spun as WP:DE is highly deceptive.

Point 4 states that I was attempting to impose a "pro-Hindutva view" that RS do not support. I contend that my edit was completely valid - Many killings of Kashmiri Pandits (and Kashmiri Hindus in general) have been called massacres by RS, and editors could cross check any number of sources at 2003 Nadimarg massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre and 1997 Sangrampora massacre.
Point 9 talks about an addition that had been made in wikivoice and removed (correctly). I added the material back, attributing correctly to media reports. Again, this is a content dispute - If the user would prefer "Indian media reports" instead, I woudnt have had any objection. The X link being shared has, as far as I can see, never been put forward at RSN or elsewhere.
Point 5 talks about "downplaying casualties". The current infobox uses multiple reports to synthesise something none of them say - My edit was simply an accurate summary of the sources in the article or those raisedon the T/P. After the edit, although the WP:SYNTH-problematic version was reinstated, I took my concerns to the T/P and have been discussing a possible consensus since.
Point 2 is about "reliability" of sources - The two edits are not contradictory, contrary to what is implied. There is no issue using RS from either country, especially when backed up by similar reports in reliable international media. It is however, objectionable to try and rush combat loss figures when the conflict is still ongoing and the reports are contradicting each other.
Point 10 is a partial quote - And the full quote [87], as well as my explanations in other sections currently open does indeed clarify my argument.
Point 6 and 8 are both about the use of "Godi Media" ^[a] sounces; the arbitrary usage of this inflammatory label by certain editors to discredit sources being problematic and against WP policies is not my opinion alone - I've brought this up a short while back in the filing above on Wareon. ^[b]

The seventh point is absurd - It is very clearly not a personal attack. I am not sure as to why Azuredivay would consider it a sarcastic remark directed at a particular editor - Especially since the two links of alleged "stonewalling" nowhere resemble stonewalling, and indeed were good responses to frivolous requests. It is common in many pages in contentious topics to cite a "previous consensus" to stonewall attempts at constructive edits, and my experience in the IPA area has taught me that even the weakest semblance of consensus in contentious topics can be used by disruptive editors to derail future good faith proposals. I was noting my dissent, but I had no proposals at the moment so I noted that too.

The only allegation of conduct violations are the reverts on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. I encourage editors to go through this section (though it is rather long) that I had started after editors kept reverting, without discussion, the use of dubious sources to rewrite the results section of the article. Other editors trying to make changes to balance the "revised" results have also been reverted. I still intent to resolve the issue through an RFC as stated in the discussion; I have lost faith in the T/P discussion resolving itself after the quality of arguments went downhill, like the claim about how ChatGPT found the sources reliable. I have not made reverts post the failure of my two separate attempts to remove obvious POV content from the high visibility page, and do not intent to do so either till we get a firm consensus on the content. I note that this is not the only page where such rewrites of results have happened - many, including Gotitbro [88], Kautilya3 [89] pointed out similar issues.

I also note that while the filer has dug up a three year old ARE case (as a new editor, I had an incorrect understanding of how close was "too close" paraphrasing) and cited it as the "last" AE against me, they have left out the filing from two years ago - Perhaps, since that one was filed by a sock, and mirrors this one in that it was primarily a content disagreement.

I propose a WP:BOOMERANG on the filer - They have made several exceptional claims above, while their recent contribs show clear 3RR vios [90][91][92][93][94]. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tamzin
I've gone over the edit in more detail. I agree that the number of eighty is unsourced, and overlooking that was lazy editing on my part. If I had to do over, I think the better way would be to list the recognised instances of massacres separately and cite them from their respective articles. The sourcing would, in that case, be much clearer too.

I would like to clarify that the edits above were made in good faith and were not intended to represent any one POV unfairly over another. However, if admins think this editing is one-sided, I am wiling to accept a voluntarily topic ban from the India-Pakistan Conflict topic area. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.
^ But I would suggest discounting any editor who throws around the term "Godi media" for these news organizations willy nilly, since that's more name-calling than argument and For what it's worth I agree that references to "Godi Media" are, at best, unproductive. are illustrative.

Statement by Kautilya3

I am adding my two cents here since the majority of the complaints pertain to 2025 India-Pakistan conflict where I am involved.

The diffs numbered 1 and 3, deal with INFOBOX-warring on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. It is not uncommon for a large number of edits to get made in violation of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and, when an experienced editor runs into them, they have no choice but to revert a whole range of edits wholesale. To their credit, the editor started a talk page discussion where several experienced editors have participated. I don't think it is right to label this as "gaming 1RR".

The edit 4 is problematic in certain ways, but the editor is also right that there were some massacres that were part of Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits as it is called in popular parlance. (That is the version of that page before it succumbed to Wikipedia's systemic bias.) The right thing to do would have been to follow WP:BRD.

Coming to the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, there are groups of editors trying to exclude any information or analysis that shows that India did well in the conflict. Third-party analysts like Tom Cooper, John Spencer and Walter Ladwig (the last of them an academic in King's College London, War Studies department) have been shot down on technicalities, and a long thread started at WP:RSN to exclude all Indian media from the page. Those efforts continue in this complaint itself, peppered with references to "unreliable Indian media" and "Godi media". They basically amount to partisan censorship and are not in the interest of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CapnJackSp

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

I haven't gone through every allegation yet, but #4 jumps out as particularly alarming. CapnJackSp restored contested content that cited six sources for including Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (piped as "1990 Kashmiri Hindus killings") on List of massacres in India: [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]. None of the six uses the word "massacre", and the third one is an utterly unreliable source, a nonbinding resolution of the US House that appears to have never even passed committee, so just the opinion of a few politicians on the other side of the world. Furthermore, the first two, which were stated to support the "30–80" figure, respectively give numbers of "at least 30" and "32 ... [a] plausible figure". CJS' defense in this thread is that the use of the word "massacre" is supported on three other pages. Setting aside that the first isn't in the stated time period of the 1990s, and that sources existing on other pages don't exempt one from citation requirements, the fact that some RS verify that some massacres have occurred against Kashmiri Pandits does not verify the claim of up to 80 massacred, nor explain the references to higher body counts of 219 or 399, nor the link to an article about an exodus that occurred in 1990.
@CapnJackSp, I would like to see a much better explanation of why you restored this content than what you've given, and I'd like to know whether you stand by that decision still. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Azuredivay: He hasn't quite agreed to it. He's agreed to it if admins think his editing has been one-sided, and so far 1 admin has commented (me) and I haven't decided whether I think there's a systemic issue. I'd like to hear from one or more colleagues first. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DataCrusade1999

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning DataCrusade1999

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Wareon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DataCrusade1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBIPA

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

01:28, 5 May 2025: Showing entirely non-collaborative approach towards another editor, saying he will keep making reverts over "Islamist" vs "Islamic" and making accusations without evidence that the another editor is Islamophobic. He said: "First of all, please do not mention my name. I prefer not to engage with you, so feel free to proceed as you wish; I won't mind. However, I will revert any changes if I notice "Islamic" being used instead of "Islamist."" He added: "You can't insert your hatred of a religion in the article in this case the religion is Islam. DO NOT PUSH YOUR POV."
15:54, 3 May 2025 - Again, showing non-collaborative approach, assuming bad faith and making accusations without evidence. He said "You're violating NPOV by waging a religious crusade and giving the article a Hindutva tilt, so I suggest you remove yourself from this article altogether." He added: "please don’t respond to my comments. I might say something that you probably won't like. Let someone else handle this. I know you’re not fond of me, and I definitely don’t want to talk to you, especially after the whole non-argument you initiated in the Islamist section."
15:42, 6 May 2025: Failure to WP:AGF and attacking other editors. Says "any objection is just about your ego there's no merit or substance in any of your argument." He added: "there are always individuals who raise the censorship flag when they feel they are not being given the latitude to spread misleading information or impose their point of view on readers."
12:27, 24 May 2025: Totally disregarding WP:RS. Creates a false balance between "Indian and Pakistani sources" and reliable American news sources over the India-Pakistan military conflict and proposes a retaliatory action by saying "I'll gladly help in removing NYT and WaPo from vietnam war and war on terror or any other USA intervention".
12:33, 24 May 2025: Continues repetition of his false balance by targeting "every conflict page on Wikipedia starting from USA waged wars or conflicts," only because Indian and Pakistani outlets cannot be used for stating facts on India-Pakistan military conflicts.
08:24, 25 May 2025 - Again creating a false balance between unreliable Indian media sources and NYT. Engages in WP:BATTLE by wrongly claiming that another user is engaging in advocacy of banning Indian and Pakistani sources.
11:09, 25 May 2025: Continues his talk page disruption by saying "please don't launch defense for western media houses" and "So western media hosues have shown regret? well that may be how you have perceived things but it's not the case for me." To him, retraction of a story is not enough.
11:27, 25 May 2025: Sticks to his wrong belief that the RSN thread is demanding "blanket ban" by saying "I don't buy your reasoning I'm of the opinion that this whole thread is about instituting a blanket ban but you're entitiled to your opinion." See WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT.
13:34, 26 May 2025: Makes an outrageous claim that "Both India and Pakistan are relatively free compared to Russia or Ukraine", when corrected, he doubles down with his claim, "Ukraine is under martial law. There are lots of things that Ukrainian press can't report most of the Ukrainian press coverage of war has been pretty biased".[101]
08:59, 27 May 2025: Not even trying to give up his outrageous belief that categorization of an article as "opinion piece" depends on one's own view. As such, he keeps rejecting the fact that this article is an opinion piece and is bludgeoning across the talk page to impose his view. Following diffs show issues with WP:IDHT, WP:CIR and WP:BLUD;

"I've said before IMHO RUSI analysis is not an opnion piece. But you believe otherwise and that's fine you're entitled to your opinion."[102]
"I've said it before and I'll say it again I don't think RUSI is an opinion piece walter has expert knowledge in this field."[103]
"This is your view and at best I can acknowledge it but nothing more than that."[104]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [105][106]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The rampant display of battleground mentality, non-collaborative approach, and the failure to understand what others are telling is very clear here. Wareon (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Let me make it clear, I started this thread but wasn't requesting sanctions on Datacrusade1999. I just found that their conduct at talk pages and noticeboard as being unnecessarily combative. Another user recently was topic banned mainly for their conduct on talk pages.[107] I'd be okay that Datacrusade1999 should be alerted about incivility and other WP:TPG ethics, given it is the first time they have been reported here.

Let me address your points. Yes many editors do state their opinions (no matter how wrong they are) on talk pages, but most of them stop it after some time after becoming familiar with WP:TPG. However, Datacrusade1999 is continuing that, and his talk page comments are either derailing the threads from their actual purpose or they are getting unnecessarily heated.

This article is an opinion piece. It clearly says "The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution." A similar source written by a subject matter expert that was not tagged as an opinion piece yet was removed as it was deemed no different to an opinion piece on the article recently through consensus.[108] Pakistan and India are more "unfree" than Ukraine with regards to reporting of the events. Datacrusade1999 was already told that Ukraine ranks at No.62 at the Press Freedom Index, while India and Pakistan rank below 150. The difference is huge. While we have no doubt over the situation of Ukraine over the ongoing war, the same cannot be said for India and Pakistan. Experts believe that India is going through an undeclared emergency,[109] while there are those including the former PM of Pakistan who says Pakistan is going through undeclared martial law.[110]

I would further disagree that Datacrusade1999 treating "NYT and WaPo" to be as credible as the concerning Indian sources should be considered a mere " hyperbole / a slippery slope argument". He was doubling down and repeating this misleading argument as the diffs show. This betrays the understanding of WP:RS and WP:RGW, and these unhelpful comments turn any talk page discussion unproductive.

The diffs about defending Indian sources in context of this conflict become especially egregious when you consider the fact that Datacrusade1999 was repeatedly referring to Indian sources as "partisan", "Godi media" for spreading disinformation in the context of this conflict,[111] and then suddenly advocates them on the RSN thread while trying to portray them better than the relatively freer outlets from western media and Ukraine while also misrepresenting the thread's motive. Wareon (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [112]

Discussion concerning DataCrusade1999

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by DataCrusade1999

A lot has been said about my lack of collaboration. However, "collaboration" cannot mean that I have to agree with every viewpoint put forward by other editors. I have my own perspective and worldview; if I don't believe in something, I won't agree with it.

Regarding RUSI, I've already stated that I don't consider it an opinion, and I acknowledge the differing perspectives of other editors. That is about as much as I can concede on matters with which I disagree. link

Much has also been said about the reliability of Indian media. As Wareon himself has pointed out, I am quite suspicious of "Godi media." This should indicate that I am aware of the issues facing Indian media. However, I also know that there are thousands of other media organizations in India that do excellent journalism.

Some editors are advocating for a ban on Indian sources. They claim they are not asking for a blanket ban, but anyone can look at the noticeboard and see the discussions taking place there. Needless to say, I do not support that kind of policy.

I cannot and will not agree to something that I don't believe in. It's important to note that my opinion is not more valid than that of other editors. If a consensus emerges where my views or sources do not find support or credibility, I am willing to accept that consensus and make my peace with it. I have nothing against anyone, but if I see something that I disagree with, I will speak out.

Statement by Kautilya3

I am apparently the editor involved in diffs 1, 2 and 3. I admit that the editor has a bit of an abrasive style but I think their heart is the in right place. Their point was basically that calling a certain group of militants as "Islamic" would smear a religion whereas calling them as "Islamist" would attach them to an ideology. I understood their point perfectly fine notwithstanding all the barbs. Other editors agreed with their position; so I let it pass. Little did I know that it would get cited as evidence at AE by some one else for no good reason.

The majority of the remaining diffs have to do with a completely misguided thread at WP:RSN, calling into question "Indian media" based on a (pretty sloppy) New York Times article. Titled "How the Indian Media Amplified Falsehoods in the Drumbeat of War" it was bascially criticising mainstream television channels calling them "Indian media".

The filer says the editor held a wrong belief that the RSN thread is demanding "blanket ban". It was not a wrong belief. When asked "Did it mention any source we regard as WP:RS?", SheriffIsInTown, the originator of the thread, said [113]: "It raises a gigantic question mark on the reliability of Indian media and sources as a whole. That is why we are requesting that they not be cited in conflict-related articles." That obviously sounds like a blanket ban?

And, what exactly does the filer mean by "false balance between unreliable Indian media sources and NYT"? What are supposed to be "unreliable Indian media"? And why is it a "false balance"?

This whole thing seems to have been an exercise to bait the Indian editors and to get them to trip up so that they can get sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DataCrusade1999

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

Diff by diff:

Quite rude. There is nothing wrong with asking someone not to ping you. The difference between "Islamic" and "Islamist" is an important one and replacing "Islamist" with "Islamic" where the latter does not apply could indeed be a form of Islamophobia. Which is to say, the portions you've quoted here are not particularly damning. The overall tone of that conversation, however, is pretty far from civil. I'm not terribly impressed by either participant (DataCrusade1999's tone is certainly worse, but Kautilya3 gets condescending in the first reply), but this is a single incident and Kautilya3 has already responded to this with equanimity.
Not acceptable. Ownership, aspersions, and a bit of a veiled threat. Not good.
See #1.
Not violation. This is hyperbole / a slippery slope argument. This kind of argument doesn't tend to be well-received on Wikipedia, but it's not a conduct violation.
Not violation. This is a more forceful restatement of the above. Editors are allowed to have opinions. This opinion does not strike me as particularly beyond the pale, either.
Not violation. The other editor is indeed saying that there is prior consensus not to use these sources.
Ish. It is not a violation of anything to have an opinion and state it. This is however unnecessarily personalized.
Not violation... however. Having read the discussion, I certainly can understand why this editor has come to this conclusion. However, immediately above this is Man don't do this at this point you're beign rude I don't throw the "r" word around casually but it seems you want to earn it. and... yikes. I'm going to believe that the "r word" here is "rude" and not the word we usually mean when we say "the r word". I will block immediately if disabused of this belief.
Not violation, reflects particularly poorly on the filer. This is again a statement of opinion. You do not violate IPA by having an opinion. That Ukraine is under martial law is a fact. That Ukraine does not have full freedom of the press is also a fact.
Not violation. That is not an opinion piece. It is expert commentary. Whether expert commentary is reliable or not for any given statement is something that is decided on a case-by-case basis.

asilvering (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: In my opinion, DataCrusade1999's conduct falls short of the "behavioural best practice" that editors are expected to adhere to in CTOPs. I could easily believe Kautilya3's assessment, the editor has a bit of an abrasive style but I think their heart is the in right place, but I could also be convinced otherwise. I hope a reminder about best behaviour is all we need here.

Regarding Wareon, however, I'm really quite unimpressed. They were the subject of an AE thread that only just closed ([114]), and which resulted in a boomerang for the filer. The situation is extremely similar: one editor is brought to AE by another without merit, for disagreeing that something is a reliable source. I'd be unimpressed by this filing at the best of times. This is less than 48 hours after a similar thread in "the other direction". For Pete's sake. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I haven't looked at the evidence in any detail (and will probably not end up doing so) but with regards to the "r"-word: my guess is that in the context the euphemism was used, it referred to "racism". See the comment they were replying to, which had already been described as racist in the comment immediately above DataCrusader's comment. Abecedare (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That too would be far better than the usual meaning. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the filer isn't seeking sanctions but instead a warning and since the admins replying here aren't suggesting a topic ban or block maybe this discussion can be closed with an outcome of a serious caution provided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LesIie

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning LesIie

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pravega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: LesIie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

Has violated WP:1RR on 2 articles:

Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948

27 May 2025 - Modifying the long-standing infobox without consensus
17:42, 28 May 2025 - Reverts to restore his edits
11:18, 29 May 2025 - Violates WP:1RR by restoring his edits.

Bangladesh Liberation War:

17:45, 28 May 2025 - This is the first revert to implement misinformation that only the members belonging to eastern command of Pakistan surrendered.
18:30, 28 May 2025 - This is his 2nd revert. Still no attempt to discuss the edits.

The problems with his infobox edits are continuing for a long time. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 09:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[115]^{added by Tamzin after report was filed without awareness evidence}

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning LesIie

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by LesIie

On the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 article, yes — it’s under WP:1RR, and I’m aware of that. But let’s be clear: I didn’t just randomly change things. I read the actual sources, I corrected the information to reflect what they really say, and I even added page numbers so anyone could verify it for themselves. My edits weren’t careless — they were fact-based and transparent. It was brought to my attention on the talk page that the information was greatly misinterpreted, I verified these claims to be true. The other editor reverted without addressing the content or even checking the sources. So yes, I reverted back. That may have technically gone over the 1RR line, but I wasn’t edit warring for the sake of it — I was trying to stop unsourced or misrepresented info from being restored.

On the Bangladesh Liberation War page — it’s not under WP:1RR, and there’s a new discussion on the talk page. I'm currently engaged with others there. The claim that I’m spreading “misinformation” is just wrong — My edit was supported by multiple people and the edits are based on what’s in the record, and again, sources are provided. The editor has not participated in this article themselves at all.

If anything, the other editor could’ve taken a minute to read what I actually wrote while verifying the sources using the pages instead of reflexively reverting. I’m happy to step back and talk things through, but good-faith editing with solid sources shouldn’t be treated like a sanction violation.

I’ll admit the WP:1RR breach is on me — I should’ve stepped back and gone to the talk page instead of making that second revert. That said, editors like the one who filed this report need to stop blanket-reverting without reading sources or engaging in discussion. It’s disruptive, it drags people into AE over technicalities, and it discourages actual source-based editing.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LesIie

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

Bangladesh Liberation War is not subject to a 1RR. The other article is, but typically the courtesy is to ask someone to self-revert before bringing them to AE (at least if 1RR is the only concern). LesIie, you can only make 1 revert per 24 hours to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 article (as mentioned in the notice when you edit the page), so you need to undo your most recent revert there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[3] The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.

[4] But I would suggest discounting any editor who throws around the term "Godi media" for these news organizations willy nilly, since that's more name-calling than argument and For what it's worth I agree that references to "Godi Media" are, at best, unproductive. are illustrative.

[a]

[b]

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards