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:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae	Motion	none	20 May 2025
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics	none	(orig. case)	12 June 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

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!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
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.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132

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-llists.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:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132

Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

Clerk tools: Words report

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 13:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Praxidicae (talk · contribs) - Special:Diff/1291323835

Information about amendment request

After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.
- Remove restriction

Statement by Ritchie333

I recently attended the London Meetup and mentioned I still had an existing Arbitration Committee enforced interaction ban, which surprised everyone. I then said I wasn't bothered about appealing the ban, as it didn't affect my day-to-day editing or admin activities, but was suggested by a few people there that I should give it a go.

During mid-2019 I hit a low point of my life, lashed out at people for no good reason and behaved like a completely obnoxious jerk, and this was a prime consequence of it. I've since sorted myself out and changed my views on civility - in particular that admins must be held to a higher code of conduct and set a good example at all times - and just wonder if this could be recognised, leading to the interaction ban closed as obsolete from a time gone past. Anyway, I'll leave this to you for your thoughts.

NB: In full compliance with an interaction ban, I have not notified the other party; if somebody else could do this, it would be appreciated. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Regarding apologies, in June 2021, I wrote " I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again." I also consider "behaved like a completely obnoxious jerk" to imply regret and apology for behaviour in 2019. If this insufficient, it would be helpful to clarify what else I should do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a cast iron reason none of this behaviour will happen again - my fiancee, soon to be wife, wouldn't be with me if I did it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: I don't believe that's correct. I was blocked in October 2019 for rewriting an article without realising who had (correctly) tagged the original revision for WP:G12. The block was overturned on appeal. I don't know what the incident in 2021 is, but the only obvious thing I can think of is recreating an article without appreciating who had edited a previously deleted version. So I would say there are people who very much think these are sanctionable offences. However, in both these instances, the intent was to improve the encylopedia above anything else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: "multiple posts with sexual undertones (and overtones)" How dare you say that, I have never done that, and I find that really offensive and upsetting. That is completely unlike me as a character, I have identified mostly as asexual on-wiki despite having children and a loving fiancee. Your comments have made me really upset, and I'd like you to apologise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Praxidicae

I’ll keep this as direct as possible since I am unsure what I can actually say:

I do not believe the behavior that led to this restriction has changed, nor do I believe the harassment I experienced from Ritchie is unlikely to happen again. This includes being doxxed off-wiki after the IBAN was imposed and for a good year or two after, as well as repeated violations of that restriction, many of which resulted in little more than symbolic gestures that I cannot even call a reprimand, followed by sympathy and support from the very individuals responsible for enforcing it, which I will give Ritchie credit for - that is not his fault.

There is no reason for this restriction to be lifted on either side. I do not view this as a sincere request stemming from a change in behavior on or off-wiki, but a superficial gesture. As Ritchie has more or less acknowledged, if there's no intent to repeat the behavior, then the restriction shouldn’t matter.

There is absolutely no need for Ritchie and me to interact, or to edit within the same topic areas and thus no need for it to be removed.

What stands out most is the complete lack of apology or acknowledgment of the extensive harassment I endured, only justifications tied to personal hardships. And since personal lives are apparently relevant: I’ve had a long-term relationship end, lost several family members, gotten married, had a child, and nearly lost that child twice when he was just 14 months old. Not once did I use Wikipedia or another editor as an emotional outlet to stalk, harass, or violate a restriction, let alone repeatedly. And I’m a regular editor, not an administrator—who should absolutely be held to a higher standard. COOLIDICAE🕶 16:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have extremely limited ability to meaningfully reply to this - as in, no access to my computer for the next few weeks. To whomever asked for the information I referred to in my initial statement, arbcom, over the course of I believe now 3 different committees has access to my previous emails regarding this, as well as others (which I do not myself know the content of said emails, referred to here and further in the same thread. ) Arbcom, I would assume has access to archives, it would've been in the same time frame in October-ish 2021 and shortly after the first iban violation in 2019. I have no interest in being harangued and stalked again, so I have nothing further to say on this matter other than reiterating my initial point that it was Herculean feat to have this enacted to begin with and it was already loosely followed and enforced, at best and I have no desire whatsoever to go back to being subject to the harassment that resulted in this to begin with.

Further, I see the same exact type of response (X was happening in my life, which caused me to do y)that was given in 2021 for an appeal, but absolutely nothing indicating that it won't continue to happen, nor a need for it to be removed. It doesn't prevent Ritchie or myself from actually improving the project, as I've already pointed out. Sorry for any errors, responding on mobile sucks. Also I would encourage others to read the previous attempt from June 2021(ish), particularly the comments by SN and I believe it was BDD. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition to this I am having emergency surgery tomorrow morning so if my statement isn't enough and needs further clarification, Arbcom has access to the previous emails and correspondence, there isn't much else I can provide nor am I going to put in the effort to relitigate this ever again, including now. COOLIDICAE🕶 18:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Ritchie333 and Praxidicae)

I have no knowledge of the history between these two editors except what they have described here. It appears that the history is largely confidential material which should not be on public web pages, so that I will not and should not have knowledge of the history. However, in looking at what is seen here, I see one blatant defect in Ritchie's filing, that Praxidicae has also noted. I see what can be favorably described as Ritchie's explanation, or less favorably described as Ritchie's excuses. I see nothing that expresses regret over the hardship that he inflicted on Praxidicae or that amounts even to a non-apology.

As a non-administrator, the "optics" of this appeal, from an administrator to a committee all of whom are administrators, is bad. It looks like an administrator asking ArbCom to circle the wagons around an administrator who has admitted to sub-optimal behavior without taking responsibility for their sub-optimal responsibility.

I observe that 48 hours have elapsed since Praxidicae noted the absence of any expression of regret or apology, during which Ritchie could have responded.

Wikipedia editors, including Wikipedia administrators, are moral actors and should acknowledge agency and responsibility for their actions. I don't see that.

The ArbCom has the confidential record and knows what the details were. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fortuna imperatrix mundi

Re. Prax's suggestion, this is the June 2021 discussion; mine and BDD's statements. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration, what we have here is an I-ban that one party wants maintained, and another party who, in fact, wasn't bothered about appealing it in the first place. I'm unsure as to why this is being entertained. It's harming neither by its existence, but if its removal distresses one party, then I'm also unsure wherein the benefit to the project is.

In other words, arbs should not be wondering why the sanction needs to remain, but rather, why it should not. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

If Praxidicae feels uncomfortable about having the interaction ban rescinded, then I think it would be a mistake to rescind it. theleekycauldron states "In an ideal world, I wish we could wait a few more weeks for Prax to return to activity"—why is this not that ideal world? Why the rush here? Cabayi claims that this interaction ban is a "roadblock" that prevents Ritchie333 from acting in his admin role on pages that Praxidicae has edited, but that is not true: WP:IBAN states that interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. In his statement, Ritchie confirms that the status quo does not affect my day-to-day editing or admin activities.

We are in no rush here. CaptainEek correctly points out that Praxidicae has been inactive on this project for much of the last few years due to things happening in real life, so we haven't really even "tested" this restriction that much yet. The restriction is not a roadblock, but rather a mechanism that allows an editor who experienced harassment to feel comfortable continuing to participate in this project. The way I see it, we risk losing a productive member of the community if the committee makes the wrong decision here. I see no harm to the project in leaving the restriction in place until such time that both parties involved feel comfortable with lifting it. Mz7 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

The statement It's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question, aside from misstating how IBANs work, gives the impression of giving an admin special treatment. Either the IBAN is unnecessary, in which case it should be lifted but Ritchie's adminship is irrelevant; or it's necessary and incompatible with adminship, in which case Ritchie should be desysopped; or it's necessary and compatible with adminship, in which case Ritchie should remain an IBANned administrator. Citing Ritchie's adminship as a reason to lift the sanction shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between admins and the community, from an arbitrator who I two years ago wrote had a "notion of advanced tools as a right, rather than privilege".

This is not to say I particularly support or oppose lifting the sanction, just that if done it should be done for the right reasons. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Without opining on whether or not the iban should be lifted in this case, I'd like to point out that when I asked for my iban with Doncram to be lifted and he opposed, rather than rescinding the ban outright, it was converted into a 6-month probation, after which it was lifted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

I don't agree with the reasoning that an interaction ban is not working if, after a period of time, one of the editors involved still feels a need for it to be in place. There is no deadline for a volunteer to become comfortable with collaborating with another volunteer. isaacl (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment Of course this matters; Praxidicae has addressed this in the last sentence of the initial statement.: Praxidicae stated the importance of holding an administrator to a higher standard, while Tamzin is objecting to using as an example that admin tasks may be hindered by an interaction ban. These arguments aren't in conflict. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment Sysops are expected to be true to their word and accurately assess their own limits. I have confidence in Ritchie continuing to be a sysop, and so I trust that he can do those things.: I think the cause and effect is inverted. In order to have confidence in an editor to hold administrative privileges, necessary prerequisites are to have confidence in their sincerity and ability to understand their limitations. Given that a previous arbitration committee felt that the behaviour of the admin in question warranted a formal restriction, I feel the editor being an admin isn't a good basis to support the appeal. (Actions taken by the editor, including those that are part of the admin role, can of course be used to support one's evaluation of the current trustworthiness of an editor.) isaacl (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Patient Zero

I would personally oppose any rescinding of this interaction ban. Regardless of how long ago this behaviour occurred, it is clear to see it has had a long-lasting effect on Praxidicae, psychologically speaking, to the extent that she does not want the IBAN lifted, and not only do I fully respect that - I can personally relate to her feelings. Being harassed and doxxed off-wiki should never just be seen as something which is part and parcel of being an editor here, and I cannot help but feel as though her feelings about this have been invalidated by the arguments that enough time has passed that this behaviour should not occur again. To put it bluntly: we simply cannot know that for certain.

I agree with Tamzin above on several points, namely that administrators are not "above" being issued IBANs, and my personal view on Ritchie's statement is that it reads as though he has suffered some real-life embarrassment at a Wiki meetup over being an administrator with an IBAN. That is not something which the Arbitration Committee is equipped to deal with, and is something Ritchie needs to come to terms with in his own time. I appreciate that mental health issues are something which can happen to all of us, and that we can change for the better as individuals, but for as long as Praxidicae still has concerns over the IBAN being lifted, it needs to stay put. We have a major issue with female editors being driven off this project due to harassment and doxxing - why on Earth we are even considering the risk of losing such a productive contributor, is simply baffling to me.

Finally, as for the IBAN causing a roadblock, I'll write this out as an analogy: If you harassed someone in real life, and they filed for a restraining order against you, you would need to accept that if they decide to enter your favourite pub one evening and they get there before you, you cannot go in there for your favourite beer or cocktail, no matter how much you really want to. Such is the very nature of an interaction ban that this will arise, and the solution to that is to focus on other matters. There is no shortage of jobs to do here on Wikipedia, and it's easy enough to find something new. Patient Zero^talk 05:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

I've been debating whether or not to make a statement here. Then Patient Zero said pretty much exactly what I've been stewing over. I would like to endorse that entire statement, and in lieu of repeating what they wrote, I'll pose two questions.

Absent a good reason to lift an interaction ban early* + one of the two parties would prefer to keep it in place, why on earth would we consider lifting it?
What good does lifting it actually accomplish?

*"I should give it a go" is a reason, but not a good one.

On balance, it does feel unlikely that Ritchie would repeat the behavior that led to the interaction ban. And yet, that chance remains, and Ritchie has identified not one single place where the interaction ban is hindering their editing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

I've thought long and hard about commenting here, and didn't intend to until the motion below seems to be passing. I agree entirely with what Ed said above. There has been no reason provided why this interaction ban is hindering anything. Unless ArbCom thinks it was initially imposed improperly, it should not be removed just because time has passed - barring actual evidence that it is impacting the encyclopedia. ArbCom exists to further our goal of being an encyclopedia - not to just be a "supreme court" making decisions because it can. If one party of the interaction ban thinks it should remain, it seems that it would be significantly more harmful to remove (by potentially driving that editor off the project) than it would be to let it remain - again, absent any solid evidence that there is a negative impact to the encyclopedia by it remaining. The motion below appears to be passing and my statement is unlikely to change that - but the "status quo" is that both editors involved are still contributing to the encyclopedia - and if the result of this motion is one of them leaving, or even slightly reducing their contributions to the encyclopedia, then ArbCom has failed and should look back on this piss-poor request for revocation with shame. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

Disclaimer that I consider myself friends with Prax and Ritchie. While I don't have access to the archives, I'm a bit unsure about the "four years since we last got complaints about infractions" rationale; that gap in time coincides with Prax and Ritchie not editing much, or otherwise editing more when the other was mostly inactive, such as Prax during the summer of 2022 or Ritchie in the fall of that year. When they were both active, there were quite a few complaints of infractions coming from both "camps". There's enough tension and history here that I'm skeptical that the same issues which led to the initial Iban won't recur, especially given Prax's opposition to a re appeal and other comments here. For various reasons--often because it seemed like people didn't want to create "drama"-- the sanction wasn't enforced or acted on when it should've been.

As for my opinion on the ban: It's complicated. I don't think Arbcom really had the authority to impose this-- while there were "private aspects" raised while consulting parties and with some of the history here, it basically came down to on-wiki actions and conflict around counter spam efforts and NPP. I also think the ban is unfair to both parties, for differing reasons; in some not-so-hypothetical situations, let's say Prax wants to write an article on something, but can't because Ritchie deleted it a bit ago (I know Ritchie would most certainly not mind if Prax wanted to do this). Or, an LTA burner sock is harassing the two of them over the Iban on their talk pages, and Ritchie can't block because Prax's name is involved. And, bluntly, the rationale for making this a two way Iban instead of a one way seems more "political" than anything; I've never really been clear on what Prax's "infractions" were.

Never mind the miniature elephant in the room: this is all mired in late 2010's Wikipolitic discussions, which have mostly aged like milk and withered into irrelevancy. At the time, getting this Iban through was a difficult task, as both editors were highly influential and well connected: Ritchie was arguably the most prominent RfA nominator during this time and friends with several reviewed content-writer higher ups, while Prax was an anti-spam, anti-abuse NPP powerhouse. They both worked around patrolling edits and pages, and had clashing ideologies; Prax (rightly or wrongly) was quicker to revert, nominate for xfd, and harder on sourcing and notability, while Ritchie tried to (rightly or wrongly) save articles from deletion and was softer on notability and sourcing. But this led to conflict between the two, with Ritchie policing Prax's patrolling by his standards, and becoming overly aggressive towards her, eventually resulting in this failed 2018 ANI IBAN proposal (which I even wrongly opposed back then). In a lot of ways, they were both too big to sanction. In the years since, the internet has changed a significant amount; AI sludge, blackhat SEO spam, paid editing scams, and shill crap have increased 10000%, and policies and the NPP process have shifted more towards keeping that spam out. So, history has landed more on Prax's side than Ritchie's. This sort of dispute is unlikely to go on for as long as it did now and days.

And also, let's put this into context in Wikipedia's larger history: this Iban and dispute amounted to the last great conflict between "Content Creators" and "Maintenace IRC Regulars" which ran throughout the 2000s-2010s. These disputes primarily circulated around a group of GA/FA contributors (mostly based around older British writers and meetup participants) and IRC patrollers (mostly based around younger more technically inclined North American anti-vandals). These groups would frequently clash at ACE, RfA, civility sanctions discussions, etc. Bluntly, most of these disputes are grating to read and incredibly overblown and over dramatic. I won't get into all of that, but since the rise of the much more accessible Discord and IRC's increasing fade into obscurity, there has generally been much less conflict between these two groups. The Discord is much more popular than IRC ever was and is home to a plethora of younger content creators with stacks of GAs and FAs, while some editors on differing "sides" of these disputes have mended with each other over the years (See: the various kinds of editors that pass RfA now and days, nearly all of whom have Discord accounts, or Schrocat and Premeditiated Chaos's comments in the ACN discussion at the time vs. their friendly talk page comments and collabs all over FA now and days)

Now why do I say all of this? Because I really do want this sanction to go away and for this annoying era of Wikipedia to have its chapter closed. But I have difficulty supporting this appeal, because I don't think Ritchie's comments here really get to the heart of the matter and show the required contrition. Namely, I hope Ritche would explicitly say that he was wrong to hound and condescend to Prax, and that he unduly enforced his own view of patrolling on others, and that he was wrong to keep his foot on the gas and repeatedly pick at these wounds (both on and off-wiki), and that the harassment Prax got at the time of the Iban was undeserved, and not just say "I was going through a hard time in real life", and commit to not repeating this all over again. I hope Prax would then accept this, begin to forgive Ritchie, and then they could move forward on mostly separate paths. But I understand if neither of them are interested in doing this, because of the history and that in some ways it would feel like they are acquiescing parts of their respective ideologies. To which I say, it's not about entrenchment, it's about evolution. And I'm not saying this to be unduly critical of either party; I'm saying this because I care about both and want to see them do well. I feel like I have a bird's eye view of things and that I have responsibility to try and help work things out. But I'm not expecting to accomplish what 30+ people couldn't, so... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I belatedly realized I am way over the word limits (no longer have that Arblimatic Immunity…!); I ask if I can have a 1500 word extension; if not I’ll hat /remove the less important parts here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Clerk notes

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

Noting that there was an amendment request in July 2021, which resulted in a motion adding the following exception to the interaction ban: Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Arbitrator views and discussion

I've notified Prax. No opinion yet as I have to review the history, but I'm generally in favor of releasing five year old restrictions if there's no compelling reason to believe the behavior will resume. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Worm^TT(talk) 15:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree about if there's no intent to repeat the behavior, then the restriction shouldn’t matter; this would make partial blocks, topic bans and interaction bans impossible to appeal for those the restriction is the most unnecessary for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sensitive to Ritchie's concerns; it doesn't feel nice to be carrying a sanction around. But I'm inclined to listen to Prax here. I'll also point out that she hasn't edited much in the last three years, and is just now starting to get back into editing, which means that the sanction hasn't actually been tested for a full five years. Given that at the last violation (in 2021) we had a serious conversation about desysopping Ritchie, I think it doesn't hurt to keep this around longer. I don't think we should keep it forever though; if I'm still around in a few years I'd be more receptive to lifting it then. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doxxing might be part of this appeal, but I think evidence on that aspect should be presented privately to ArbCom to prevent WP:OUTING. @Ritchie333: if you want to make a statement to ArbCom about the doxxing aspects, please email the committee. @Praxidicae: your statement says, "This includes being doxxed off-wiki after the IBAN was imposed and for a good year or two after." If you would like to expand upon this, please email the committee with details of the doxxing that took place after the IBAN was imposed, and any other statement related to doxxing you would like ArbCom to have. If other editors would like to submit evidence in this appeal related to doxxing, please email ArbCom. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fair bit of background to this that I'd like to review before commenting further. - Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee is still discussing this request; sorry for the delay. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Interaction bans rescinded

The interaction bans between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae and their modifications are rescinded.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

I have looked over the history from 2019 and 2021. In short, I support this being rescinded because I believe that this is unlikely to recur. The Committee has held this open for longer than usual to see if we would receive any further evidence of violations; given that that hasn't occurred, we should move forward on this issue on the merits. I agree with ToBeFree above: while Praxidicae's desire for the bans to stay in place did weigh heavily in my consideration of this, I am hopeful that people and circumstances can fundamentally change. This doesn't mean that I want either party to be poking the bear, but as rational adults both parties can move on from this affair. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Ritchie's adminship did not play a part in my consideration of this appeal. Maybe it should have, as I agree that administrators are held to a higher standard, but for me the likelihood of issues occurring in the future was the more important consideration.
Regarding if you have to ask that the IBAN still be treated as it is essentially in force and for the editors to continue avoiding each other then why are we removing it?, I'll repeat what I said in private: this is sensible advice for anyone who has just had a restriction removed. Anyone who has had an interaction ban removed should not immediately go poking the other party, and anyone who has just had a topic ban lifted should not create the most controversial article possible and get into fights with others. Just because that is sensible advice doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove the ban. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~(2.)~~ The evidence here was a tough read. In an ideal world, I wish we could wait a few more weeks for Prax to return to activity to see if she has any evidence we've missed. Still, it doesn't seem like anyone's alleging any violations more recent than four years ago, and while I think both the violations and the responses to them left something to be desired, I feel on the balance that Ritchie's word is credible when he says the sanction is no longer necessary as a preventative measure. Part of having confidence in a sysop is being able to take them at their word – so I'm really hoping to not be disappointed on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're a bit split on this issue, I want to say that Ritchie's status as a sysop did factor into my decision, but not in the sense that [i]t's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question. Admins are and should be bound by the same policies and guidelines as everyone else. But in deciding whether to restore a privilege to someone, on some level you have to trust them at their word when they say they won't abuse that. Sysops are expected to be true to their word and accurately assess their own limits. I have confidence in Ritchie continuing to be a sysop, and so I trust that he can do those things – if that trust is broken, than my confidence in Ritchie continuing to be an admin would be broken along with it. Given those stakes, I'd say that "maybe err on the side of caution" isn't bad advice, and it's a pretty common thing to say to people with newly given or restored privileges. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote for now, in light of what Katie and Moneytrees said. I'm not switching to oppose, but I also don't want to this to close before the new points of fact are settled and Ritchie has time to more substantively addressed what happened. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good for the project that a comment from one of them on an issue should necessarily preclude the other from commenting. It's not good for the project that an admin going about their role should have roadblocks if the other has edited the page in question. We have two highly valued editors who have had a falling out. If four years is not long enough for some scar tissue to have formed over the wound, then time is not the healer in this case, and prolonging the IBAN will serve no purpose. I'd recommend both to pretend for day-to-day purposes that the IBAN remains, but to not officiously refrain from normal activity just because the other has previously edited. Be civil. Be kind. Cabayi (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the original case, subsequent communications from various parties (both recent and not-so-recent) and subsequent evidence, I have landed here. There have been no recent events to make me believe that this IBAN is necessary at this time. If the IBAN is lifted, I still recommend that both parties refrain from interacting with each other whenever possible. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
I won't delay this ship from sinking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough call either way. Ritchie's appeal here is not particularly compelling, and I share many of SFR's concerns regarding it. However, I'm simply not convinced that this sanction needs to remain in place, and as it's generally quite difficult to "prove a negative", I'm inclined towards lifting since the last problematic behavior occurred many years ago. Ritchie says he has changed, and I very much hope that is the case. To be clear, Ritchie's status as an admin was not weighed in my decision here. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

As I said above, I'm sensitive to Ritchie's concerns; it doesn't feel nice to be carrying a sanction around. But I'm inclined to listen to Prax here. I'll also point out that she hasn't edited much in the last three years, and is just now starting to get back into editing, which means that the sanction hasn't actually been tested for a full five years. Given that at the last violation (in 2021) we had a serious conversation about desysopping Ritchie, I think it doesn't hurt to keep this around longer. I don't think we should keep it forever though; if I'm still around in a few years I'd be more receptive to lifting it then. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself here for a few reasons. The biggest is that appeal itself isn't very good. It says I then said I wasn't bothered about appealing the ban, as it didn't affect my day-to-day editing or admin activities, but was suggested by a few people there that I should give it a go. We have a sanction that protects a party from a situation that was significant enough that Arbcom had to step in and that isn't onerous to the parties. One party clearly would like the IBAN to remain in place, and the other party isn't bothered by it. If that were a two person discussion we'd call it consensus to keep the IBAN. There is also some general apology, but nothing specifically to or about the injured party, and I'm not very impressed with the "I have a fiance" defense. As a note to the arbs voting support, if you have to ask that the IBAN still be treated as it is essentially in force and for the editors to continue avoiding each other then why are we removing it? If Ritchie isn't even bothered by the IBAN, why are we worried about clearing their slate? I also think Tamzin makes a solid point that we shouldn't be treating this any different because Ritchie is an admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more likely to vote for removing the ban if Ritchie333 wasn't an admin. Of course this matters; Praxidicae has addressed this in the last sentence of the initial statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees, the toothpaste is out of the tube now, so unless you have more to add I think you're fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't go into behavioral specifics with my oppose because I wasn't too interested in picking at old scabs, but I see Ritchie's response to Katie as some pretty solid evidence that either they don't know what the problem is with doing things like telling a woman to smile or don't see it as a problem. Either way, it doesn't bode well for being able to avoid that behavior in the future. I was willing to accept that they had come to an understanding about their behavior, but their response put a bow on that.

It may be that Ritchie simply didn't remember those, or other comments. The thing is, the target of that behavior does and, quite reasonably, doesn't want to have to deal with it again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish here. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per ScottishFinnishRadish. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how this appeal reads to me: Ritchie has this embarrassing black tick which doesn't affect him like ever, and gee he'd like that removed because somebody thinks he should, and wow he was a jerk in 2019, and he apologized once and has implied another apology, golly what else do we want a guy to do, so please take this away. I just went back and re-read the history, and the appeal does not address the meat of what really hit its stride in 2018, not 2019, and continued well into this decade. Ritchie did his level best to run Praxidicae off of this project, plain and simple, and he did it with harassment and WPO posts and multiple posts with sexual undertones (and overtones). And I see nothing, zero, nada here to suggest that Ritchie understands the impact on Praxidicae and other women editors. Praxidicae clearly wants this IBAN to remain. I can't vote to remove it until and unless Ritchie demonstrates understanding and remorse, and I see neither here. Katie^talk 16:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ritchie, I dare it because you did it. Here is one example from 2018. Why on earth did you think that was a good idea? No, it's not addressed specifically to Prax (which saved your bacon) but you were stalking her AFD and CSD noms at the time, she's already on edge because this long-term, respected admin is following her around commenting on every single freaking thing she does, and wham! here comes a comment like that on one of her AFD noms. And you also told her not to forget to smile. Lots to smile about there. Yay you. It looks like you're going to get your wish and get this IBAN lifted; I said my piece, you've said yours. I really, really hope the majority is correct and that you'll leave her alone. Katie^talk 20:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Daniel (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

While there is some off-wiki evidence, the vast majority of evidence is on-wiki, which is why this has been proposed in public. A clear theme throughout the Committee's handling of the parties' relations is that complications ensue because the requests are off-wiki when the evidence is on-wiki. I don't think that we should continue that pattern. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, Praxidicae should have used different words than "This includes" as these may seem to imply that doxxing was part of behavior "from Ritchie", which, as far as I can see, is not the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sarek's suggestion, I am fine with a probation or suspended topic ban if it allays some concerns. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

4.3.3. Interaction ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

NoonIcarus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

4.3.3. Interaction ban
- "The interaction ban between NoonIcarus and WMrapids is rescinded."

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]
- @Simonm223: the topic ban is a community sanction so won't be appealed here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Daniel above. Z1720 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (arbitrators only)

All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.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 comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355

DataCrusade1999

Valereee gave an informal warning in the results section. There is a consensus for nothing more to be done at this time. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:07, 8 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 DataCrusade1999

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBIPA

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

01:28, 5 May 2025: Showing entirely non-collaborative approach towards another editor, saying he will keep making reverts over "Islamist" vs "Islamic" and making accusations without evidence that the another editor is Islamophobic. He said: "First of all, please do not mention my name. I prefer not to engage with you, so feel free to proceed as you wish; I won't mind. However, I will revert any changes if I notice "Islamic" being used instead of "Islamist."" He added: "You can't insert your hatred of a religion in the article in this case the religion is Islam. DO NOT PUSH YOUR POV."
15:54, 3 May 2025 - Again, showing non-collaborative approach, assuming bad faith and making accusations without evidence. He said "You're violating NPOV by waging a religious crusade and giving the article a Hindutva tilt, so I suggest you remove yourself from this article altogether." He added: "please don’t respond to my comments. I might say something that you probably won't like. Let someone else handle this. I know you’re not fond of me, and I definitely don’t want to talk to you, especially after the whole non-argument you initiated in the Islamist section."
15:42, 6 May 2025: Failure to WP:AGF and attacking other editors. Says "any objection is just about your ego there's no merit or substance in any of your argument." He added: "there are always individuals who raise the censorship flag when they feel they are not being given the latitude to spread misleading information or impose their point of view on readers."
12:27, 24 May 2025: Totally disregarding WP:RS. Creates a false balance between "Indian and Pakistani sources" and reliable American news sources over the India-Pakistan military conflict and proposes a retaliatory action by saying "I'll gladly help in removing NYT and WaPo from vietnam war and war on terror or any other USA intervention".
12:33, 24 May 2025: Continues repetition of his false balance by targeting "every conflict page on Wikipedia starting from USA waged wars or conflicts," only because Indian and Pakistani outlets cannot be used for stating facts on India-Pakistan military conflicts.
08:24, 25 May 2025 - Again creating a false balance between unreliable Indian media sources and NYT. Engages in WP:BATTLE by wrongly claiming that another user is engaging in advocacy of banning Indian and Pakistani sources.
11:09, 25 May 2025: Continues his talk page disruption by saying "please don't launch defense for western media houses" and "So western media hosues have shown regret? well that may be how you have perceived things but it's not the case for me." To him, retraction of a story is not enough.
11:27, 25 May 2025: Sticks to his wrong belief that the RSN thread is demanding "blanket ban" by saying "I don't buy your reasoning I'm of the opinion that this whole thread is about instituting a blanket ban but you're entitiled to your opinion." See WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT.
13:34, 26 May 2025: Makes an outrageous claim that "Both India and Pakistan are relatively free compared to Russia or Ukraine", when corrected, he doubles down with his claim, "Ukraine is under martial law. There are lots of things that Ukrainian press can't report most of the Ukrainian press coverage of war has been pretty biased".[1]
08:59, 27 May 2025: Not even trying to give up his outrageous belief that categorization of an article as "opinion piece" depends on one's own view. As such, he keeps rejecting the fact that this article is an opinion piece and is bludgeoning across the talk page to impose his view. Following diffs show issues with WP:IDHT, WP:CIR and WP:BLUD;

"I've said before IMHO RUSI analysis is not an opnion piece. But you believe otherwise and that's fine you're entitled to your opinion."[2]
"I've said it before and I'll say it again I don't think RUSI is an opinion piece walter has expert knowledge in this field."[3]
"This is your view and at best I can acknowledge it but nothing more than that."[4]

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): [5][6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@Asilvering: Let me make it clear, I started this thread but wasn't requesting sanctions on Datacrusade1999. I just found that their conduct at talk pages and noticeboard as being unnecessarily combative. Another user recently was topic banned mainly for their conduct on talk pages.[7] I'd be okay that Datacrusade1999 should be alerted about incivility and other WP:TPG ethics, given it is the first time they have been reported here.

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

This article is an opinion piece. It clearly says "The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution." A similar source written by a subject matter expert that was not tagged as an opinion piece yet was removed as it was deemed no different to an opinion piece on the article recently through consensus.[8] Pakistan and India are more "unfree" than Ukraine with regards to reporting of the events. Datacrusade1999 was already told that Ukraine ranks at No.62 at the Press Freedom Index, while India and Pakistan rank below 150. The difference is huge. While we have no doubt over the situation of Ukraine over the ongoing war, the same cannot be said for India and Pakistan. Experts believe that India is going through an undeclared emergency,[9] while there are those including the former PM of Pakistan who says Pakistan is going through undeclared martial law.[10]

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

The diffs about defending Indian sources in context of this conflict become especially egregious when you consider the fact that Datacrusade1999 was repeatedly referring to Indian sources as "partisan", "Godi media" for spreading disinformation in the context of this conflict,[11] and then suddenly advocates them on the RSN thread while trying to portray them better than the relatively freer outlets from western media and Ukraine while also misrepresenting the thread's motive. Wareon (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [12]

Discussion concerning DataCrusade1999

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

Statement by DataCrusade1999

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

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

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

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

I cannot and will not agree to something that I don't believe in. It's important to note that my opinion is not more valid than that of other editors. If a consensus emerges where my views or sources do not find support or credibility, I am willing to accept that consensus and make my peace with it. I have nothing against anyone, but if I see something that I disagree with, I will speak out. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

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

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

The filer says the editor held a wrong belief that the RSN thread is demanding "blanket ban". It was not a wrong belief. When asked "Did it mention any source we regard as WP:RS?", SheriffIsInTown, the originator of the thread, said [13]: "It raises a gigantic question mark on the reliability of Indian media and sources as a whole. That is why we are requesting that they not be cited in conflict-related articles." That obviously sounds like a blanket ban?

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DataCrusade1999

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

Diff by diff:

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

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

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

Regarding Wareon, however, I'm really quite unimpressed. They were the subject of an AE thread that only just closed ([14]), and which resulted in a boomerang for the filer. The situation is extremely similar: one editor is brought to AE by another without merit, for disagreeing that something is a reliable source. I'd be unimpressed by this filing at the best of times. This is less than 48 hours after a similar thread in "the other direction". For Pete's sake. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I haven't looked at the evidence in any detail (and will probably not end up doing so) but with regards to the "r"-word: my guess is that in the context the euphemism was used, it referred to "racism". See the comment they were replying to, which had already been described as racist in the comment immediately above DataCrusader's comment. Abecedare (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That too would be far better than the usual meaning. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the filer isn't seeking sanctions but instead a warning and since the admins replying here aren't suggesting a topic ban or block maybe this discussion can be closed with an outcome of a serious caution provided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, as I agree with Liz that we don't really need a sanction here, but for both Wareon and DataCrusade1999: whether US sources are used on articles about US conflicts, etc., is completely irrelevant at a particular IPA article talk. DC1999, you're free to make this argument at RSN, though it isn't a particularly strong argument there either, but using it at an IPA article is just irrelevant; your beef isn't with the editors at that article but with the editors at RSN. Wareon, if someone makes that kind of argument at an IPA article, the best response is something along the lines of "US media coverage of the Vietnam war is irrelevant here." And DC1999, continuing to make such arguments at an article talk may be seen as disruptive. Valereee (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

14.5.2025 YFNS denies at FTN that she was not using a "fringe organisation" argument to disqualify a source, though she
11.5.2025 clearly did.
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.
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.
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.
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:

1.6.2025 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]
2.2.2025 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

3.3.2023 Topic-banned from GENSEX (indef appealable after 6 months)
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)

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Samuelshraga's statement contains 1065 words and exceeds the 900-word limit.

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[15] to a past discussion with me[16], 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[17][18], 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

[19]

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.

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[20]) 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[21], 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[22]), 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[23]

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[24], 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[25], 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.[26]

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 [27]

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[28])[[29]]
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[30] and re-review[31], and now again in May[32] (per the recent DYK hook discussed above) - dozens of repetitious settled arguments over months
- In VIR's latest diff[33] 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.[34] VIR and Sweet6970 participated in the talk discussion that led to consensus to keep the material[35] (And other editors told Sweet to not hound me[[36])
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.[37] 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[38]). The context was VIR putting her criticism of the BMA in an article [39][40] 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.

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.[41]

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. [42] 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”.[43]~~ 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.[44][45][46][47]

2. 83% desistance. Now, if one actually read the source being cited [48], 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.[49] 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.[50] 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.

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. Silver seren^C 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: [51] [52]

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: [53] 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 [54] and the subsequent discussion [55]. 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 [56] . 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 [57] 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[58], 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 [59] [60]. 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: [61]

Consensus at WP:RSN that it is not: [62]

Repeats the claim that the Economist article is an "anonymous op-ed": [63] 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 [64] 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]

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

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.
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.
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.
21 May 2025 Despite my NPOV notification, adds nonexistent "Suicide Terrorism" as LTTE's ideology which is entirely his own original research.
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.
24 May 2025 Adds a claim to Tamil genocide article without any citation.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Not surprised to see this here. I am surprised to see those two articles aren't ECP already. I'd page-protect, but as I read it this has to be for a maximum of one year, not indefinitely, so I'm not sure that's actually more useful than taking individual editors to AE. Would appreciate a sanity check from an experienced AE admin on that. -- asilvering (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You can protect indefinitely; it just loses its "special" CTOP status after a year (i.e., another admin could then unprotect without going through the formal appeal process). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ECP sounds like a fine solution to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)
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

[65] Blocked for disruptive editing (quite similar behavior) 2 months ago.
[66] Page blocked in January 2025 for one week, edit-warring
[67] 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)

[68]

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

[69]

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,[70][71][72][73][74][75] (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 [76] 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 [77]. 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 [78] 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 [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] 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]

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

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
March 4 2024 Adds misleading text describing a review explicitly not about ROGD as one into ROGD. Soon reverted per talk[85], where VIR tendentiously argued it wasn't "scientifically unsupported" with sources saying no evidence shows its real[86]
April 2024,[87][88][89] 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.
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[[90]], 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) [91]
November 2024 argues he's "painfully aware [following NPOV] is often unpopular, and often in the minority".
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[92][93]
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[94]
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[95], and that a review saying data shows it's rare (and likely overestimated) doesn't support that[96][97]
- 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.[98]
- Say the article should cite MEDRS that back up ROGD is misinformation (we very much do)[99]
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

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
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[100].

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[101]

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 October 2024 VIR insists that an LLM is reliable to translate Japanese because it supports his interpretation.
- He then doubles, triples, and quadruples down on this insistence.
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.
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:

[102]: 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:

[103] - the latter is worded to talk about "the article" but in a way that is clearly ascribing bad faith to its editors.
[104]: 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:

[105][106][107][108]

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

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

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

[111]: 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[112]. 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,[113][114], 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.[115][116]

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 [117] 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: [118] 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]

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.

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:

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.
I will be cautious when dealing with disputes and interactions, especially those involving sockpuppet concerns.
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.
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.

Procedural comment responding to asilvering I disagree that AE admins who decline a request are as INVOLVED as the admin who placed the block. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceFlyer

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

21:15, 10 June 2025 Deletion of the RfC proposal for dealing with this material by ScienceFlyer
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 May 2025 Changed the infobox to say the NRF has territory
1 May 2025 Part 2 of the edit
11 June 2025 Revert to restore the edit
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 ([119] 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: [120]

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. [121] 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.[122]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 [123] ... even though that's what he's adding to the infobox. [124] [125] His claim in a June 2022 source is contradicted by a December 2022 source months later as well, see relevant talk page discussion. [126] 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.

It looks like MyGosh789 started an article talk page discussion at Talk:Republican insurgency in Afghanistan to talk about sources at the same time that this complaint was posted at AE. Would TEMPO156 participate in that discussion? Have there been any previous efforts to talk about the source of this dispute? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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[127]. 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[128]. 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): [129]

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[130] 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[131] 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[132], but they didn't bother to join the discussion at talk.
Admitted to making reverts[133][134] but again no sign of discussion.
Another example where they are aware they are making a revert[135] but don't bother discussing at talk. There was plenty of discussion at talk[136] regarding the use of the "colonial" framing they reverted.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [137]

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

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[138].
Lots of minor edits where they update rankings[139].
They seem to make edits in quick succession and even get things wrong sometimes[140].
On March 16 they become EC[141] and immediately go dormant.
After a 1 month+ dormancy they suddenly vote on an super-contentious AfD[142] that is currently subject to off-wiki WP:CANVASSING [143]. 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): [[144]]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [145]

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:30, 13 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

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.

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

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

[a]

[b]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5