Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia   14 June 2025 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due


Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 08 Jun 2025 22 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics none (orig. case) 12 June 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia

Initiated by Raladic (talk) at 23:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Examples of the AE cases of editors with pro-fringe/anti-trans views who have been sanctioned for their actions:

Special treatment of WP:UNBLOCKABLE's who are given leeway of endless warnings after warnings and then "offer to step back" to avoid the sanction that admins were discussing if it hadn't been for their offer to keep the "appearance of a clean record"

Further examples of AE cases with leeway given to users promoting pro-fringe/anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia:

Retaliatory filings by users promoting fringe theories and/or opposition to queer rights against users:

Statement by Raladic

   Raladic's statement contains 899 words and complies with the 900-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 900 words.

I retired from Wikipedia back in December 2024 due to the negative mental toll it took on me after having repeatedly experienced the systemic bias on the editing experience as a female editor trying to improve underrepresented areas of Wikipedia, such as WiR and LGBTQ+. Even prior to my retirement, the area was fraught with misinformation pushed by a very small, but extremely outspoken group of editors (emphatically echoing each other's fringe views) who have used and abused Wikipedia's processes to promote the fringe agenda of people and organizations that are spreading Transgender healthcare misinformation.

I have been watching the area from the sidelines over the past six months, but see no improvement in its treatment, if anything, it appears more entrenched. Some of this is even despite the organizations having been positively marked generally unreliable in 2022 (1, 2) and more recently fringe (1) by the wider community - these editors continue to perpetuate the lies of these organizations and attempt to whitewash articles of these organizations' proponents and actors, removing content and endless arguing against it.

The area has become an inextricable field of strife and other dispute resolutions appear to have failed (as AE's current board shows) and/or wasted hundreds/thousands of editors hours having to argue and re-litigate. I thus implore ArbCom to take on this case to establish a new CTOP split off from GENSEX for Transgender health care misinformation (or curtailment thereof) and impose sanctions on editors who's primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be the promotion of misinformation and organizations and people involved in the spread this misinformation in the area. I believe this case may require a treatment similar to ARBSCI to put an end to the mushroom-popping of SPA's coming to disrupt Wikipedia by trying to legitimize their fringe ideas and in some cases outright transphobic hatespeech. This has included literal sockpuppets (such as in the MfD of the WP:NQP essay, which got one user tbanned and another above soon thereafter).

The above collection of relevant discussions showcases the endless amount of time that many editors across Wikipedia had to spend (and honestly waste) arguing with these pro-fringe editors. ArbCom is primarily concerned with conduct over content, this case here presents a nuance where content and the ardent pro-fringe advocacy by certain editors overlap with the problematic conduct these editors exhibit. Some editors who come into this area as SPA's are very quickly found out and censured, some editors have managed to thread the line with successful wikilawyering, but ultimately, to the detriment of the project and as such, I make the appeal for ArbCom to take this case and provide relief.

Above links provide a sampling of some of the cases that have shown the inextricable nature and listed parties involved in the case, both editors who have helped shape the area, several admins who have helped mediate the area over the months/years and the actors in question that are subject of this appeal. Raladic (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@asilvering-The party list is carefully curated from the users that have been at the core of transgender related articles and the arguments of disputes over the past months/years. The editor's privy to the area will recognize the user list in its entirety. The bloodofox ANI is linked as a tangential symptom of what minority editors have to endure on Wikipedia, but not core to the dispute, hence no extra parties (that aren't already).
I do believe @SFR has been too involved not to be party to the case, or else be recused as an arbiter. Of particular note is the reprimand that @Guerillero had to issue here to that effect. Raladic (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel I carefully selected the people as party based on the definition of Arbguide glossary as having an important role in this dispute and believe this to be fully true of those listed. Specifically regarding SFR, I actually messaged them earlier to expand on why I believe they should be a party.Raladic (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, I agree, this list currently doesn't provide nuance on level (my spreadsheet I made to prepare the case does). The list that @Tamzin just made largely matches my center list (+DanielRigal, SilverSeren). Then some that appear less often, but do play a role in this and then there's parties that have insight (SFR,BK49). Since I stuck to the 500 word limit for the case, I couldn't elaborate on each persons role, but can do so if the case is accepted. Raladic (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scope- I titled this "Transgender health care misinformation" as the core, but the issue does expand to the basic human rights violations[1][2][3] advocated by anti-trans editors who use WP to promote infringement of trans human rights. I note that technically all advocacy from editors that violates/infringes on human rights (transgender or not) violates Wikimedia's Terms of Use (ban for posting content not "in line with human rights principles;"), though enforcement of this is missing in practice as it isn't codified in enwiki community WP:POL (beyond the link) and should be addressed in this case. Raladic (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

   Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's statement contains 324 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Never been at Arbcom before but reading all this I have 3 thoughts:

  1. These issues have two locci. First is trans healthcare (and FRINGE views/misinformation about it), but the second is gender-critical feminism (particularly in the UK).
    • GC Feminism is internationally recognized as a FRINGE sect of feminism entirely pre-occupied with seeking to limit the rights of trans people. It's been condemned by groups such as UN women[1], the UN's independent expert on LGBT rights[2], the Council of Europe[3], etc.
    • Content disputes about GC feminism across the main article and others have involved most parties on the list
  2. The issue isn't 2 "sides". The majority of editors just want to follow the sources - to uphold NPOV and MEDRS and keep the encyclopedia up to snuff. There are respectful content disputes of all kinds. But a small group consistently attempt to POV-push in a WP:PROFRINGE manner.
    • Marci Bowers, president of WPATH said it well: There are not two sides to the story, and everyone who reports on this issue seems to feel the need to present two sides to the story. Now, beneath that, there is lots of nuance, what age, how early we intervene, how thorough the mental health evaluation. But the thing that unifies every person who is knowledgeable ... is that gender affirming care is overwhelmingly efficacious. ... There are subtleties, but there are not two sides. (NYT podcast transcript part 5)
    • MEDRS just don't disagree on the underlying facts that 1) being trans isn't pathological and 2) no other treatment than medical transition has evidence of benefit. As the latest top-tier MEDRS (international clinical practice guideline by dozens of MEDORGS) in the field stated, there's no proven effective treatment alternative without body-modifying medical measures for a [person with] permanently persistent gender incongruence[4]
  3. The recent RFC's we had on this fairly settle the matter. SEGM is known to be a group of fringe activists; they shouldn't be used to try and one-up much weightier MEDRS. The view that trans identities are a mental illness or frequently caused by one is bunk. A while back we had an RFC find ROGD is fringe. I believe the issue is mostly solved at the community level and hope in accepting a case ARBCOM focuses on PROFRINGE behavior that has necessitated RFCs we shouldn't need.
  1. ^ "Transgender People". OHCHR. Retrieved 15 Jun 2025.
  2. ^ "Statement on the occasion of International Transgender Day of Visibility, the IACHR and a UN expert urge States to guarantee the full exercise of the human rights of transgender persons". OHCHR. 29 Mar 2018. Retrieved 15 Jun 2025.
  3. ^ "International Human Rights Law & Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity". United Nations Free & Equal. Retrieved 15 Jun 2025.

Statement by LokiTheLiar

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

I'd like to push back on Tamzin's implication that there is no scientific consensus in the topic area. There is a scientific consensus represented by many big mainstream WP:MEDORGs, especially WPATH and the Endocrine Society but also regularly supported by (for instance) both APAs and plenty of other large national and international WP:MEDORGs.

There also is, genuinely, a relatively serious challenge to some parts of that scientific consensus, represented especially by the Cass Review and the NHS reaction to it, but not one that has so far overtaken it. And even that challenge is more skeptical of the existing consensus than outright anti-trans. For instance, when asked directly Dr. Cass appears to basically agree with many of the trans-affirmative side's views, namely: that adult transition should be supported, that conversion therapy is not scientifically supported, and that being trans is not pathological.

If I had to locate the deepest point of actual contention here it's whether or not we have strong evidence that allowing kids or teenagers to transition is medically beneficial. But a lot of the stuff the people Raladic is worried about are pushing is not just that, it's all sorts of anti-trans stuff including clearly scientifically unsupported things like ROGD. Loki (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I think that limited to pediatric trans healthcare your statement is much closer to true. However that's not the only thing that is under dispute here: you can find editors listed as parties arguing on the talk page of ROGD, trans health care misinformation and even at totally non-medical pages like For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.
If editors A, B, and C are supporting the scientific consensus everywhere, and editors D, E, and F are opposing the scientific consensus everywhere (but in one specific subarea they may have a point), these aren't two equally balanced and similarly activist sides. You can't just carve out that specific subarea without looking at the whole picture. Loki (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW while I think Guerillero's comments linked by Raladic are relevant to this case, I disagree that they mean SFR is WP:INVOLVED here. SFR made only two very short comments, and one was extremely general while the other was literally just refusing to comment. Loki (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned Now you say that, I agree this comes at an awkward time because the community (or at least AE) might be in the middle of dealing with this already.

Background: There was a recent filing against Colin at AE. During that filing, Tamzin suggested more cases in this topic area should be brought to AE. Some have been, like this one against YFNS and this one against VIR (which has been sitting for over a week with no substantive action). I think that it's very plausible that just letting AE work its course could resolve many of the issues in this topic area without a case. It's hard to say that AE can't handle this before they're closed any recent requests on the subject. Loki (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

   Aquillion's statement contains 116 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The party list is too broad. ArbCom is supposed to the the last stop, not the first; many of the editors listed above have never had anyone even attempt to raise serious conduct issues with them. The bare minimum for being a party should be that either they've been brought to WP:AE, WP:ANI, etc. for conduct in the topic area, regardless of outcome; or been actually sanctioned or warned; or clear diffs are provided of behavior that obviously raises concerns. The filer mentions "unblockables" as a justification for the long list but you can't reasonably call people unblockables when nobody at all has made even a token attempt to move towards sanctioning them before. --Aquillion (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snokalok

  Snokalok's statement contains 579 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

So to start, Tamzin, I agree that pediatric healthcare is a major focal point of editorial conflict (in particular, anything touching the Cass Review), but I don't think it's the only major focal point. In particular, I think that the current active filings against VIR and YFNS display well enough that another major active one is conversion therapy - and in particular, gender exploratory therapy, (Ctrl+F exploratory), which is meant for adults as well as minors, and to my perception a number of fringe editors have pushed back on as being considered conversion therapy on the grounds that the British medical system has now replaced pediatric gender affirming care with it, and therefore it can't possibly be conversion therapy even though we've an overwhelming number of sources clearly demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is, as can be seen summarized rather well by the at the time of posting current version of the conversion therapy article here[5]. That said, GET is not the only conversion therapy that's been made controversial in recent years, with Zucker's 'living in your own skin model' being another (Ctrl+F own skin).

Also I think we should have Silver_seren here. Snokalok (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second @Black Kite's point, I think this issue goes far beyond healthcare. For instance, following the UK Supreme Court ruling which declared trans women to be men and vice-versa, a number of editors came onto various articles including woman, Graham Linehan, and JK Rowling to try to implement this as some degree of fact, saying that it's now the neutral position to call trans women "biological men" in wikivoice or else insinuating that it's a violation of neutrality to call them women.[6][7][8] Snokalok (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree I'll also state in Raladic's defense that Colin pinkie-promised in his most recent AE thread to stay out of topics regarding transgender healthcare, so there's perhaps an argument there why she might not have thought to list him.[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive354#Colin] Snokalok (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to speak to @QEDK's point. AGF. Assume good faith, pretty important to keeping a functioning wiki. The thing is though, a lot of the editors on this list have been having the same arguments in the same article talk pages for quite literally years at this point - to the point where one can look at the list of names in the View History tab, and know exactly what the conversation is going to look like before you even click and dive in. Assume good faith - yes, incredibly important tenet. But "assume" implies that you don't have any deeper info, and I think the reason we're seeing so many of these filings flying back and forth now is that, well, when you've had the same arguments over the same topics with the same people for years on end... there's no assumption there. You know everything you're ever going to. You know who's going to act in earnest, who's going to be rhetorically dishonest, what POV everyone has, where the honest ones stands and what angle the dishonest ones are probably going to take, who's going to do what when it favors them as well as when it doesn't. And the arguments continue, as they have for many years and will for many more. At this point, a reminder to AGF is going to diffuse nothing other than telling the editors on this list to phrase their arguments that tiny bit more politely. We need Arbcom. Snokalok (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Silver seren added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

  Tamzin's statement contains 515 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

ArbCom should accept a case here, although not quite as Raladic has framed it. The core of this dispute is about pediatric transgender healthcare, a topic on which there is not a global scientific consensus, which two groups of editors are trying to claim the existence of such a scientific consensus on, in two different directions. That is not to say that there is equal misconduct on both sides, but the plain truth is that we have an entire topic area where almost all editors are pushing an activist agenda in one direction or the other. This exchange between VIR and RelmC, and the previous discussions linked from it, is representative: A review found "Quantitative studies [regarding desistence from transition] were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting". VIR has repeatedly tried to emphasize the 83% figure. RelmC has repeatedly tried to emphasize the "poor quality" aspect. Both are trying to skew that finding to fit an agenda. Similarly, there's the Cass Review, a non-peer-reviewed report based on several academic systematic reviews: Look on the talkpage and you'll find editors downplaying either half of that sentence.

Both sides acknowledge partisan motivations: To one side, this is about trans rights and fighting trans healthcare misinformation. (This is true in some cases, as we often do need to remove editors from the topic area for pushing transphobic rhetoric. However, in many cases editors like Raladic seem to beg the question, saying that arguments are incorrect because they're transphobic, and transphobic because they're incorrect.) To the other side, this is about protecting children from being turned trans, something VIR more-or-less acknowledges in the aforelinked thread. Neither is a good motivation for contributing to Wikipedia. Accurately reflecting the consensus of sources (or lack thereof) is what should motivate us.

The two-party rule basically makes it impossible for AE to handle these cases, as in each filing we wind up with disputes over the conduct of third parties. That's not to say ArbCom was wrong to impose the two-party rule, but the logical upshot is that in a complex multi-party case like this there is now no suitable venue other than ArbCom. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: Clarified that I am referring to pediatric trans healthcare. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The parties that seem logical based on recent AE threads are YFNS, Loki, Snokalok, Miles, VIR, Sean, Sweet, Springee, Samuelshraga, Berchanhimez, and Colin, plus Raladic now that she's returned. Not necessarily an exhaustive list, but those are the obvious ones. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: I put that list together based on people who've been involved in the recent merry-go-round at AE. I included you based on this comment, but I'll acknowledge that that's not as strong a case for party status as with some of the people I listed. My goal here is just to give ArbCom a plausible list to add/subtract to/from, more than something definitive. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I would also include RelmC, who I apologize for not pinging above; I'd just sort of assumed she was a party. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

   Black Kite's statement contains 248 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I presume I am listed here because I made this comment at a previous AE (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.) Three editors, all named here (Sweet6970, Void if removed and Colin) took severe umbrage at this and a sanction against me was requested. Six months later, all three of them brought the comment back up again in an AE against Colin ([9]), to which my reply was this. I still stand by it, and I would strongly suggest that this case be widened to take in the wider aspect of editing of transgender-related topics. This is a long running issue; all the way back to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute and before that. More recently we have had stuff like The Daily Telegraph RfC and a lot of AE reports, most of which don't cover healthcare issues. Don't get me wrong - Wikipedia does deal with some trans issues really well - we stamp on deadnaming people, for example. But as my comment above pointed out, we do have issues with so-called "gender-critical" editing, and it has only got worse since political events in the UK, US and elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to make it clear, if this case is accepted purely in the scope of transgender health care misinformation, I would appreciate being removed from the party list, as I have not been in any disputes in this subject as far as I can remember. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

   DanielRigal's statement contains 394 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't have experience with the arbitration process and I'm not sure what my role as a party would be other than to give an opinion here.

I don't want to say whether this is the correct venue for solving these problems but I do agree that something needs to be done and this sounds like a plausible approach. I broadly agree with Raladic about the nature of these problems. (Whatever the outcome here, I'm glad she's back!) Too often good editors are pushed out of editing in this topic area, or out of Wikipedia entirely, by the climate of anti-LGBTQ tendentious editing and arguing. The editors pushed out are nearly always women, LGBTQ or both.

I agree that fringe ideas are being pushed although I also have to acknowledge that those fringe ideas are gradually becoming more mainstream, at least in popular media, as post-truth anti-intellectualism spreads across the English speaking world with its sustained focus on delegitimising LGBTQ people. Nonetheless, there is much genuine academic consensus and it shouldn't be ignored, shouted down or sealioned to death. There is far too much sealioning on the Talk pages by people who know our rules but use them tendentiously to derail or prolong discussion, to exhaust the other participants and in order to get their way, which is normally to exclude plausibly valid content. In some cases exhaustion seems to be a deliberate tactic although I accept Tamzin's points about there being genuine differences of perception among editors about fundamental aspects of the topics here. Nonetheless, sincerity alone cannot legitimise pushing fringe views. Unfortunately, it is hard to know with complete certainty which specific editors are being deliberately tendentious. That is why I am not naming any names here although I sort of want to. There is a distinction to be made between an editor being naturally exasperating in all sincerity and an editor being deliberately exasperating as a tactic of exhaustion or even hoping to provoke a rash response that they can drag to the noticeboards. If this process can help with these difficult problems then I'm for it.

Sorry if that's not very coherent. I'm not quite sure what is expected of me here.--DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't agree with Tamzin that the problems are limited to paediatric transgender healthcare. That's certainly a big part of it but not all. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LunaHasArrived

   LunaHasArrived's statement contains 95 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Absent anything else, I agree that there's been a chronic underuse of AE for problems (perceived or actual) in editing untill very recently. However I do think we have a problem at AE when someone can file a report and not have any discussion by administrators for a week. That this happened with the recent filing against Void if Removed, is the main reason I believe an arbcom solution might be needed. This is because if admins are unwilling to get involved sorting out disputes or problematic editors something has gone very wrong. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aaron Liu

   Aaron Liu's statement contains 232 words and complies with the 500-word limit.
I agree with OsFish. I don't know what the party list's standard of inclusion is but I'm fairly sure it's more than what appears to be "everyone important to any dispute, resolved or not", and perhaps even less as Scottish is included. I don't even remember which RfC Scottish presumably closed as I'm fairly sure he has not engaged in this topic area. Looking at the contributions of autoconfirmed proposed party HenrikHolen, all the subthreads he's involved in seem rather peaceful and I doubt he can attest to the reasons to open an ArbCom case. Tamzin I have no idea even though I know who xe is.
Based purely on recent activity I've seen, the tip of the iceberg, I would make the party list just Neighb, Void, Loki, Jon, OsFish, Chess, Samuel, and others upon their request.
As a side note, I don't think additional sanctions on Colin are necessary as he has stopped. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's simply a backlog at AE. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ScienceFlyer has long resolved itself and yet hasn't been closed yet. I'm surprised there wasn't an {{admin backlog}} template on the page but there is now.
That said, I feel like a case would be best to resolve the issues here as 1. a backlog still means it won't get resolved soon 2. the two-party restriction would make resolving issues within this topic much more burdensome. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Licks-rocks

   Licks-rocks's statement contains 82 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Well uh, I wasn't exactly expecting to be named in a case today (I've been fairly inactive for the last several months), nor do I currently have a lot of time to work on an adequate reply in a reasonable amount of time due to IRL responsibilities. I'll see if I can whip something up in a reasonable amount of time, for now this is just to confirm I've seen the case and have at least a hypothetical willingness to respond.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

   Simonm223's statement contains 286 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Trans topics present some of the most fraught environments to edit within on Wikipedia. I've been concerned about tag-teaming, bludgeoning and WP:CPUSH for quite a while among people who would like Wikipedia to take a more gender-essentialist position regarding trans issues. The WP:FRINGE/N discussions cited by Raladic are informative and show many of the key editors who I feel have made it almost impossible to handle trans topics. In particular, the actions of VoidIfRemoved and Sweet6970 (and I would treat their actions collectively because they constantly tag-team) [10] have made for a toxic environment for queer editors. In the case of SEGM we have an organization referred to as a hate group by expert sources like the SPLC and yet VIR has fought to retain SEGM as a source on Wikipedia for months with few signs they will ever WP:DROPTHESTICK. Bludgeoning is especially evident in Talk:Gender-critical feminism where [11] Void if Removed, Sweet6970 and Colin represent a total of 740 edits or 33% of all comments from among the top-50 editors on the page. The only single editor who has contributed more to that talk page than any one of them is Amanda A. Brant, who appears to have stopped participating at that page (last edit Sep. 2024) and the sheer length of VIR and Colin's contributions vastly eclipse any other editors in bytes. This page is an informative example but, per Raladic, it's far from the only locus of dispute. This creates a chilling environment for LGBTQ+ editors (including myself) and it desperately needs addressing. Please take up this case.Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One note: Like several editors above I think the scope of this case should be expanded to cover more than just healthcare. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoxySaunders

Statement by OwenBlacker

   OwenBlacker's statement contains 148 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'm another person who's never been a party to a case, neither ArbCom nor ANI, and I'm not sure what I expect here. But I agree at least something needs to happen to address the hostile editing environment for LGBTQ+ editors around trans topics in general, including DARVO from editors PUSHing anti-trans viewpoints (including in submissions here thusfar). I would hope UCoC §2 will be borne in mind.

Personally, I can't agree with Tamzin that the focus is entirely restricted to transgender healthcare misinformation; anti-trans editors here have been involved in some of the more heated discussions about trans issues more widely, especially around the hostile nature of UK politics for trans people and about key anti-trans figures.

Incidentally, while Sweet6970 said she avoids editing on healthcare matters, I would suggest her participation at Talk:Cass Review (for example) means that is not entirely the case. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HenrikHolen

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

Statement by OsFish

   OsFish's statement contains 491 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I’ve never been involved in an arbitration case before, so forgive me if I have misunderstood something, but given that I have never had any procedure started against my behaviour on this topic (or any other), nor any threat of one as I recall, should I be listed as a party? I ask because I see comments that it really should be people who have been named in dispute resolution processes (rather than just voicing opinions in RFCs or on talk pages) that should be parties here.OsFish (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, pending clarity about my status as a party, here is my statement:

I don't think this dispute is limited to transgender health for youth. Some of what I would call bad editorial behaviour occurred during RFCs on broader transgender issues, such as over SEGM, WPATH and the RFC over the pathologisation of being transgender. (Sources and editor comments being misrepresented or twisted, and a lot of not hearing.)

As a challenge for Wikipedia, I would say the issue shares similarities with both climate change and race & intelligence.

It’s similar to climate change in that I would argue (as others here have) that there is actually a good deal of expert consensus in transgender medicine. The non-peer reviewed Cass Report, the source of much contention and MEDRS criticism, is an outlier. Multiple subsequently published national expert evidence reviews (France, Poland, Germany/Switzerland/Austria) have agreed with each other and the reaffirmed positions of US, Canadian, Australian/NZ and world expert bodies, with some explicitly critical of Cass. Ideally, the challenge would just be how to resolve the tensions between Cass (which has status as a formal UK review) and expert reviews in multiple countries.

However, like climate change, this area has become highly politicised, especially in the US and UK, with a few of the same organisations active in the politics here as in climate change denialism. As such, agreed points of uncertainty (eg the weak evidence base for blockers), storms in teacups between experts, mild disagreements, errors in footnotes, and changes in the evidence base over time, can all become points for rhetorical exploitation by political actors. And as with climate change, non-expert RS (here non-MEDRS) can likewise become treacherous as activist or fringe campaigning becomes laundered as some sort of bona fide expert view.

It’s similar to Race & Intelligence in that there has been a generational change in mainstream expert opinion. Once dominant figures have been sidelined and largely rejected as deleterious and/or prejudiced, but they still retain some academic influence and presence in the literature. So there is a challenge about how to manage DUEness.

I don’t intend the above to mean I think all editors on the “other” side are acting in bad faith. Just to say I think these are the similar challenges for the encyclopedia. I’ve only been seriously involved in this topic since earlier this year and simply don’t know enough about the drama that happened before that.OsFish (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr vulpes

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Statement by Barkeep49

   Barkeep49's statement contains 170 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I am hardly shy about suggesting a referral from AE to ArbCom. I did not think that necessary at the time of Colin's AE. Truthfully I think if Colin's AE had been left open a little longer there was a fairly good chance a consensus to topic ban him would have emerged as things were clearly swinging that way (and to be clear I was not supportive of this). I don't think Guerillero's close was wrong per se. There were lots of reasons to close the case and it was clear that Guerillero wanted to scold lots of people though I do think he did so unfairly in his comments directed at the Arbs and said so privately at the time to him. However, I also don't think that discussion suggests an inability of AE to handle this. That said it is possible that the community can't handle this and declining a case now raises the possibility that the community doesn't come when it's clear it can't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Void if removed

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

   Sean Waltz O'Connell's statement contains 190 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

In my opinion, the OP of this request, Raladic, is one of the most problematic users in this topic area. If the case is accepted, I will provide detailed information about what has been happening in certain articles and related discussions. For now, I believe the arbitrators may be interested in reviewing the following discussions, in addition to those mentioned by others: [12] [13] [14] In my view, one persistent issue is that Wikipedia’s coverage of pediatric transgender healthcare does not adequately reflect the significant shift in international academic consensus that has occurred over the past few years. A growing number of national and international health authorities and professional bodies have revised their guidelines, often moving toward more cautious or evidence-based approaches. The contentious nature of this topic, and the lack of a clear scientific consensus, has been noted by other users as well. This is a key issue underlying many of the ongoing disagreements. This situation is not sustainable in the long run, as failing to properly represent the differing viewpoints in the global medical and political debate will not make the disagreement go away. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

   Sweet6970's statement contains 172 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Initial comments/queries:

@Raladic: (1) You have included the case I recently filed at AE against MilesVorkosigan as a ‘retaliatory filing’ i.e. you are accusing me of bad faith in my AE filing. You have provided no evidence for bad faith on my part, and have not commented at AE. I strongly object to your accusation against me.

(2) I avoid editing on healthcare matters. Why have you added me as a party in a case about Transgender healthcare misinformation?

@Tamzin: I avoid editing on healthcare matters. Please explain why you think that I should be a party to this case, which is about Transgender healthcare misinformation. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OwenBlacker’s comment: As far as I remember, my comments at Talk:Cass Review related to Dr Cass, not healthcare. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

  berchanhimez's statement contains 514 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

TLDR: I support a case for this topic area, but the party list needs fixing.

I agree that a case is necessary, similar to WP:ARBPIA5. The issues here are too in depth for administrators to have any desire to delve through all of them, and they typically involve many people making AE difficult to handle (with the new two party restriction). There are multiple people in the side that appears to have a majority that are clearly only here to push their POV. And since it has been difficult to get sanctions against those in the majority at AE (see the current thread regarding YFNS and past threads against them and others) even when they are clearly engaging in POV pushing behavior... a case is really the only solution.

I understand the broadness in proposed parties here, but I don't think this indiscriminate "anyone who's contributed to a discussion in this topic area" is helpful. I also think there may need to be time to add or remove parties after the case starts (similar to the ongoing case, and for similar reasons). I seem to be included just because my viewpoints tend to be in the center or on the side of "misinformation" (according to the opener). The opener makes a good comment about unblockables, but I would like to remind them that there's "unblockables" on both sides that have escaped AE (or any) sanctions.

I trust an ArbCom case is the best place to resolve the longstanding issues in the topic area. I would ask that anyone who wants me as a party present specific evidence of behavior from me in the topic area. Else I ask I be removed from the named parties and allowed to participate as a non-party. If arbitrators feel it would be helpful I should be able to find time in the next few days to collect diffs that show the problems (CIVILPOV and the inability of AE to take effective action) I reference above - but I feel that other proposed parties will likely also present them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For full transparency, I agree with Tamzin above - the two party rule is good, but it means ArbCom will necessarily need to accept more cases like this that AE can't handle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: The most egregious one (and the other one I have in mind) are both on the party list already. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support SFR being able to act as an arbitrator on this case rather than a party - FWIW. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I understand how you got that list, but my participation in the topic area has been minimal aside from commenting on threads I see recently, and I don't think any of those comments have been anywhere near sanctionable. Can you clarify why you think I deserve to be a party to this case for my own benefit? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin - I understand that - see my original comment regarding that - thanks for clarifying. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by springee

Statement by JonJ937

Statement by Samuelshraga

   Samuelshraga's statement contains 233 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

There are a few problems with the request including baseless accusations. The filing starts from the assumption that many of the parties here are promoting anti-trans misinformation. Snce I've been accused of this: (promoting fringe theories and/or opposition to queer rights) without evidence, I can't respond with more than denial.

ArbCom doesn’t rule on content disputes, but there are serious and endemic conduct issues in this topic area. These include frequent assumptions of bad faith[15][16], personal attacks[17][18] and incivility[19], wildly inflammatory rhetoric,[20][21], source misrepresentation[22] and dishonesty as a tactic to “win” procedural discussions[23][24].

I think ArbCom should take up this case. But if they adopt the framing of this request, they should openly declare - as an admin has done[25] - that the GoodTM and BadTM editors here are defined by their POV. My opinion is that there are editors on "opposing" sides who edit collaboratively and productively, even if their POV shows through. It would be a disservice to them to let the content area be hijacked by the editors who won't follow the rules. I think they should adopt the framing that there are serious, ongoing and unresolved conduct issues with this topic area, that have included significant gaming of the system to "win" discussions and eliminate or de-emphasise disfavoured points of view. Obviously not limited to issues of healthcare or misinformation. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Golikom

Statement by FirstPrimeOfApophis

Statement by Barnards.tar.gz

Statement by Colin

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

   AirshipJungleman29's statement contains 12 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Can we have the word limit restriction from PIA? Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by asilvering

   Asilvering's statement contains 52 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I can't say I understand how this list of parties was drawn up. There is, for example, a link to an ANI thread about bloodofox in the list of "other steps in dispute resolution", but neither bloodofox nor the editor who started that posting at ANI are listed as parties. -- asilvering (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Transgender)

   Robert McClenon's statement contains 181 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't have an opinion on whether ArbCom should accept this case, but a suggestion that if ArbCom accepts this case, they should take the large number of parties into account, and consider whether they need to make any changes to their usual procedures to reflect the large number of parties. Some dispute resolution procedures are ill-suited to a large number of parties. I have declined case requests at DRN involving large numbers of parties. ArbCom has recently limited Arbitration Enforcement to one defendant in each case. ArbCom has highly structured proceedings that have handled large numbers of parties in the past, but I cannot recall seeing a case with 30 parties. Extending the deadlines is my first thought.

My first thought on seeing this case request was: That's a lot of parties. My second thought was: That's really a lot of parties. My third thought was: ArbCom has a very structured process and can probably handle it. But my fourth thought was: ArbCom should review their procedures because there are a lot of parties in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Relm

   RelmC's statement contains 244 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I was not added as a party, but called out directly by Tamzin. I filed the most recent Arbcom case against Colin so I would understand if I were added but I want to briefly respond to the accusation by Tamzin (here). Void if Removed has a lengthy history of promoting a very specific belief that the majority of trans people desist. They then added [26] this to the article which I viewed as not a sufficient explanation of what the source claimed. I removed it and made a talk page topic to discuss why I did so, VIR responded, and a third party came in, made a compromise edit that no one disagreed with [27]. The source explicitly makes clear that because the studies involved used a wide array of definitions that the desistance rate calculated would not be applicable to trans people working under DSM V criteria. The link Tamzin gives is to when VIR brought that same argument back up in the GAR to say, and I quote, "The only MEDRS in the 'desistance myth' section is a systematic review that says best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist - which means it isn't a myth." repeating the claim. YFNS explained what the source states well in [28] [29]. I never tried to introduce a slanted activist view, the diffs will show that I only ever tried to report what the source stated in as much context as is WP:DUE. Relm (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

   Jclemens's statement contains 111 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The scientific consensus regarding care in this area could not possibly be more contentious or unsettled. The legal, scientific, medical, and counseling landscapes are in states of upheaval and statements representing prior consensus are now subject to an ongoing, multi-venue tug-of-war, of which I believe Wikipedia to be one venue. I believe it will be difficult for the committee to assess conduct without making decisions on content--that is, which sources represent appropriate medical bases for statements made in articles. That's not to say you shouldn't take the case--but realize that the underlying evidence base is contentious in ways that make assessing good faith of participants with differing perspectives challenging. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

   Chess's statement contains 409 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Arbs should take this case because of endemic WP:BATTLEGROUND issues relating to excluding sources for their ideological viewpoints (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH), rather than actual reliability. This is an attack on our content policies to push a POV. I'm familiar with this through the Daily WP:TELEGRAPH (a British newspaper of record, see The Daily Telegraph) at the WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard.[30][31][32]

In 2022, editors argued at Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People that, despite British newspapers covering a popular backlash to the guidelines mentioning eunuchs, they should not be covered in the article because "the British media landscape is generally hostile to trans coverage and therefore generally British media reporting on transgender issues is questionable".[33] This wouldn't be acceptable in most WP:CTOPS: I would be taken to WP:Arbitration Enforcement if I started !voting to remove Arab perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict because "Arab media hates Jews".

After one failed RfC,[34] we got an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion.[35] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist quoted the song Glad to Be Gay's anti-Telegraph verse as proving this non-exhaustive historical context is to drive the point home: The Telegraph has been recognizably anti-LGBT for over 4 decades now. Propaganda songs aren't a reason to declare a source unreliable.

The real RfC was worse.[36] Leaving aside the source distortion (I'd need too many words to dig into that), here are two arguments I want to call out:

  • They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women, which is not in keeping with the opinions of most sources on this topic.
  • Similarly see this article, which appears to just be anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like.

These attacks are because something is "anti-transgender", not because of policy reasons. Note that WP:RSN says in the edit notice "bias is not a reason for unreliability". Other !votes based on it being anti-trans:[37][38] a healthy majority of participants here are getting better in real time at advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people[39]

These editors have also targeted WP:FTN. One goal is to describe anti-trans groups as WP:FRINGE, so Wikipedia can ignore articles written by members or fellow travellers of those groups. As an example, LokiTheLiar said that a peer-reviewed British Medical Journal article was unreliable because it relied on anti-trans activists.[40] I brought up that the article was "externally peer reviewed"[41], and Loki denied that this was possible.[42] Multiple editors proceeded to gaslight me that an article containing the words "peer reviewed" was not peer-reviewed,[43] accusing me of being tendentious and not WP:assuming good faith.[44] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

   Guerillero's statement contains 168 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I have other things to say in regards to the ping, but I would like to alert the committee to Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive4, which overlaps with much of the same topics and includes many of the same individuals. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the committee accepts the case to take a look at a larger topic area with a reduced list of parties. From my perch as an AE admin, I have the general impression that trans* related issues, broadly construed, is one of the most divisive topic areas on the encyclopedia second to only the Arab-Israel Conflict. The entire topic area, not just trans* healthcare or pediatric healthcare, needs a close look at by the committee. Battleground conduct is rampant; it feels like most everyone who shows up at AE is a activist of some sort. It is conceivable that a half-dozen or so editors, with diverging viewpoints, could get a vacation from the topic area for at least the next year. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fortuna imperatrix mundi

   Fortuna imperatrix mundi's statement contains 40 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

My suggestion is that you add as parties the signatories to this list and also this list. That should be sufficiently comprehensive. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, coat-tailing Guerillo's point on topic overspill, also see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

   Carrite's statement contains 60 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I would decline the current request as malformed. There are only a small handful of diffs, none of which demonstrate the community is incapable of handling such things outside of the cumbersome and drama-intensive Arbcom process. The proposed list of parties is absurdly bloated, somewhere between a grocery list for a group living facility and a telephone book. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

I think that at the very least there is a relatively significant issue in terms of conduct between a few parties but nowhere near as broadly as the filer claims. I also think the committee needs to tread lighter than usual given that a lot of considerations relating to what is actually correct content is dubious at best, and malicious at worst. I think this needs a committee perusal primarily because the current structures have not been helpful and perhaps an out-of-band solution is more helpful. I also think that pertinent parties to this case (and related myriads of discussions) would fare better if they stuck to assuming good faith. Just my two cents. --qedk (t 愛 c) 23:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

I think Guerillero above hit the nail squarely on the head. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

I'll just chime in here to say that as an admin who occasionally dips her toes into AE, I long ago decided I'd never, ever, ever opine on any AE requests having anything to do with trans-related issues. And that was because I think it's more toxic than Palestine-Israel, where I am willing to occasionally weigh in. And the reason it's toxic is because of the absence of assuming good faith of others and the entrenched positions displayed by all sides. That's why I haven't taken up the YFNS or the VIR AE filings, and it's likely why other admins aren't willing to step up either. While working at AE isn't "fun" at the best of times, this topic area has no reason for me to want to risk being called names for trying to enforce some encyclopedic behavior standards. That's just this one small admin's opinion, but I offer it for whatever it's worth. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

   Tryptofish's statement contains 176 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't edit in this topic area, and I'm clueless as to what to do about the parties list, but my observation from the distance is that this is, indeed, a topic area where the conduct needs some sort of examination from ArbCom, and where numerous efforts by the community at prior dispute resolution have been insufficient. I was, however, a participant in the recent AE case about Colin, and in my view it demonstrated a significant malfunction of the AE process. It wasn't a question of just needing a bit more time for admins to reach a consensus. It was a question of multiple experienced AE admins collectively failing to take responsibility and put together a decision, perhaps with some element of "unblockables". There was a whole lot of I feel strongly that we should do A and not B, but I want to defer to everyone else, and the deferring-to-everyone-else continued until Guerillero got as fed-up with it as I was. ArbCom should figure out how to prevent that from happening again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Hello Raladic, you have provided a huge list of parties and dedicate a paragraph to Colin without pinging or notifying or adding them as a party; is this intentional? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Berchanhimez, regarding 'unblockables' on both sides that have escaped AE (or any) sanctions, if you have specific users in mind that are not currently on the party list, I think these should be added with an explanation as soon as possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna imperatrix mundi, if there are specific users you'd like to propose adding to the parties list, perhaps ideally with an explanation beyond "endorsed or refused to endorse an essay against queerphobia", please do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't plan on recusing or being a party to this case as my editing in the topic has been administrative and closing at least one RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Raladic: extension approved to 700 words. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, the party list is not an accurate reflection of what the party list should actually be if this case request is accepted (and comments to this effect have already started coming in above). I would contend that rather than being "carefully curated", it is in fact far too wide-reaching and captures people who have acted purely administratively, or are otherwise on the fringe of the issue and not core to it. The fact that SFR was listed as a party, later clarified by the filer to be largely based around the most recent Colin AE, speaks to this. I agree with LokiTheLiar here on that particular issue. Daniel (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Raladic: the key phrase being "important role in the dispute", as you identify. That phrase, "important role", is obviously up for interpretation but my view is that it currently captures people who don't meet that threshold. This can all be sorted out in the wash—but flagging to those who might have got pinged to here as parties that the current list, at least in this humble arbitrator's view, is far too wide-reaching. Daniel (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: I was the admin who implemented the GENSEX topic ban against YFNS (since lifted). I have significantly edited transgender, trans man, trans woman, and their talk pages, chiefly in the context of the their leads. However, those pages/issues do not appear to be the locus of this dispute, so I do not currently plan to recuse. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been watching AE cases pile up over 2025 and understand the call for a case on this topic. My opinion here generally is in agreement comments expressed by Daniel. This case request was just posted today so it will naturally be undergoing some adjustments over coming weeks. But I think the list of parties should have a firmer basis even if the final list doesn't have unanimous consensus behind it. I think an editor listed as a party should have played a part in previous disputes and not be listed in a case requet for simply airing a strong opinion on the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna imperatrix mundi, those two lists you linked to have a combined total of 41 editors. I'm sure there is an overlap between those lists and the list of suggested parties in this case request but if this request is accepted, we are trying to refine this list of proposed parties, not expand it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of those areas where disputes do happen, and are going to carry on happening. I'm not averse to a case, however, I will remind individuals that we need to focus on behaviour not content. What's more, the list of parties is excessive - as has been mentioned before. I do wonder if the case request was more focussed, it would become apparent quickly that it was something that could be handled by the community, and the scattergun nature of this request is making it appear that a case is needed more than it actually is. I'll do a bit more reading before deciding whether to accept. WormTT(talk) 10:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget and this report may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132

Amendment request: Venezuelan politics

Initiated by NoonIcarus at 00:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Venezuelan politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. 4.3.3. Interaction ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by NoonIcarus

Kind regards. After an email exchange with the Arbitration Committee, I include the original request (almost) verbatim:

I hope this message finds you well. Over a year after the decision of the Venezuelan politics case, given that WMrapids are currently indefinitely banned, and that at any rate they remain topic banned from Venezuelan politics (the main reason of the dispute between both in the case), I kindly wanted to ask if it was possible to ask for an appeal of the current interaction ban.

From what I gather, an interaction ban goes as far as even mentioning the other user, which currently makes difficult to discuss the circumstances of the case, and I would like to ask a review for the community regarding my current own topic ban, particularly since I would like to contribute more in contests such as the Pride Month and this month's Women in Red event. Best wishes and many thanks in advance.

Re @ScottishFinnishRadish: It's the primary reason, yes. A rescission would also allow me to contribute in related articles, but I consider that less important than appealing the broader TBAN. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

I don't have a stake in the iban but, if Noonicarus is seeking an amendment to their tban, I'd be interested in asking them a few rather specific questions. They are not apropos to the iban on which I have no opinion. Should this progress to the point where a tban appeal is being discussed and I don't notice the discussion is ongoing I'd appreciate a courtesy ping. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel thank you for that clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Venezuelan politics: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Venezuelan politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • NoonIcarus, is the primary reason you want the iban lifted to allow you to discuss it in an appeal of your topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm amenable to temporarily adjusting the interaction ban to allow discussion at a TBAN appeal. I think how NoonIcarus handles that allowance could do a lot to inform the community about the necessity of the topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference would be to retain the interaction ban at this time, given that WMrapids only became eligible to appeal their indefinite site-ban a few weeks ago (and could very well do so in the next few weeks or months, for all we know). I was not on the Committee when it was placed, but the comments at the proposed decision vote support the view that retaining past the 12 months is worthwhile. That being said, I'm inclined to support an explicit carving out of an exception for NoonIcarus to 'breach' the interaction ban and speak freely when challenging the community-imposed topic ban at the appropriate noticeboard, given the interaction ban is our sanction. WP:BANEX says there's an exemption for "appealing the ban", but it's arguably unclear whether this allows an exemption from one ban for appealing a different one. In my view, common sense here suggests we should explicitly allow it to happen — with a cautionary note to NoonIcarus that unjustified "sniping" (to borrow a term from the proposed decision) will likely not reflect well in the community appeal of the topic ban. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Daniel above. Z1720 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a statement here explicitly indicating that appealing a community-imposed ban will not trigger the ArbCom-imposed ban is reasonable, provided that in the spirit of BANEX any mentions of WMrapids are kept brief and to-the-point, with little to no editorialising. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur that BANEX should be interpreted here to allow them to appeal the t-ban. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above, with an emphasis on Daniel's comment about unjustified "sniping". - Aoidh (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Requests for 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

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

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 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Samuelshraga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (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
  1. 14.5.2025 YFNS denies at FTN that she was not using a "fringe organisation" argument to disqualify a source, though she
  2. 11.5.2025 clearly did.
  3. 12.5.2025 YFNS complains that her DYK nomination is on hold because of ongoing issues; says The issues with sourcing currently raised were discussed extensively during those, and the editor most vehemently arguing there are issues is relitigating complaints they made prior. The ongoing discussion at the time was raised by an editor new to the page (me) and hadn't been discussed before.
  4. 15.5.2025 YFNS says now sourcing concerns by one editor are being used to justify deleting a DYK nom when at the time maybe a half dozen editors across two talk page sections were engaging constructively, including editing unverified statements or finding better sources.
  5. 26.5.2025 YFNS claims a longstanding consensus "that ROGD is indeed FRINGE", linking to a discussion closed with a decision not to call it (lower-case) "fringe" in an article talk page.
  6. 31.5.2025 YFNS claims I don't think I've seen a MEDRS that SEGM has produced despite less than a week earlier arguing that a review article in Archives of Disease in Childhood shouldn't be used because one co-author is affiliated to SEGM.

Added since filing:

  1. 1.6.2025 in this discussion claims that (of diffs 1/2 above) he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM, linking to a discussion where I'd repeatedly said the opposite, in addition to saying the opposite in my first additional comments below. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC) edited 12:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 2.2.2025 YFNS says that NPOVN has found it FRINGE (referring to SEGM). The link is to a NPOVN thread with 8 comments, none of which mention "FRINGE", most of which don't directly comment on SEGM at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 3.3.2023 Topic-banned from GENSEX (indef appealable after 6 months)
  2. 14.6.23 1 week block for violation of tban
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  Samuelshraga's statement contains 1065 words and exceeds the 900-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 900 words. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These diffs above show within 3 weeks that YFNS misrepresented discussions a bunch of times to try and get her way. To try and get the DYK passed, YFNS repeatedly dismissed and misrepresented the ongoing discussions as insignificant or vexatious.

To counter claims in the FTN RfC, YFNS claims that the implications are narrow, the point of the exercise was solely to be able to point editors to site consensus about a group and not to disqualify sources. At the same time YFNS is using SEGM-affiliation of authors as their first (though not only) argument to disqualify sources.

YFNS says that there is a longstanding consensus that ROGD is WP:FRINGE linking to an RfC on an article talk page (i.e. local consensus).

YFNS says that she's never seen a SEGM MEDRS source before and yet has - including in extremely recent discussions.

I saw at the ongoing close review an admin state that the proper place to address rhetorical dishonesty in GENSEX was here. I had already tried to address it on this editor's talk page, and received denial, justification, followed by a repeat of the behaviour. It's just not reasonable to expect editors to have to double-check every time an editor references a previous discussion because they may not be telling the truth.

Added a new diff because, in a report based on misrepresentations of discussions to influence processes, YFNS has blatantly done it again, and the evidence is on this board.
On their rebuttal:
1-2) A blatant misrepresentation aside, misses the point. The other arguments against the source may have been valid in their context. At FTN, the important thing was the scope of a "fringe organisation" finding. Saying that it disqualifies a source published in academic RS would have demonstrated the concern about how broadly an affirmative finding would be interpreted, and YFNS deliberately downplayed this by denying using the argument.
3) Just to note that what YFNS calls here one straightforward issue is still unresolved weeks later, and that YFNS denied there was any issue at all when it was raised.
4) I didn't argue to scrap the DYK, if that's what your implying. Even if I had, it wouldn't justify lying.
5) To answer Snokalok, this is actually the weakest diff in my evidence - the close is pretty damning about the theory. Even so, it simply doesn't support YFNS' statement that links to it.
6) No one said the ADC article was a systematic review or unimpeachable, or that no contrary sources exist. It's a review article in Archives of Disease in Childhood - it's MEDRS. Which we discussed, and within a week you claimed not to have seen. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ's reading of the diffs is over-generous:
1) EW says of using SEGM-authorship to disqualify sources, viewed in context she's just saying that it wasn't fundamental to her argument. This was a later excuse not made in the original context. In the original context of the misrepresentation it's irrelevant whether it was the main argument YFNS used, it was whether the argument was used at all. The use of this argument demonstrated wider implications of the RfC at FTN. Saying there: "that was only a small part of my argument" would have been conceding this point. Instead, she said that wasn't the argument.
3-4) EW says these should have been worded more precisely. YFNS represented the live issues on the page as: previously discussed, vexatious, solely raised by VIR. These aren't imprecise, they're false.
5) The close doesn't say what YFNS says it does, and just as important YFNS misrepresents the level of consensus even after elastic exculpatory exegesis.
6) EW's statement that about SEGM-affiliation as "the gravamen of her argument" seems to be about 1-2, and completely unrelated to diff 6 which is about pretending not to have seen MEDRS.
Supplemental diff: 1) YFNS accuses he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM. Not only did I write in this filing that it was their first (though not only) argument to disqualify sources (emphasis added), but I've clarified this 3 previous times to YFNS. YFNS alleges that I make the same arguments (point 2 in the back and forth[112]) that her only opposition was SEGM authorship. In fact, in that discussion, I say: The fact that you also added further arguments doesn't mean you weren't using that one and I never claimed that this was the only argument you made. I had earlier written (in a comment YFNS responded to): you made several arguments for throwing out a source, the first one is association to the organisation. YFNS didn't clumsily misread my opening statement here, she links to a talk page discussion and says I make the opposite claim there to the one I did explicitly and repeatedly. This is what I'm talking about. She's demonstrably lied, in this filing - what more evidence could you need? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diff 2 is on its own a clear misrepresentation, and should dispel doubts about whether diff 5 was an incidental overstatement or part of a pattern. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, to your point about inconsistent arguments, I started this report because I noticed a pattern of YFNS misrepresenting past discussions to sway processes.
During this report, YFNS linked[45] to a past discussion with me[46], and represented me as saying that YFNS had used SEGM affiliation as the only argument to disqualify a source. I had said the opposite - multiple times at the discussion YFNS linked to[47][48], and elsewhere. It's what got me started as saying this was lying as opposed to misrepresentation, because I can't maintain further doubts about intentionality. YFNS hasn't responded further on this. This isn't inconsistent arguments. It's making false claims about what has previously been said. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[49]


Discussion concerning Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

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 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

   Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's statement contains 970 words and complies with the 1250-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 1250 words. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1-2) This is a misrepresentation Samuel has been making for a week. He saysThis behaviour continues months later with the primary argument against a review article's use being a co-author's declared affiliation to SEGM., linking to me noting that a commentary cited by a narrative review doesn't override systematic reviews. That's basic MEDRS. He came to my talk page the other day to make the same arguments (point 2 in the back and forth[50]) The SEGM authorship is the cherry on top for unreliability in what already fails MEDRS, he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM

3) I shouldn't have said that at DYK. I was admittedly vexed as the first DYK was derailed by comments admins just agreed were sanctionable[51], which led to a GAR and second GA assessment, which found it fine and let me re-open the DYK, and I was frustrated to see it derailed again.

  • I would like to note however, Samuel also raised this on my talk page (point 3 in the discussion[52]), and I note my response that his section raised one straightforward issue but In the same section, VIR repeatedly commented on desistance, social contagion, the detransition rate - relitigating things previously discussed to death

4) I don't think any of those other editors engaging would have supported scrapping the DYK because of a discussion of sourcing unrelated to the hooks. I'll note the comment I make after, where I clarify my frustration[53]

5) There is absolutely long-standing consensus across dozens of articles that ROGD (kids are catching trans from the internet en masse) is a fringe theory. Snokalok already quoted that RFC close noting it's got no scientific support. But the full statement is We've had a longstanding consensus, that VIR is aware of, that ROGD is indeed FRINGE[54], which is doubly true since VIR has extensively argued on multiple talk pages that ROGD is not FRINGE (include talk for ROGD) and consensus has repeatedly found against. A week before, you asked VIR's advice and had him tell you himself he's "a small minority" in opposing consensus at ROGD[55], a few weeks before I make that comment in response to claims like Wuest & Last present "social contagion/ROGD" as misinformation without establishing that it is

6) That is not some top-tier MEDRS, it's a primary source analyzing another primary source. Some editors wanted to disprove the former based on the latter. In that linked thread, I note that top-tier MEDRS/MEDORGS (the British Medical Association and the AWMF's latest clinical practice guidelines) 1) make the same accusations the second source says isn't an issue and 2) and cite the former source. Conversely, I note that the only people who've given any weight to the source authored by SEGM is commentary/opinion pieces from other SEGM members.

  • If admins need context for all this : [SEGM, Genspect, and etc] produce little or no original research, adds a group of researchers from the Yale University Integrity Project. For example, they estimate that around 75% of published publications by SEGM members are letters and comments, not peer-reviewed scientific papers.[56]

I'm not sure what to make of this filing apart from what Snokalok said. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting 500 words to reply to VIR Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Context: Recent AE case against VIR [57]
Regarding VIR's points:
  • 1) Cass Review#Methodology: No external review or prior consultation was performed before publishing. - cited to the AWMF
  • 2/3) Whether a "letter" or "scientific letter" (rated lower than primary by the publisher) - still not MEDRS.
  • 4) I did not call Esses a conversion therapist, I said his website recommends conversion therapy advocates Therapy First and Genspect, among others. Those others are the Bayswater Support Group and Our Duty (who say the goal of treatment should be "desistance", ie no longer identifying as trans[58])[[59]]
  • 6-8) VIR has been refusing to drop the stick on this for months: September 2024 at talk:gdic, Talk:Transgender health care misinformation in may 2025, March GA reassessment[60] and re-review[61], and now again in May[62] (per the recent DYK hook discussed above) - dozens of repetitious settled arguments over months
    • In VIR's latest diff[63] he says I concede removed text was NPOV, as I explain that it's a NPOV violation to claim it found "80% desistance" when it says the commonly used statistic stating that *80% of TGE youth will desist is flawed, relied on conflicting definitions, and conversion therapy.
  • 9) I apologize. It was blunter than called for and in the wrong forum.
  • 10) I defend Baxendale as a MEDRS there and note VIR's other "MEDRS" were mostly commentaries and primary articles
  • 11) A MEDORG states a number of people involved in the review and the advisory group previously advocated for bans on gender affirming care in the United States, and have promoted non-affirming ‘gender exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice.[64] VIR and Sweet6970 participated in the talk discussion that led to consensus to keep the material[65] (And other editors told Sweet to not hound me[[66])
  • 12)Helen Joyce#Views on transgender topics - (The quote's famous)
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarif. for 11: Consensus was to keep it but swap out "far-right" for "anti-trans", which I supported. Sweet6970 had argued the entire paragraph was WP:COATRACK, and should be removed, quite apart from any other objections to the wording.[67] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To save words/time - I'll try to only respond to admins after this. First:

  • @Void if removed:'s 4a links to me noting his website recommends multiple conversion therapy orgs. VIR, are you denying his website recommends conversion therapy orgs?
  • Sweet6970's example, Helen Joyce has famously called trans people damaged problems and called for reducing the number who can transition and RS have described this as genocidal / eugenicist. Sweet6970 thinks calling her a WP:QUACKS is too far (for the record, since SFR commented, I've tried to avoid the term, and later in the convo stop using it[68]). The context was VIR putting her criticism of the BMA in an article [69][70] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snokalok

  Snokalok's statement contains 778 words and is within 10% of the 750-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 750 words. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, if what I’m reading here is right, you’re taking her to AE because you perceive minor inconsistencies in arguments presented across different discussions tirelessly over the course of weeks? Because that sounds like something completely reasonable for any flawed human being with a life and limited energy to have when they’re volunteering as tirelessly as YFNS does, again, over the course of weeks.

Additionally, the FTN thread on SEGM came to a consensus of it is quite clear that there is strong support for classifying SEGM as a fringe organization. and that SEGM’s publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC. so even if she was discounting sources based on SEGM ties, that is well within her rights.[71]

You seem to argue here that she misrepresents the closure of the ROGD RFC, and yet the closure she cited was in regards to the actual wording of content in an article, in which the consensus was the rough consensus is that ROGD is politics and not science and The article clearly describes ROGD as the contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence. In other words, Wikipedians are immensely skeptical of ROGD and this wording will remain in the article. This was NOT an RFC that decided whether to call it WP:FRINGE as editors, it was whether to use the word fringe in articlespace; but also the wording of this closure makes describing a consensus that ROGD would fall under the policy of WP:FRINGE to be not an unfathomable takeaway. [72] Not the takeaway I would make perhaps, but not a particularly incriminating one either. To my mind, this is your strongest diff, and even it does not rise to the level of AE.

Tamzin said above to bring more GENSEX cases, they said nothing about “rhetorical dishonesty”.[73] Stricken in accordance with diff from Tamzin

[FULLY REDACTED PER TALK PAGE REQUEST] Likewise, though I do think this is still a matter of WP:SATISFY Snokalok (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting extension. I'm going to need it to answer Void's diffs. Snokalok (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ I’d like to request that extension now if it’s alright Snokalok (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two points @Void if removed:
1. James Esses. Now, YFNS nowhere that I can see calls Esses a conversion therapist, she says that he advocates for conversion therapy- with the exact method being gender exploratory therapy. Click on that wikilink, and you will see extensive sourcing that GET is a form of conversion therapy practiced against trans people to try and cure them of their transness. VIR knows this, because he has been a very active part of the discussion in arguing against it being considered conversion therapy, based on the (highly medically criticized) Cass Review. This is the first time though that I can remember it being made an admin issue.[74][75][76][77]
2. 83% desistance. Now, if one actually read the source being cited [78], they’d see that the review extensively perforates the quantitative studies used to form that number, describing them as biased research and classifying them as all poor quality. It highlights how they all relied on the DSM-III criteria, and 3/4 studies diagnosed internally using inconsistent definitions and criteria across their patient cohort; and then of those four, Cohen-Kettenis (2008) classified as desisters those who later on as adults did not respond to contact attempts, and subsequently used this to argue against social transition. Davenport (1986), didn’t actually study trans kids, it only used the DSM-III def. under which it studied ten feminine boys who'd exhibited cross-gender behavior with the exact study eligibility criteria not discussed; and because one of those 10 later transitioned, it said that 90% desist. So hypothetically, by this criteria, if you did ballet as a boy, and you grew up to be cis, congratulations - you’re now a desister. Drummond (2008) evaluated desistance as no longer being distressed about your gender - so if you successfully and happily transitioned, congrats! Desister. And Singh (2012), with an avg starting age of 7.5 yrs old, was at the Toronto CAMH, which is widely known for having at the time practiced psychotherapy to try and make trans kids become cis as the primary line of treatment.[79] These are issues the other citations in the article then extensively expand upon and flesh out; with the result being that the GAR found the coverage and underlying citations of the topic to be fine despite you arguing these same points there at the time.[80] Snokalok (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Void if removed

   Void if removed's statement contains 849 words and complies with the 850-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 850 words. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender healthcare is an area where MEDRS are genuinely contradictory and the best we can do is represent all views according to weight. YFNS has very strong views about which views are correct, and has spent the 18 months since the lifting of her TBAN bludgeoning many discussions insisting that sources which don't accord with her POV are invariably FRINGE. I think there are many examples of source misrepresentation, cherrypicking, and disregard for sensitivity to BLPs as well as BATTLEGROUND and RGW behaviour. Some examples:

(Copied here for clarity)(1a,1b) 1 - 08/03/2025 - Misrepresenting a source about the Cass Review 2022 interim report as applicable to the 2024 final report in the GA3 review of their article (see here for why).

2 and 3 - 26/05/2025 -WP:BATTLEGROUND - responding to a simple FYI with two comments doubling down on incorrect information.

4 - 05/09/2024 - 4a 09/09/2024 One of several examples of calling BLPs contentious terms like "conversion therapists" "fringe conversion therapy pusher" on talk with no sourcing/OR. (Apologies - wrong diff, imprecise quote)

5 - 26/05/2025 - Removing balancing MEDRS.

6 - 29/09/2024 - Removing material on historic desistence rates from one article, prior to creating a new article here where historic desistance rates are now framed as a "myth".

7 - 04/03/2025 - Source misrepresentation/cherrypicking. Removing the best quantitative estimate of desistance from a systematic review - appropriately caveated - to continue to portray historically high rates as a "myth".

8 - 10/05/2025 - Source misrepresentation. Same source, presented as if 80% is definitively a myth.

Personal attacks here 9, directed at me on an admin's talk page, which I only became aware of last week.

More BATTLEGROUND and dubious assessment of sources here 10 and exactly the problem with her longstanding misuse of FRINGE, in that YFNS seeks to discount MEDRS that say the wrong thing (in the linked original comment, dismissing respected neuroscientist Sallie Baxendale, for one).

11 WEASEL-worded "concerns" a BLP may have far-right links, using one weak source citing a blog.

12 Taking attributed material from the body of a BLP and placing it in the lede in wikivoice. Void if removed (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan can you elaborate which diff is supposedly "misrepresentation". Eg. 1 is continuation of misrepresentation from here, after originally adding to Cass Review here. Void if removed (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar your citation for 4 doesn't support calling a BLP a conversion therapist. Void if removed (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RE: 6,7 and 8 see here for YFNS' concession the removed text was actually an appropriately caveated NPOV representation of a systematic review that says Quantitative studies were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting. Void if removed (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RE: 4, 13 calling the same BLP a conversion therapist and a bigoted quack. Long history of this. Void if removed (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ The sentence starting The desistance myth is the theory that the majority (approximately 80%) [...] will stop desiring transition requires MEDRS. YFNS combines a sociology paper with a systematic review which found, with caveats, 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting. This source never finds or says it is a "myth", only that the data is poor and the author - while acknowledging their personal bias - suggests desistance should not be a focus of discourse. YFNS has removed at [7] balancing aspects of the source that contradict the strong "myth" framing, and the diff at [8] is WP:SYNTH that takes the 83% from this source and misrepresents it as part of the “myth”. Void if removed (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RE [10] adding related source misrepresentation 14. The lead is Anna Miroshnychenko. Void if removed (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YFNS' response 15 to [10] is misrepresentation. Void if removed
@Extraordinary Writ
1 - I told YFNS this on January 2nd, 3rd and 5th. Everything from then on was knowing misrepresentation.
4 - apologies, wrong diff, fixed
6,7,8 - YFNS uses articles she has excluded balancing sources from to argue circularly against the sources she excluded. Having removed contrary sources like Cass and created the "Desistance myth", cites it to claim Cass is FRINGE eg. here and here.
11 - Only after a trip to WP:BLPN. Treating a WP:BLP with care should be the default, not a battle.
10,14,15 - YFNS starts at Samuelshrega's [6] saying The only one is the Guyatt review. I supply 4 systematic reviews, a narrative review, and 2 research articles. YFNS misclassifies them [10], claims to have meant 3 of the reviews then dismisses their importance because the lead author is heavily critical of them and has been critical of many of their FRINGE theories (wrong author, criticism is exaggerated/false). Attaching criticism to lead author inflates rhetorical importance, [14] is the same misrepresentation - it gives the "criticism" more weight. And at [15] YFNS continues to insist I'm citing "mostly commentaries and primary articles". Its plainly untrue. This rhetorical dishonesty is what Samuelshrega complains about. Void if removed (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ
[5] - Removing MEDRS because who's cited elsewhere? Read that inflammatory comment alongside @Berchanhimez statement and 16 (questionable). Void if removed (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Silverseren

This entire filing just appears to be fringe-pushing editors in the transgender topic area purposefully misrepresenting and misleading both past RfCs and consensus on various topics, not to mention doing so with source discussions. Which Snokalok has clearly pointed out above for what the filer claims.

As for the statement just above mine and its continued argumentation with diffs of article and source content disputes (and still pushing fringe subjects like desistance), I can 100% wholeheartedly say that Void if removed is a perfect representation of an fringe-pushing WP:SPA editor in this topic area from their very first edits, which involved an interaction with me on Talk:Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet and Talk:The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes and they have continued pushing anti-transgender information ever since. It is their entire edit history. The entire thing outside of very rare edits on anything else. With tendentious talk page arguing making up over 50% of that edit history.

In short, I see nothing actionable here other than furthering content disputes in a dishonest manner. SilverserenC 23:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

There is a lot of verbiage here but the core allegation is that Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist shows a pattern of dishonest behaviour. That is a very serious, even blockworthy, accusation but the material purporting to back it up doesn't even begin to support it. What I see here is a load of largely unconnected gripes that fail to form a narrative. It is an attempt to make a mountain out of whatever molehills can be found and most of them aren't even real molehills. There is no dishonesty here. Well, none that can be pinned on Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, anyway... --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

  LokiTheLiar's statement contains 545 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

I'd like to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here for VIR (not Samuelshraga, their concerns are IMO incorrect but in good faith), because many of their diffs are themselves extremely misleading.

1. This diff is to YFNS explicitly distinguishing between the interim and final report. She also didn't even mention the source that said the interim report wasn't peer reviewed. She says that neither was peer reviewed because that's common knowledge and we all agreed including in the second discussion linked.

2/3. It's true Pubmed said it's a letter, and it's true policy says we shouldn't use things Pubmed says are letters. I agree this is likely a mistake in context, but it's not a lie.

4. James Esses was expelled from his program after campaigning against a ban against conversion therapy. This is literally the first source for "James Esses conversion therapy" on Google, BTW.

5. YFNS explains in the edit summary in detail why she thinks the text she removed is an WP:NPOV violation.

6. Here is the discussion on the talk page where that edit was discussed and reached consensus. In fact, VIR themselves participated, so they know full well why the talk page didn't like that edit. (Also the second article linked here passed GA review just recently.)

7. Trimming an overly-detailed description of the methodology of a study is not a bad edit. We don't need to describe why the review thought those 5 studies were bad, and we definitely don't need to describe what the conclusions of 5 studies the review thought were bad were.

8. It is a myth that 80% of children with gender dysphoria or who identify as trans will not grow up to be trans. That is very well-sourced, and the article including that section passed GAR just recently. The studies that found the 80% number were studying something much broader and then were used to claim that specific thing, which is false. That's almost the definition of a myth.

9. Admittedly, this should have been brought to AE instead of someone's talk page. But especially in the context of the previous points I think it should be clear why YFNS thinks you're a POV-pusher.

10. Evaluating the reliability of sources is a thing you're supposed to do in discussions, especially about WP:MEDRS sources. I also think that YFNS's evaluations of sources tend to be pretty good, FWIW.

11. TBH I don't like the first sentence of this either. The rest is well-sourced, though.

12. It's almost a direct quote from her. The recording is publicly available. It was a major controversy at the time. I don't know what else you'd want.

For 1, 4, 6, and 8 especially I don't think any good-faith editor could have reasonably claimed what VIR claimed about those diffs. All of these descriptions strike me as biased, but those four especially strike me as just lies. Loki (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re VIR on 6/7/8: Here's the conclusion of that review. It's not kind to the idea of "desistence" to the point where "myth" is a fair characterization. Loki (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee The "lie" Sweet's alleging is that there was a consensus to keep, which there was. Loki (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, "far-right" was replaced with "anti-trans"... at YFNS's own suggestion. That was the consensus. Loki (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

I am astonished that SarekOfVulcan says that Void if removed is clearly misrepresenting their diffs. To take just one: VIR’s diff 11 is the worst BLP violation I have ever seen. I commented at the time: [81] [82]

Regarding VIR’s diff 4 - the comments on James Esses and exploratory therapy - I initiated the discussion with an objection to a link in a quotation. Here is the whole discussion: [83] Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to YFNS about diff 11- the BLP violation which I objected to was this: Trans advocates have worried Cass was linked to broader far-right activism due to her alleged ties to a working group that harshly restricted transgender healthcare in Florida.. YFNS says that the discussion led to consensus to keep the material. No it didn’t. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to YFNS:It is plain that the BLP violation I objected to was the reference to ‘far-right’. As I said in the 2nd diff I provided: Your edit was plainly a smear that Dr Cass is connected with the far right.. Contrary to your assertion above, there was no consensus to keep this. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan I had thought it was too obvious to mention that I was not counting vandalism. Are you saying that you don’t think it is a problem that Wikipedia should defame an eminent paediatrician by suggesting that she is connected to far-right politics? Also, note that YFNS has made a misleading statement on this page – saying that the discussion led to consensus to keep the material. It didn’t. Are you also unconcerned about the potential defamation of James Esses, who had won a legal case for discrimination? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another ‘quack’ example, from May 2025 [84] and the subsequent discussion [85]. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: @Valereee: Don’t you care that YFNS lied about the ‘far right’ smear on this page? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Void if removed’s comment on his diff 11 is WEASEL-worded "concerns" a BLP may have far-right links, using one weak source citing a blog.. In YFNS’s statement, when she is replying to this comment, she says VIR and Sweet6970 participated in the talk discussion that led to consensus to keep the material[71]. But the material in question is the ‘far right’ smear here [86] . The result of the discussion was that the ‘far-right’ smear was not kept. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, and contrary to what Loki has just said, the consensus to keep did *not* include the far-right smear. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

Obviously, support closing with no action taken regarding YFNS. I understand that reports here are supposed to involve only the two original editors, but VIR should still be cautioned about making sure that their claims of what a diff says need to be much more accurate than they are here.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked one of the later links, the 2.2.2025 one from User:SamuelShraga where he implies that YFNS is lying about SEGM being FRINGE. The discussion on NPOVN is a bunch of editors agreeing that it is "outside the scientific mainstream". Nobody explicitly said "WP:FRINGE" but I'd say that this is a distinction without a difference. If this kind of thing is the best that they can come up with, I'd suggest that it's proof that YFNS isn't doing anything wrong. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

This is not an area I do much editing in but I’ve noted YFNS’s low level battleground/activist approach to the topic area. YFNS was tbanned shortly after joining Wikipedia in part because they were making, in effect, attack articles aimed at BLP subjects and groups they disfavored. Since requesting a lifting of that block they have maintained a POLEMIC section on their homepage “Honorable mentions” where they brag about the public reaction of people/groups who’s articles were edited by YFNS. This sort of taunting article subjects serves no encyclopedic value and only would add to external views that Wikipedia articles aren’t be edited impartially. Recently Colin decided to step away from this topic area due to conflicts with YFNS among others. The loss of Colin from this subject area is the sort of collateral damage that YFNS’s attitude has on the topic area. It becomes toxic and few want to deal with the heat. One admin noted a YFNS appeared to bait [87] Colin. Unfortunately, Colin couldn’t keep their cool and decided to leave the area for their own good. That is unfortunate as they were a great example, as editor put it, of one of the most truly nonpartisan editors in this topic area. At this point I don’t see anything red line item that warrants a sanction/tban (other than removing the POLEMIC content from their home page), but I do think this is a return to the 2023 form and I think in the long term it will hurt Wikipedia by discouraging divergent views from working in this topic area. Who wants to get in the constant fights? Springee (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YFNS's opening of the complaint below, especially given they were counseled against it's wisdom[88], further illustrates the BATTLEGROUND behavior of this editor. They joined Wikipedia to engage in activism and it doesn't appear they have moved far from that objective. This is an editor who pushes limited in many small ways then uses the administrative system to get editors who don't buy into their views removed when those editors, not unreasonably, lose their cool. We saw this with Colin and now they are going after VIR below. Springee (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LunaHasArrived

With regards to YFNS sourcing the 80% part of the myth to the Karrington review, this figure and people describing that figure as a myth is a lot older [89] [90]. Both of the above were used in the section when YFNS added "approximately 80%" in brackets. The main problem here seems to be proper citations. LunaHasArrived (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

I have concerns about this user too. Despite the community reaching a consensus on the source’s reliability, YFNS continues to reject it, making inaccurate claims about the the source's type and veracity:

Claims that the Economist article is an opinion piece: [91]

Consensus at WP:RSN that it is not: [92]

Repeats the claim that the Economist article is an "anonymous op-ed": [93] Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another example. Is it appropriate to characterize living persons as "anti-trans" in a wiki voice just for expressing critical views on the appropriateness of medical gender transitions for minors or critical reporting on the subject? The edit in question [94] introduces a highly charged label without adequate sourcing, and reflects a partisan and tendentious interpretation rather than neutral encyclopedic writing. This is a serious concern, especially when applied to Singal, a journalist who has written for The New York Times (a publication considered a reliable source under WP:RSP.) Labeling him as "anti-trans" in a Wiki voice, without clear attribution to a backed-up reliable source that makes this claim explicitly, violates the principles of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

Them that is used as a source is an advocacy website that cannot be regarded as a reliable source for such contentious labels, which should be avoided per WP:BLPSTYLE and MOS:LABEL, unless they are widely used by reliable sources.Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

I agree with Springee above. I think it's unfair for Colin to be basically "voluntold" out of the topic area by multiple administrators and closer, while YFNS is allowed to go on and on after being permitted back following a topic ban from the area. If anything, a topic ban that was successfully appealed is more of a "final warning" than Colin got - yet YFNS is being allowed because... I don't know why. Just because someone tries to remain civil (even though they fail) does not mean their behavior is acceptable. From WP:CTOP: When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. I implore admins reviewing this to consider the effect YFNS has had on this topic area with their behavior as a whole - rather than expecting specific diffs.

As Springee says, Colin left this topic area partially because of the lack of support in enforcing CTOP "scrutiny". I add that I feel the same way - while I keep some articles in this area on my watchlist, I do not typically intend to edit them or their talkpages unless expressing my opinion once - specifically because of behavior like this. I understand editors, including admins, are volunteers and never obligated to act. But there's ample evidence YFNS is not part of an "acceptable collaborative editing environment" - from diffs and history as a whole. It shocks me to see admins opining they see no problematic behavior from YFNS at all.

I understand transgender related subjects are a hot-button political topic now. But that does not excuse bad behavior just because people agree with the person who is behaving poorly. The topic area has already lost enough long-term/good-faith editors who were either forced out or who chose to leave because this type of behavior isn't being addressed. Specifically, SPAs whose sole purpose contributing to Wikipedia is to further their viewpoint. YFNS' userpage makes clear their sole purpose here is to push their POV on transgender subjects:

  • I joined Wikipedia as an editor after realizing just how poor our coverage of trans topics has been
  • Hell, I still see editors try and whitewash gender identity change efforts.
  • I should know, I ... was interviewed on anti-trans disinformation on Wikipedia
  • I strive to document ... history and present of the organized hate campaigns operating against us.
  • I'm thankful to all my friends on and off the project who've ... kept me going through transphobia and harassment. (veiled personal attack)
  • Their original username - TheTranarchist - says all.

YFNS is clearly only here to push their POV. It doesn't matter if they are mostly civil. In CTOPs, CIVILPOV should be considered even more so than in other areas. I implore admins to consider one question - Is YFNS a net positive in this topic area, or not? There's many other editors who can "take over" making constructive edits. YFNS' contribution is not a net positive, nor is it necessary, and should be dealt with accordingly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HenrikHolen

My impression is that these allegations are, at their core, primarily content disputes, and that they warrant no action. I do, however, believe the arguments by Samuelshraga are problematic.

One example, in your recent edit 05.06.2025, you claim that at a discussion at NPOVN, no one mentioned fringe. This is misleading. Editors characterized SEGM as “alt-med”, “outside the medical mainstream”, “anti-trans activists” and “political/culture-war org dressed up in science-y clothing”. These comments clearly support calling SEGM fringe. The discussion also revolved around whether the SPLC, which supported the characterization of SEGM as fringe, describing it as a hub of pseudoscience, was reliable. Editors agreed that SPLC was reliable for this claim, with no editor arguing against this. It is dishonest to suggest that this discussion did not indicate a clear consensus that SEGM is fringe.

Statement by Black Kite

I wonder if ArbCom is a good destination for this dispute. There are clearly a lot of editors with WP:BATTLEGROUND issues here, and whilst I am loath to suggest ArbCom because they sometimes get things very wrong, they do get things right more often than not. Otherwise we are going to have more and more filings where pro and anti-trans editors are trying their best to remove their ideological opponents from the area. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FortunateSons

I'm seconding the suggestion by Black Kite. I'm mostly uninvolved here, but from the outside looking in, it seems less like individual problematic editors (though there are enough of those too) and more so the topic area's dynamic, which should be addressed as soon as possible. The sooner ArbCom takes a look at it, the better. FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Snokalok: I did mention bringing allegations of rhetorical dishonesty here, not above but at AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Loki says, while the original submitter may just be wrong, Void if removed is pretty clearly misrepresenting their diffs. I see no reasons to sanction YFNS at this time, but I'd leave the question of sanctioning Vir open, if the rest of their editing on the topic plays out like it does here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sweet6970: if that's the worst BLP violation you've ever seen here, you are very, very lucky. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, extension granted to 1000 words; please use them sparingly so you don't have to request another extension later. Snokalok, I'm going to defer the extension request for now, but let us know after YFNS replies if you still have points that she or Loki hasn't raised. (You do still have another ~180 words.) A general reminder: while I don't mind considering issues related to the statement Void if removed made above, any broader concerns about him would need to go in a separate filing, per the new two-party rule. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without yet expressing an opinion on whether we should, we are allowed to add additional parties if we want to. @SarekOfVulcan: Would that be your preference? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I worry merging that into this report would put us on the path to another trainwreck, though I don't have a problem with a separate filing at any time (including right now). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to hear more opinions before making that suggestion, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts on Samuelshraga's diffs:
    • 1/2: YFNS didn't deny invoking SEGM affiliation; viewed in context she's just saying that it wasn't fundamental to her argument, which is not an unreasonable thing to say.
    • 3/4: perhaps these comments could have been worded more precisely (especially since Samuelshraga seems to think they refer to him rather than VIR), but that's not a case for sanctions.
    • 5: we can debate how the wording of that closure maps onto the wording of WP:FRINGE, but YFNS's interpretation (point 1 here) is not out of the question
    • 6: again, she's mentioning SEGM affiliation but arguably not using it as the gravamen of her argument
    • supplemental diff: I'm not sure why you would assume this was intentional dishonesty; frankly I read your statement the same way at first.
  • None of these are sanctionable, and when it comes to the natural imprecisions and ambiguities of talk-page comments, I think we need to assume good faith rather than imputing motives of rhetorical dishonesty. I will try to have thoughts on VIR's diffs later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Void if removed, could you be a little clearer about which particular sources/statements you think 6/7/8 misrepresented? You can have an extra 100 words. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And thoughts on VIR's diffs. Given the two-way claims of dishonesty, I think it's worth going through these individually.
    • 1: not really sure why YFNS didn't take out the RAND source once she was informed it didn't mention the final report, but she did eventually remove it after someone else complained, and it's a complicated enough situation that I'd assume good faith. The diff is from March; this has since been discussed more thoroughly, so hopefully there won't be further issues with the RAND report.
    • 2/3: not sanctionable, per Loki
    • 4: does not describe any BLP as a conversion therapist. If I were VIR I would just strike this.
    • 5: content dispute
    • 6/7/8: I understand why VIR sees major policy problems with connecting the "desistance myth" phrasing (in boldface no less) to the older studies/80% figure on the basis of only the Kennedy article and Karrington review. I also recognize that discussion about this has consistently not gone VIR's way. I struggle to see a role for AE here, although I'd be interested to hear other admins' takes.
    • 9: apologized for
    • 10/15: I don't consider the FRINGE interpretation issues a conduct matter
    • 11: I agree with Loki this could have been handled better, although it was eventually revised with YFNS's agreement
    • 12: understandable given YFNS's explanation
    • 13: "bigoted quack" wasn't really necessary, but this was over a year ago
    • 14: describing the corresponding author as having led the study is so minor I wonder why it was brought here
I don't think any of this warrants a sanction for YFNS. Assuming diff 4 was just misread, I'm not convinced anything here amounts to outright dishonesty from VIR, so I also would be reluctant to sanction him, although throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks is rarely a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I am heading out of town for a while and will not be able to participate further in this thread. I'm just going to abstain as far as the result is concerned; other admins are welcome to consider my comments insofar as they're useful, but please also note the responses to them from other editors above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd view these types of variations in argument re: any given source as possible sealioning if it were all in the same article talk discussion, but I'm not sure making inconsistent arguments across multiple discussions in a variety of fora is really evidence of rhetorical dishonesty.
Also everyone commenting here should go read the draft essay at User:Tamzin/Arbspace_word_limits, paying special attention to the paragraph that starts And part of this is social and rhetorical advice: Using too many words replying to other commenters is not often a good reason for an extension. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweet6970, re: Don’t you care that YFNS lied about the ‘far right’ smear on this page?, I've searched both "far right" and "smear", and both times came up with your own posts. Can you give me a diff/explanation to the lie you're talking about? We're at 9k here, it's not easy to follow the conversation. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ÆthelflædofMercia

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 ÆthelflædofMercia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
ÆthelflædofMercia (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
  1. 20 May 2025 Adds false detail to lede saying the list is about LTTE attacks on civilians when the next sentence makes it clear it also included military targets, indicating he did not even bother to read the article before editing.
  2. 20 May 2025 Adds a POV of a Sri Lankan economist to LTTE's own lede with weasel phrasing that makes the contentious label MOS:TERRORIST look factual.
  3. 21 May 2025 Re-adds content in diff #2 to a different section falsely claiming that I was an admin who advised him to put it there, after I had removed it from lede notifying him of WP:NPOV and explaining that the terrorist POV was already covered in a section and he needed to start Talk discussion if he disagreed.
  4. 21 May 2025 Despite my NPOV notification, adds nonexistent "Suicide Terrorism" as LTTE's ideology which is entirely his own original research.
  5. 22 May 2025 Adds false and extremely serious accusation against LTTE by misrepresenting the source which states the exact opposite and admits to it in Talk when pointed out. Then adds another detail from the source (without even citing it) against my advice that enough weight had already been given to it.
  6. 24 May 2025 Adds a claim to Tamil genocide article without any citation.
  7. 24 May 2025 Re-adds the disputed content in diff #3, citing Talk page, although no consensus had been reached with me who disputed it. Despite the fact that I had explained to him previously the section was inappropriate place to add that, citations lacked exact pages and sources he cited were biased, he still added it there, refused to give exact page numbers (last two sources don't support the content) and used weasel phrasing "Academics" without specifying them and their biases (like he did in Tamil genocide article).
  8. 24 May 2025 Removes my content from Tamil genocide article, claiming that I called it "excessive information in another page" which I never did. It's actually an important detail about the Sri Lankan government's stance from his own source but he had left it out when he created that section, possibly because it made the government look bad since, as it will become evident, he has a pattern of nationalist editing.
  9. 24 May 2025 Removes most of a section from Tamil genocide, once again claiming that I called it "excessive information in another page" which I never did.
  10. 25 May 2025 Adds unsupported attribution to Francis Boyle in Tamil genocide (his own article says he was a legal advisor, not founder, of TGTE) to question his neutrality, but removed a detail from attribution of another source in the article claiming it's unsupported (although it's supported elsewhere in the article). Uses two different standards but for the same reason: lessen the reliability of sources recognizing Tamil genocide.
  11. 26 May 2025 Casts aspersions on me by falsely accusing me of edit warring for challenging his edits on LTTE and falsely claimed another editor, Oz346, supported his stance that the view that LTTE is considered as a terrorist organization has not been included in its article, which Oz346 never said anywhere. This continued misrepresentation of sources and editors seems to indicate a lack of competence at best, or deliberate distortion at worst.
  12. 28 May 2025 Once again, removes most of another section from Tamil genocide, claiming they exist in its main article, although I had written most of them specifically for Tamil genocide article. Removal of large amount of content on baseless grounds is becoming disruptive.
  13. 29 May 2025 Casts aspersions on Oz346 by accusing him of only wanting content that agrees with Oz346's POV, in violation of the collaborative spirit and assume good faith.
  14. 29 May 2025 Re-adds contentious subheading to LTTE previously removed per NPOV without an explanation despite having been notified by another editor on user Talk page about the need of edit summary back in 22 May.
  15. 30 May 2025 Adds detail to LTTE lede not supported by the sources. Once again, no edit explanation. This is the most serious nationalist POV edit since it denies the killing of Tamil civilians by describing them as LTTE fighters which has been the tactic of the Sri Lankan government.
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)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 20 May 2025.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  Petextrodon's statement contains 797 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

This is a recently created SPA that exclusively edits articles relating to LTTE and Tamil genocide. This user has single-handedly made the topic heated. I urge admins to go through his edit history and note that most of his edits have been reverted by multiple users, and also check the various notices and complaints from editors, including an admin, on his user talk page. To save everyone the trouble of going through AE process each time a new SPA pops up, extended confirmed user protection, especially for the most contentious Tamil genocide and LTTE articles, may be helpful.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning ÆthelflædofMercia

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 ÆthelflædofMercia

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards

ÆthelflædofMercia is a SPA who does POV pushing deserves a topic ban for diff #15 alone .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ÆthelflædofMercia

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

M.Bitton

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) 03:34, 4 June 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
WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 2 June Per @Chicdat gaslights, POV pushes, bludgeons, and falsely accuses me of bludgeoning. Additionally, falsely accuses me of making irrelevant replies and ignores transliteration variants despite clearly being aware of their existence (Latinization of Hebrew and Arabic is not standard across the literature)
  2. 3 June Denies Reuters' reporting is reliable despite WP:REUTERS because the Kenyan government didn't confirm or deny the report in their official statement.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [95] Blocked for disruptive editing (quite similar behavior) 2 months ago.
  2. [96] Page blocked in January 2025 for one week, edit-warring
  3. [97] 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)

[98]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Upon further deliberation, I should have avoided M.Bitton after the first AE report instead of engaging and following, especially to multiple pages even if his behavior in response may have been policy violations. I understand in hindsight that engaging and following him right after a stale AE report was a bad idea, even if I believed he was committing even more policy violations. Closetside (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell that was for 3O. This was for what I considered to be policy violations as opposed to a legitimate content dispute. I now understand that I shouldn't follow - even for ostenible policy violations. Closetside (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finally 3O requires a neutral editor, following is ill-advised even if from the start the editor is not pretending to be neutral - like I was doing incorrectly. Closetside (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, my complaint against @M.Bitton is legitimate. My behaviour wasn't perfect; I apologize and commit to improve not repeating it. A third-party accused M.Bitton of disruptive editing in the RM. Challenging Reuters's reliability despite being a seasoned geopolitics editor due to alleged "anti-Western Sahara" bias based on an agnostic Kenyan government statement is a textbook violation of WP:CIR. I was (and am) willing to withdraw both of these complaints if they accept Reuters as reliable and apologize for their bludgeoning in the RM. Closetside (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a Hadith traditionally considered good by Islam is not Islamophobic, just like quoting Leviticus 18:22 is not anti-Semitic or Romans 1:26-27 is not Christophobic. The article says some interpretations of Islam reject it, and even among its acceptors, some don't believe Islamic terrorism is valid martyrdom. Futhermore, I explained my reasoning (see the history) and Abo Yemen reverted everything without any explanation, a violation of WP:BRD.

  • The traditional translation is that the hoori are heavenly brides, so this isn't fringe. Hadiths are traditionally teachings of Muhammad. The claim that Muslim soldiers and terrorists believe in 72 virgins literally is cited in the body. Also, I easily found a source for the acceptance of the hadith's authenticity, so a false accusation of OR. Lastly, asking for a source turning out not to be in the same policy section as the one cited, is not sealioning - I looked in the section and couldn't find it, as expected. Closetside (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[99]


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

All I can say is that Closetside (who is irritated by my !vote) keeps hounding and insulting me in order to provoke a reaction from me. This report from someone who edits nothing else but PIA articles, to push a nationalist pov,[100][101][102][103][104][105] (and many many more) is inline with the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell: after that retraction and suggestion to seek 3O, a 3O was given by Nemov and the result implemented. Closetside reverted it and then started a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

I would appreciate clarification of what Closetside was referring to specifically in stating I will withdraw this complaint if you concede immediately. (Special:Diff/1293863144) Concede what? That their argument was bad? That the IP's edit should stand? Something else? signed, Rosguill talk 03:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Closetside. Based on the subsequent discussion at Talk:Political_status_of_Western_Sahara#Kenya's_position, it seems like there's more to M.Bitton's position than "Reuters is not reliable" and that they would have been willing to provide an explanation if given appropriate time (i.e. more than 35 minutes) and were asked collegially rather than with threats.
As a participant in that discussion, it seems like you jumped to conclusions regarding M.Bitton's position, my own position, and the nature of M.Bitton's disagreement with the IP. I can't say that your comment is doing anything to help form a consensus regarding the actual content matter at hand--other than immediately and directly accusing M.Bitton of incompetence, your two arguments were: The Kenyan government statement did not contradict Reuters' claim, so there is no reason not to trust Reuters which is orthogonal to the crux of the issue (n.b. most of the claims in the Reuters article are simply attributed to the joint Morocco-Kenya statement) and With similar reasoning, a WW2 textbook that omits mention of the Holocaust is committing Holocaust denial, an obviously ludicrous conclusion!, which is the kind of statement that would probably earn someone a topic ban from Holocaust topics if it was expressed in a discussion actually concerning such topics. Falsely accuses me of WP:HOUND despite this clearly being collegial following, from this filing statement, meanwhile, seems like the kind of comment a class clown would make to mock someone that is definitely engaging in hounding, and I am very puzzled to see it suggested sincerely. I'm also belatedly realizing that this dispute over Western Sahara doesn't even fall under PIA, so I'm really not sure what we're doing here at all. signed, Rosguill talk 13:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Closetside is an example of an editor whose EC grant acquisition resembles gaming, who then went on to become active in PIA. M.Bitton is an example of an editor who will be targeted until they are topic banned or blocked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

Given that less than a week ago the previous report by Closetside of M.Bitton was closed due to lack of activity, and without any administrator saying they've made an evaluation and supporting any given result (correct me if I'm wrong @User:Liz @User:Barkeep49 @User:asilvering), can I suggest simply re-opening that case and appending the statements/diffs here to there? Or the diffs and evidence from there transposed to here? If the evidence and diffs weren't actionable or had no merit, admins can still tell us that. If the filing did have merit, not so much time has passed to prevent addressing it (clearly the disputes are still live). Samuelshraga (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skitash

Coming here from the discussion in Talk:Political status of Western Sahara#Kenya's position, asking someone to "concede immediately" and threatening an AE report (on top of the personal attacks) comes across as coercive and uncooperative. For what it's worth, the editor being reported seems to be engaging in good faith, just raising concerns over the discrepancy between an official primary source and a secondary source, which shouldn't be treated as a conduct issue. Meanwhile, the OP's successive AE reports, provocation, and hounding are the kind of behavior WP:BATTLEGROUND warns against. Skitash (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Richard Nevell

Closetside has developed a knack of turning up on pages where M.Bitton is active. At Talk:Emirate of Bari, Closetside responded to a request for a third opinion in what if we are assuming good faith may be considered a moment of poor judgement given how it could be perceived and the likelihood that their involvement would not improve the situation. Closetside's arrival at Talk:Political status of Western Sahara – and without responding to a request for input as far as I can see – means there is a developing pattern. Additionally, on 2 May Closetside reverted M.Bitton on the article History of the Jews in Algeria; the three edits the Closetside made within two minutes are the limit of their interaction with that article and its talk page, giving the impression that their interest was due to M.Bitton's presence.

In my statement in the previous case opened by Closetside relating to M.Bitton I said that Closetside treats discussions as debates to be won rather than attempting to work together to reach consensus. I would now go further and say that the behaviour exhibited here is approaching a breach of WP:BATTLEGROUND (if it hasn't been breached already) and is harassment. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closetside's realisation that following M.Bitton to other talk pages may not be constructive does not appear to be a new revelation given their withdrawn 3O at Talk:Emirate of Bari. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abo Yemen

   Abo Yemen's statement contains 303 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

WP:BOOMERANG: Closetside's editing patterns are really concerning and nowhere near constructive. Apart from the probable WP:GAMING that Sean.hoyland pointed out, their edits on islamophobia-related content are... Islamophobic: They "created" the 72 virgins article which used to be a disamb page which clearly stated that it is a misconception and "is a pervasive Islamophobic trope in non-Muslim societies," but they ignored that and created that article and called that myth "an Islamic teaching." In this edit [106] they've removed the sourced sentence "In reports of this in Western media some of the Arabic words translated as "virgins" could be more accurately translated as 'angel' or 'heavenly being'." and pushed for their fringe theory as a fact. That is not to mention the fact that they've deleted 73,419 bytes from the Islamophobic trope article per... nothing [107]. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that they were WP:SEALIONING at Talk:Besor Stream#Discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting a Hadith traditionally considered good by Islam is not Islamophobic, just like quoting Leviticus 18:22 is not anti-Semitic or Romans 1:26-27 is not Christophobic.
That wasn't the point, but there are no secondary sources on the hadith, no RS called it an Islamic teaching as you're claiming in that article, Despite the hadith's traditional acceptance stemming from its classification is WP:OR, and whatever the fuck "There is a common position that Muslim men, especially Islamic terrorists" is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the filer has retired from editing [108] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS Well then I still think that sanctions should be placed on them, just in case they un-retire again 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay so I've checked their userpage history and they seem to retire every time they get bored [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They also seemed to have previously "retired" when there was a case against them here: case, retiring message. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

@Abo Yemen, this is not the first time this user has "retired".

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.
  • I continue to not have time for this issue, but whether or it's formally merged (as per Samuelshraga's suggestion) I do think responding administrators should consider this case in tandem with the previous case which was procedurally rather than substantively closed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some unwritten rule that there has to be a complaint at A/R/E involving M.Bitton every week? We see the same names over and over again on this noticeboard, it just varies who is the filer and who is the accused. Is it possible to discuss your differences with other editors on article talk pages and DRN without seeking sanctions against them?Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The western sahara diff is outside the bounds of any CT and should be dropped. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No actionable claim has been made against M.Bitton here, just a vague wave to a content dispute and an out-of-scope discussion. Closetside, on the other hand, comes off as pushing an anti-Islam POV. The original version of "72 virgins" is pretty bleak. There is a common position that Muslim men, especially Islamic terrorists, are enthusiastic about dying in battle because they believe that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven due to the teaching is as weasely a sentence as I've ever seen. The body of the article only gets to According to some researchers the story of the 72 virgins promised to suicide bombers in paradise is a myth with no basis in Islam, and it is an Islamophobic trope in the second paragraph of the third section, even there downplaying the significance of that viewpoint. Obviously we're not here to rule on the merits of the article, but Closetside comes across as either unwilling or unable to comply with WP:NPOV in writing about such a difficult topic. I am inclined to TBAN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Void if removed

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 Void if removed

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Void if removed (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:GENSEX and WP:ARBPS
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Jan 2024 Removes all sourced material on how the GC movement 1) has fought against the criminalization of conversion therapy and 2) argues that affirming trans kids is conversion therapy
  2. March 4 2024 Adds misleading text describing a review explicitly not about ROGD as one into ROGD. Soon reverted per talk[115], where VIR tendentiously argued it wasn't "scientifically unsupported" with sources saying no evidence shows its real[116]
  3. April 2024,[117][118][119] slo-mo edit wars to remove a MEDORG saying several people involved in the Cass Review (CR) have promoted non-affirming 'gender exploratory therapy', which is considered a conversion practice.
  4. October 2024 -He re-adds that only 12-27% of trans kids become trans adults based on an older source I removed/replaced with better MEDRS while trimming[[120]], removes link to conversion therapy and most criticism of the statistic. On talk he argues tries to outweigh systematic reviews with claims from a CR report (which MEDORGS/RS explicitly called BS on) [121]
  5. November 2024 argues he's "painfully aware [following NPOV] is often unpopular, and often in the minority".
  6. January 2025 Argues on Transgender health care misinformation talk we can't say it's a myth that the data shows most kids grow out of being trans because "there simply isn't the data", restarting debate from #4. When consensus opposes, he restarts on the GA Renomination then GA Review[122][123]
  7. Feb 18 2025 Argues that an RFC on trans pathologization is too broad and "some" kids are trans as a a maladaptive coping response to factors like trauma, abuse, homophobia (internal or external), bullying or other mental health issues, among classifying other FRINGE views regarding ROGD, GET, desistance, etc as legitimate.
    • This is not the first time he's argued this false balance between pathologization and mainstream medicine[124]
  8. May 11 17:25 Acknowledges his views are in the minority on desistance, detransition, ROGD, and Gender exploratory therapy and he shouldn't "relitigate", proceeds to
    • argue we can't say the data suggests detransition is rare[125], and that a review saying data shows it's rare (and likely overestimated) doesn't support that[126][127]
    • Argue that inclusion of sections on ROGD, detransition, desistance, conversion therapy etc are uncalled for and unsupported on MEDRS, though we have MEDRS in there too.[128]
    • Say the article should cite MEDRS that back up ROGD is misinformation (we very much do)[129]
  9. June 2025 VIR attempted to remove well-sourced content stating that the "living in your own skin model" is a form of conversion therapy, calling it just "controversial", trying to counter it without RS on talk
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. December 2024 In an AE case filed against Raladic, administrators noted VIR's tendency to describe reasonable disagreements as "misrepresentation" or "misleading", sanctions were considered against VIR
  2. September 2024 AE case against VIR closed no action, though VIR was warned to take on board admin/editor commentary (to drop the stick more often)
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • See past cases
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's statement contains 593 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

VIR demonstrates a clear pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS/WP:PROFRINGE editing across GENSEX. He repeats arguments across multiple forums and misrepresents MEDRS/RS to push a constellation of closely related FRINGE povs pathologizing trans people[130].

He constantly attempts to override MEDRS/systematic reviews with commentaries, letters, primary sources, etc from SEGM. He makes mutually exclusive arguments such as "we don't know how many kids desist" AND "we can't say it's a myth that we know most kids desist. He takes a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach where everyone is following NPOV wrong except him.

May 25th per Tamzin's call for more cases I asked them for general advice and began drafting. These diffs are the tip of the iceberg of years of CPOVPushing and I believe a TBAN is necessary. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified[131]

Discussion concerning Void if removed

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 Void if removed

   Void if removed's statement contains 242 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'd appreciate indication whether any action is to be taken in the earlier complaint before I respond to YFNS, especially in light of @User:Samuelshraga's point.

Aquillon [145] complains of absurd framings but is an intentionally close paraphrase of the source (People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate), in response to YFNS misusing FRINGE to try to insert unconnected material. [139] is about the article, and [140] is entirely sincere.

Loki misrepresents diffs in which I provide multiple different machine translations for comparison, arguing not to quote any of them, after YFNS and others posted machine translations. I'm seeking a compromise paraphrase, because the original quote in the article isn't from any translation presented on talk, but from an unreliable SPS. Loki accuses me of bad faith ("swaps arguments") rather than learning about policy I'm not previously familiar with. Void if removed (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loki's as of the time I assembled this/to no apparant avail timestamp link is disingenuous when 14 hours before Loki posted there was normal, civil discussion on the subject of attribution and context. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

   LokiTheLiar's statement contains 291 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I've been trying to draft something similar since asked about it above, and while most of the things I'd have included are above, here's some that YFNS missed:

  1. 1 October 2024 VIR insists that an LLM is reliable to translate Japanese because it supports his interpretation.
  2. 5 October 2024 One day after quadrupling down on that, he attempts translation with an LLM for a similar reason on a different article.
    • This goes unnoticed but only a few hours later he swaps arguments to "Per WP:NONENG Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles", a thing he's been repeatedly attempting to do until that point.
  3. 1 March 2025 VIR (falsely) claimed that "The only MEDRS in the 'desistance myth' section is a systematic review that says best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist - which means it isn't a myth."
    • This is cherry-picking a number the paper explicitly says does not matter because those studies did not define "desistance". The conclusion of the study in question is that desistance was "based on biased [...] and poor-quality research" and "desistance should no longer be used in clinical work or research".
    • It's also not true that was the only MEDRS in the section at the time. For instance, it contained this position from the APA, which is a WP:MEDORG.

Also, I note that VIR's justification on talk for removing the description of Zucker as a conversion therapist quotes at length from several sources that say explicitly that he is a conversion therapist and does conversion therapy. As of the time I assembled this, others were trying to explain this to him, to no apparent avail. Loki (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

VIR has a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to the topic area; see eg:

  • [132]: I'd suggest testing the water with a point or two, see if you get anywhere or if the lines are already drawn too rigidly and it just becomes exhausting and futile.

VIR frequently assumes bad faith:

  • [133] - the latter is worded to talk about "the article" but in a way that is clearly ascribing bad faith to its editors.
  • [134]: Editors may dislike this language. They may find it offends their sensibilities.

They take issue with the conclusions reached by sources by engaging in WP:FORUM arguments over them:

Note how they derailed this discussion with WP:FORUM arguments and clearly absurd framings:

  • [139]Are you saying that it is a FRINGE position that human beings aren't sexually attracted to paperwork?
  • [140]I'm sorry you dislike UK equality law.

Inflammatory language, over a comparison that they are surely aware is commonplace:

  • [141]: Firstly, that's a grotesquely offensive analogy that has nothing in common with this whatsoever...

--Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

Classic YFNS to populate the "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions" section with non-diffs showing non-sanctions. I'm sure the rest of YFNS' evidence holds up though, after all it's been a whole week since she blatantly lied about me at AE[142]. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snokalok

Hey could we kindly request some admin attention on this? The case against VIR is made, VIR has continued to edit GENSEX while not responding to this thread at all,[143][144], and now this thread is just devolving into User:Samuelshraga - whose own AE thread against YFNS above found absolutely no traction, to the point of being described by User:Extraordinary Writ as throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks - coming here and doing nothing but being unnecessarily disruptive towards her.[145][146]

Tagging @Tamzin: since they wanted more GENSEX threads, along with @Extraordinary Writ: and @SarekOfVulcan: since they were discussing the possibility of this thread being opened above.

Snokalok (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970 - 2 (VIR)

I am puzzled by Aquillion’s statement. The diffs they provided demonstrate that VIR edits in complete good faith – even with a heroic Assumption of Bad Faith, I can’t see how Aquillion could reach their interpretation.

I am particularly baffled by the supposedly ‘inflammatory comment’. This was in response to a comment by Snokalok[147] comparing the judgment by the UK Supreme Court on the meaning of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’, and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers) to a judgment by the American Supreme Court ‘that slavery was all fine and lovely’. This is truly grotesque. And Aquillion says that is a comparison that they are surely aware is commonplace. I have been following the media coverage of the reaction to the FWS case – I have never come across such a comparison, and I can’t imagine how Aquillion could think that it is commonplace. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

If, as Sweet6970 says, VIR's argument about whether people are attracted to pieces of paper was made in good faith, then this is an issue of WP:CIR and we need to make sure that VIR is able to understand complex issues at a level that enables them to usefully contribute to contentious topics.

Also, as in the other case, I'd suggest that editors be reminded to do a bit more work to ensure that their claims about what a diff says match what the diff really says. People check those. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LunaHasArrived

Just a note that in the above section on Your Friendly Neighbourhood Socialist that Void if Removed's behaviour was discussed for a brief time and therefore might be worth a read. I think VIR's behaviour was mostly analysed by Loki and then discussed briefly by admins but obviously one would have to read more to get the full picture. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC) I forgot about SilverSeren's comment about VIR in the above section, that would also be worth a look at. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

This certainly looks like retaliatory reporting. I think the diffs presented by YFNS show that this user has engaged in tendentious editing themselves. To present gender exploratory therapy as "conversion therapy" in a wiki voice when sources diverge on the topic is not acceptable. For example, a major British MEDORG, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), strongly disagrees with such claim: [148] While one can debate which view represents the majority or minority opinion, presenting a contested claim as fact when there is ongoing disagreement within the scientific community constitutes POV editing. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Aaron Liu

This is not a petty retaliatory filing. This is just formalizing the many asks for a boomerang against Void in the YFNS ArbitrationEnforcement request. I strongly recommend any admins evaluating this request to read #Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, which already has several extended statements and some evaluations from other uninvolved admins. (And for that reason I feel like maybe this should've just converted the original filing?) Aaron Liu (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

This should be at least paused until the ArbCom case request is resolved one way or another. It can be resumed if ArbCom doesn't take up the case, at which point I may have further statements. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Void if removed

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Without commenting on the substance here, I don't think we can very well reject a report like this for being retaliatory while also enforcing a two-party rule on each case—not unless it's a case where someone's like, trawled through the contribs of the person who presented evidence against them to find some unrelated minor violations, as with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive351 § Smallangryplanet (although that was subject-vs.-filer regardless). There needs to be some procedurally valid way that someone can say "I think this third party is in fact in the wrong", else we've essentially made WP:VEXBYSTERANG not apply to AE, which I don't think was ArbCom's intent in adding the rule. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Göycen

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
Göycen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed
Indefinite block for topic ban violations, see block log and see enforcement log
Administrator imposing the sanction
Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
I'm aware. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Göycen

I am writing to appeal my indefinite block. I fully understand that my editing on contentious topics led to this, and I want to explain the context to show that I have learned from my mistakes.

  • When I first started on Wikipedia last year, I began contributing without a full understanding of some important guidelines, which I now recognize is not an excuse. My extended confirmed status was revoked for WP:GAME. This happened because right after getting the status, I started editing contentious topics. To get the status, I had tried to align Turkish Wikipedia's geographic naming conventions with the English one. In Turkish Wikipedia, village names are organized under city names, but there was no clear standard for Turkish places on English Wikipedia. Without looking for a guideline, I moved many pages. I genuinely thought this was a helpful contribution that would also help me gain extended confirmed status. I now understand this was disruptive. I should have checked for country specific guidelines first, or used the main geographic naming and redirecting guidelines. My extended confirmed status was rightly revoked.
  • My extended confirmed status is an important part of this context. I used to mistakenly believe that reverting disruptive edits in good faith could not violate guidelines(including my last appeal). I now understand this was wrong and why I received warnings. In the time between gaining and losing my status, I was in disputes with two other users. This was discussed on the ANI board, and because my status was revoked during the discussion, I was no longer allowed to participate. During ANI board discussion, I was advised to use talk pages instead of edit warring or going to ANI. So I started writing on the talk page of each disputed topic and pinging the editor involved. This was another violation, with aspersions and civility issues. My continued involvement was inappropriate. At the time, I did not fully grasp that this meant I also had to stay away from the talk pages itself after losing my status. Continuing to reply earned me a 24 hour ban and indefinite topic ban from AA related pages. Immediately after the 24 hour ban, this time in a more civil way I wrote again to a talk page of an article, which led to another week of ban.
  • My most recent indefinite block was for reverting edits on Armenia Azerbaijan related food pages. The edits were from a suspected sockpuppet user, and one the page is connected to the Armenia Azerbaijan conflict. I genuinely believed I was improving the articles and knew the edits were borderline. However, I mistakenly thought my good faith intentions justified my actions, Since I was not really editing heated topics. On the Pekmez page, which was not protected at the time, I made an obvious violation by reverting an edit based on Armenia Azerbaijan dispute.
  • Finally, it is important I explain why most of my edits were in contentious areas. It became a personal issue. Outside of the problems with the two editors, most of my edits were reverts of a single user. When I started editing, I found an IP address making disruptive edits, pushing POV with sources that were impossible to check. I took this very seriously and even went to city libraries to verify the sources, which did not support the edits. After more research, I found this was a sockpuppet of a known disruptive user. Looking at long years of edits from related sockpuppet accounts, I saw major disruption on Azerbaijan related pages, and these edits were often the latest versions, left unchecked. Seeing the effort and receiving a lot of Personal attacks from this user, which still continues, I began a personal mission to systematically revert these edits after careful verification. I did not revert edit contents that were supported by sources and check sources for each edit. As you can imagine, this took a lot of effort. I started sockpuppet investigations¹ ², asked for admin protection on culturally significant pages. When the banned the user returned with another IP after couple weeks, I again reverted the disruptive edits, which violated arbcom guidelines and got me a warning. The only solution seemed to be gaining extended confirmed status. Shortly after I did, I went back to reverting the sockpuppet edits. This led to more disputes, my topic ban, and finally, my indefinite block. After these events in last june and july, I only made a few scientific edits. Recently, I saw the sockpuppet had returned because the IP range ban expired, and I once again made the mistake of reverting their edits and violating guidelines. I provide this context not to excuse my actions, but to show that I now understand the entire situation, what I misunderstood or partly ignored before, and how I must act if I am unblocked.
  • Following my latest appeal and after reviewing of Wikipedia's guidelines by reflecting, I now clearly understand that good faith alone does not justify making edits in contentious areas, especially when under a topic ban. I mention my "good faith" only to explain my past intentions and to assure you that my future contributions, if my block is lifted.

If my block is lifted, I sincerely promise the following:

  1. I unconditionally agree to not edit, comment on, or participate in any way on any page or discussion related to the Armenia Azerbaijan topic area, broadly construed.
  2. I will be cautious when dealing with disputes and interactions, especially those involving sockpuppet concerns.
  3. I will not take issues personally. In case of a dispute, I will always ask other editors or admins for help or consult the guidelines. I will avoid creating civility problems.
  4. If I receive a warning on any issue, I will immediately stop and learn about the related guidelines. I now recognize that not knowing the rules is not an excuse for my edits.

I deeply value Wikipedia and want to be a responsible contributor. I kindly ask you to reconsider my block in light of my sincere intentions, my clear understanding of my past mistakes, and my commitment to following the rules. Thank you for your time.

Here is my previous appeal, which lacked full explanation and was vague and had a bit of WP:Listen. Göycen (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Statement by asilvering

Happy to answer any questions. With Rosguill, I was part of last month's consensus not to unblock, so for the purposes of appeal I think we're both as involved as Firefangledfeathers. (Liz was less of a "no" and more of a "not yes".) -- asilvering (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not fully to the same degree, but fully enough that I don't think it's right to take part in the main discussion. I wouldn't touch a regular unblock I'd already declined either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Göycen

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Göycen

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

ScienceFlyer

The conduct aspect of this—a brief edit war—seems to have resolved on its own. Closing without action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:40, 16 June 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 ScienceFlyer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
ScienceFlyer (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/COVID-19#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 21:15, 10 June 2025 Deletion of the RfC proposal for dealing with this material by ScienceFlyer
  2. 19:23, 10 June 2025 Revert by Bon courage
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Users is a multiyear contributor to the topic as well as the recent RfC. They are aware of the restrictions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was a three month long RfC over the inclusion of material from several German and German/English sources which ScienceFlyer participated in. The closing statement noted a supermajority for inclusion of the material. Additional, the closure of the RfC indicated a substantial consensus for the proposed language. After this language was included in the article, it touched off an immediate edit war for it removal.

I would also like to request Bon courage, at a minimum be warned for contributing to the edit warring on this article.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : both users have been notified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 June 2025

Statement by WhatamIdoing

For those who haven't followed COVID-19 lab leak theory: There was a huge RFC that concluded yesterday with the result that the existence of an unpublished German government report should be mentioned somehow in the article.

Editors are currently discussing "how" to mention it, but, at a glance, everyone seems to accept "whether" to mention it at this point.

I think the basic underlying complaint here is that the initial WP:BOLD attempt to mention the report was reverted as inappropriate/NPOV (by multiple editors). The OP is not yet WP:XCON and so was not/could not be involved in the reverting.

MasterBlasterofBarterTown, each individual editor requires a separate section here at WP:AE. You'll either have to remove one editor entirely, or split it into two separate complaints (even if they mostly duplicate each other). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aaron Liu

I would not call that edit warring. Editors are currently discussing on the talk page, productively or not. Procedurally, this is just standard WP:BRD.

I'll also note that the long "RfC" was in fact a discussion turned into a pseudo-RfC and never listed at RfC, and that ScienceFlyer never received any {{alert/first}} templates, not even under their "Discretionary" iteration. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon Courage

One of the unintended consequences of the introduction of WP:ECP was that, although it tamped down the damage caused by WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior editors in article space, it meant they had to find an outlet elsewhere. Launching waste-of-time AEs to try and take perceived opponents 'off the table' seems to be one of those outlets, as evidenced by this filing. Bon courage (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

The RFC close specifically stated that no particular wording was endorsed, and reasonable objections were made on talk that the version ScienceFlyer reverted went beyond what the RFC agreed to. But more importantly, while AE requests are only supposed to focus on one person, the filer undermines their own point by objecting to Bon courage's edit, which was clearly a valid interpretation of the RFC's results, at least to the point where it can't reasonably be said to be editing against consensus. (Many supporters also recommended the mention be placed next to the German government's later findings and with attribution to the intelligence agency, though this aspect was not discussed much and might need further discussion.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

It’s difficult to classify ScienceFlyer’s June 12th edit as edit warring as their previous edit to the article was two months and about 90 article edits earlier. The close of the survey (I don’t see where it was an RfC) states further discussion is warranted. So let the discussion continue without further disruption. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ScienceFlyer

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

MyGosh789

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 MyGosh789

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TEMPO156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
MyGosh789 (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
  1. 1 May 2025 Changed the infobox to say the NRF has territory
  2. 1 May 2025 Part 2 of the edit
  3. 11 June 2025 Revert to restore the edit
  4. 11 June 2025 Addition of source (blog post from The Organization for World Peace), which makes no claim about territorial control.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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 11 June 2025 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Fairly straightforward request regarding addition of factual errors. The first source cited (The Washington Post) says "The Taliban on Monday seized Panjshir province, a restive mountain region that was the final holdout of resistance forces in the country, cementing the group’s total control over Afghanistan a week after U.S. forces departed the country." The second source ([149] The Long War Journal) says "The Taliban completed its military conquest of Afghanistan and took control of the mountainous province of Panjshir after seven days of heavy fighting. The fall of Panjshir puts the Taliban in full control of the country and eliminates the final vestige of organized resistance to its rule." The third source (Voice of America) says "The NRF has executed hit-and-run attacks against the Taliban in some parts of Afghanistan but has not been able to hold territory." They added a source just now (the OWP, an organization I'm unfamiliar with) that does not make any statement supporting the assertion of a territorial hold on part of the province.

The contention that the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan is still holding territory and the war in Afghanistan is ongoing in any major way is simply not based in any of the facts we have available, and even the source that was added does not make a claim of territorial control by the NRF. It was a major disservice to our readers that this was up for over a month.

@Liz: Sure, always happy to talk more about it. The sources they were using say the opposite thing, and the Taliban takeover is pretty SKYBLUE at this point in 2025, so after my one revert and warning I thought I'd just come here rather than try to engage further. If you think that's warranted, I'll explain further on the talk page. TEMPO156 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MyGosh789: Yes, they have some fighters scattered throughout the country including likely in Panjshir who do hit-and-run attacks but I haven't seen anything to support the claim that they hold territory in the province, in fact, the only information we have seems to say the opposite. TEMPO156 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[150]


Discussion concerning MyGosh789

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 MyGosh789

To address what I thought were the users initial concerns, I included an additional source noting how they were based in Panjshir. [151] Despite this, the user still issued a complaint. I also later included a Washington Post article noting the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan's open presence in Panjshir.[152]MyGosh789 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by Noorullah

I talked with this user (Mygosh789) on the talk page of the article, and the sources he cites makes no claim of controlled territory. When asked about it, he says it doesn't need to cite anything about controlled territory [153] ... even though that's what he's adding to the infobox. [154] [155] His claim in a June 2022 source is contradicted by a December 2022 source months later as well, see relevant talk page discussion. [156] Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MyGosh789

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


Eliezer1987

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 Eliezer1987

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Eliezer1987 (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/Palestine-Israel articles 5

User reverts others edits but refuses to discuss.

1. Reverted an edit by restoring a WP:FRINGE viewpoint ("was neither a consulate nor an embassy") to the first sentence in the lead. Previous move discussions appear to have an implicit overwhelming consensus that the building was either a consulate or embassy[157]. But the most egregious thing here is that there was an ongoing discussion on this very change, and Eliezer1987 didn't bother to even respond.
I told them they should be discussing this on the talk page and still they haven't engaged in the article talk page. Meanwhile they've continued this exact behavior on another article (see below).
2. reverts the removal of contested content. Once again there is an ongoing discussion on this and thus far the consensus is that the material is POV[158]. The key point here is that despite significant discussion the user has made no attempt to discuss on the talk page.
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)
[159]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • There is a pattern of behavior from the non-recent past too. For example, they made a large revert[160] at April 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel; there was an ongoing discussion regarding this, and they didn't participate.
    • They made another large revert at the article restoring a lot of content to the lead. An hour later, another user protested against this change[161] at the talk page, and again Eliezer1987 didn't respond.
  • In this revert they write in the edit summary "Whoever put the tags, please open a discussion about it on the talk page". So they acknowledge they are making a revert but not starting a discussion themselves instead of trying to put the onus of discussing on someone else.
    • A discussion indeed was started by someone else[162], but they didn't bother to join the discussion at talk.
  • Admitted to making reverts[163][164] but again no sign of discussion.
  • Another example where they are aware they are making a revert[165] but don't bother discussing at talk. There was plenty of discussion at talk[166] regarding the use of the "colonial" framing they reverted.


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[167]

VR (Please ping on reply) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Eliezer1987

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 Eliezer1987

Unfortunately, I don't have much time these days when missiles are flying over us. So I haven't gone through every edit that appears here.I will write in general:

  1. I am an experienced editor, also on the subject of conflict. The discussions in these articles are long and exhausting, and I don't always get to them. When I see that there is a discussion, I do not act contrary to it.
  2. I would be happy for the administrators to examine the complaint against me in depth. And also the complainant who saw fit to open a complaint immediately after I reprimanded him for inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia.
  3. I try not to make things personal, maybe that's why I try to create and write and edit articles and not discuss a single word for hours. I hope there is a place on Wikipedia for people who try to avoid arguments.
  4. May this conflict end and in a few years it won't even be considered a sensitive issue Eliezer1987 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eliezer1987

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

Cfgauss77

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 Cfgauss77

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Cfgauss77 (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/Palestine-Israel articles 5
Seem to be gaming Extended confirmed
  • Account created on December 10, 2024.
  • First edit on January 16, 2025[168].
  • Lots of minor edits where they update rankings[169].
  • They seem to make edits in quick succession and even get things wrong sometimes[170].
  • On March 16 they become EC[171] and immediately go dormant.
  • After a 1 month+ dormancy they suddenly vote on an super-contentious AfD[172] that is currently subject to off-wiki WP:CANVASSING[173]. They have never even taken part in a discussion on wikipedia before, let alone an AfD.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[[174]]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[175]

VR (Please ping on reply) 17:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, it's not just the edit, but the fact that they rushed to 500 edits with a lot minor edits and went dormant as soon as they achieved the status. They then immediately pivoted. A user who was genuinely interested in university rankings would have continued past the 500 edits mark. I would like to see the user participate more substianally on Wikipedia before going into CTOPs, which is the intent of ECR.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Cfgauss77

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 Cfgauss77

I participated in a discussion that any Wikipedia extended confirmed user could participate in as long as it was in good faith. As a newer editor, I was under the impression anyone could have a discussion about any topic. I did not make any changes to articles, only tried to participate in a conversation. Additionally, the accuser Vice Regent was cited for Serious Violations of Wikipedia Policy in Recent Edits, and reached out to me directly only because I am in opposition of this editor’s view. At this time, I am not going to defend my edit history (I will if I have to) because it should be irrelevant as I only tried to participate in a conversation, did not make any edits on any contentious topics. I am happy to have any further discussions you deem necessary. Thank you in advance for your time.

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I have a question for you Cfgauss77. Let's say, hypothetically, that it was the WikiBias post on June 13 that made you aware of the AfD and caused you to vote on the same day (there is no way for me to know whether that is the case, so I don't care), do you think editors should be required/encouraged to declare that kind on information when they !vote i.e. how they became aware of a discussion? For example, let's say I'm a huge fan of Tech4Palestine, and they post something somewhere about an AfD with something like "This is mind manipulation and must be stopped!" (although they may be a bit too rational to do that, so maybe not a good choice), let's say zei_squirrel then, and that causes me to participate in the AfD. Do you think I should declare that alongside my !vote so that people know how I became aware of the AfD? I would also be interested in whether you think seeing a partisan social media call to arms post about an AfD or a requested move etc., then participating violates anything in WP:CANVASS or WP:MEAT. Feel free to not answer of course. And it goes without saying that admins are welcome to block my account for a while or collapse this if it is some kind of transgression e.g. WP:NOTLAB springs to mind. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cfgauss77

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There is not per se a policy against being canvassed, although if it's a persistent thing it can be meatpuppetry, and a closer can downweight apparently-canvassed !votes. Furthermore, there are multiple plausible ways the user could have found the AfD other than through canvassing. I don't love the immediate dormancy and pivot upon hitting EC, but I don't think it's outright WP:PGAMING, so I'm not sure there's anything for us to do at this juncture. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, this complaint is about one edit that this editor made at an AFD? What sanctions is the filer seeking for this edit? Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MilesVorkosigan

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 MilesVorkosigan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Sweet6970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
MilesVorkosigan (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:GENSEX

1. 12 June 2025 00:27 [176] MV accuses me of lying on the Talk page of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. This was in a discussion about a source [177] At that time, the only source for the statement that 'Adult human female' was 'anti-trans' was this [178] by the National, which does not say that the slogan is 'anti-trans'.

2. 12 June 2025 00:31 [179] reverts my CT Notice on his Talk page with the edit summary Undoing bad-faith template abuse by anti-trans POV-pusher.

3. 12 June 2025 17:57 [180] refers to me as an edit-warrior.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
CT Notice [181] on 11 June 2025 at 22:00.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

My complaint is about the personal attacks. I think there may also be a WP:CIR problem here: MV perhaps does not fully understand sourcing requirements, and the meaning of the term 'edit warrior' as used on Wikipedia.

The ArbCom case is called Transgender healthcare misinformation on Wikipedia. My complaint about MV has nothing whatever to do with transgender healthcare, it is simply about editor conduct, and I object to the suggestion that it should be paused for an ArbCom case which is irrelevant to the issue. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[182]


Discussion concerning MilesVorkosigan

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 MilesVorkosigan

Statement by LokiTheLiar

Just for context, the source Sweet claims does not source the claim contains this paragraph:

Parker is a podcaster and campaigner who has spoken across the world against trans rights. She is credited with coining the term "adult human female" to define a woman, a phrase which was used by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak earlier in the week.

Or in other words, it clearly sources that she's anti-trans, and that it's her slogan. Is this a perfect source for the claim the slogan is anti-trans, maybe not, but it's good enough that I don't think that this is an AE issue. Loki (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking further at what's actually being argued: while I think the assertion that Sweet is trying to push a POV is at minimum very plausible (e.g. it's pretty odd to insist that a slogan by an anti-trans activist whose purpose is to assert that trans women are not women might not be anti-trans), I also think that the correct response to that behavior is to bring a case here and not to be rude directly like MV has been. Loki (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

Well, LokiTheLiar, the issue is less of MilesVorkosigan misinterpreting that source. The issue is, MilesVorkosigan telling Sweet6970: You’ve decided to pretend that there is some requirement for a second one despite how obvious it is. And thank you for admitting that there is no plausible alternative explanation, I appreciate it. [183], after Sweet6970 denies any such admission or pretense, in the next response MilesVorkosigan tells Sweet6970: Please do not lie about what the sources say, that just means everyone has to go read the link for themselves and you’re wasting our time. [184] Accusations of pretending and lying is assuming bad faith, which is an AE issue. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

I think this AE request should be paused until the current ArbCom case request is resolved one way or the other. It does no good for people to keep making statements here if they may be subsumed into an ArbCom case. If the RfAR closes without a case, then this can be resumed. And for the record, I'll be making a similar comment on the other cases here shortly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: It's going to be considered in the Arbitration case (assuming it's accepted) regardless, so I feel it's decent to let admins here know at least. No sense for AE admins to take action on something that's (likely, imo) going to be considered by ArbCom soon anyway. It's basically a waste of time - since this case is likely to be accepted (in my admittedly hopeful opinion) regardless of this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MilesVorkosigan

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"