Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Samuelshraga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision

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

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

Added since filing:

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3.3.2023 Topic-banned from GENSEX (indef appealable after 6 months)
2. 14.6.23 1 week block for violation of tban

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

• 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.

Y 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[1] to a past discussion with me[2], 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[3][4], 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

[5]

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.

   Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's statement contains 970 words and complies with the 1250-word limit.

Y 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[6]) 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[7], 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[8]), 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[9]

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[10], 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[11], 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.[12]

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 [13]

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[14])[[15]]
• 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[16] and re-review[17], and now again in May[18] (per the recent DYK hook discussed above) - dozens of repetitious settled arguments over months
  • In VIR's latest diff[19] 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.[20] VIR and Sweet6970 participated in the talk discussion that led to consensus to keep the material[21] (And other editors told Sweet to not hound me[[22])
• 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.[23] 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[24]). The context was VIR putting her criticism of the BMA in an article [25][26] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Snokalok's statement contains 778 words and is within 10% of the 750-word limit.

Y 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.[27]

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. [28] 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”.[29] 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.[30][31][32][33]

2. 83% desistance. Now, if one actually read the source being cited [34], 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.[35] 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.[36] Snokalok (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Void if removed's statement contains 849 words and complies with the 850-word limit.

Y 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]

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. Silverseren^C 23:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  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]

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: [37] [38]

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: [39] 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 [40] and the subsequent discussion [41]. 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 [42] . 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]

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]

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 [43] 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[44], 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]

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 [45] [46]. 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]

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: [47]

Consensus at WP:RSN that it is not: [48]

Repeats the claim that the Economist article is an "anonymous op-ed": [49] 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 [50] 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]

• 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]

• Now that a ArbCom case is proposed, I think it's only fair to everyone that this AE request be paused pending whether ArbCom accepts a case or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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]

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]

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

• @Snokalok: I did mention bringing allegations of rhetorical dishonesty here, not above but at AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As Loki says, while the original submitter may just be wrong, Void if removed is pretty clearly misrepresenting their diffs. I see no reasons to sanction YFNS at this time, but I'd leave the question of sanctioning Vir open, if the rest of their editing on the topic plays out like it does here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sweet6970: if that's the worst BLP violation you've ever seen here, you are very, very lucky. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, extension granted to 1000 words; please use them sparingly so you don't have to request another extension later. Snokalok, I'm going to defer the extension request for now, but let us know after YFNS replies if you still have points that she or Loki hasn't raised. (You do still have another ~180 words.) A general reminder: while I don't mind considering issues related to the statement Void if removed made above, any broader concerns about him would need to go in a separate filing, per the new two-party rule. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Without yet expressing an opinion on whether we should, we are allowed to add additional parties if we want to. @SarekOfVulcan: Would that be your preference? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I worry merging that into this report would put us on the path to another trainwreck, though I don't have a problem with a separate filing at any time (including right now). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer to hear more opinions before making that suggestion, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thoughts on Samuelshraga's diffs:
  • 1/2: YFNS didn't deny invoking SEGM affiliation; viewed in context she's just saying that it wasn't fundamental to her argument, which is not an unreasonable thing to say.
  • 3/4: perhaps these comments could have been worded more precisely (especially since Samuelshraga seems to think they refer to him rather than VIR), but that's not a case for sanctions.
  • 5: we can debate how the wording of that closure maps onto the wording of WP:FRINGE, but YFNS's interpretation (point 1 here) is not out of the question
  • 6: again, she's mentioning SEGM affiliation but arguably not using it as the gravamen of her argument
  • supplemental diff: I'm not sure why you would assume this was intentional dishonesty; frankly I read your statement the same way at first.
• None of these are sanctionable, and when it comes to the natural imprecisions and ambiguities of talk-page comments, I think we need to assume good faith rather than imputing motives of rhetorical dishonesty. I will try to have thoughts on VIR's diffs later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Void if removed, could you be a little clearer about which particular sources/statements you think 6/7/8 misrepresented? You can have an extra 100 words. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• And thoughts on VIR's diffs. Given the two-way claims of dishonesty, I think it's worth going through these individually.
  • 1: not really sure why YFNS didn't take out the RAND source once she was informed it didn't mention the final report, but she did eventually remove it after someone else complained, and it's a complicated enough situation that I'd assume good faith. The diff is from March; this has since been discussed more thoroughly, so hopefully there won't be further issues with the RAND report.
  • 2/3: not sanctionable, per Loki
  • 4: does not describe any BLP as a conversion therapist. If I were VIR I would just strike this.
  • 5: content dispute
  • 6/7/8: I understand why VIR sees major policy problems with connecting the "desistance myth" phrasing (in boldface no less) to the older studies/80% figure on the basis of only the Kennedy article and Karrington review. I also recognize that discussion about this has consistently not gone VIR's way. I struggle to see a role for AE here, although I'd be interested to hear other admins' takes.
  • 9: apologized for
  • 10/15: I don't consider the FRINGE interpretation issues a conduct matter
  • 11: I agree with Loki this could have been handled better, although it was eventually revised with YFNS's agreement
  • 12: understandable given YFNS's explanation
  • 13: "bigoted quack" wasn't really necessary, but this was over a year ago
  • 14: describing the corresponding author as having led the study is so minor I wonder why it was brought here

I don't think any of this warrants a sanction for YFNS. Assuming diff 4 was just misread, I'm not convinced anything here amounts to outright dishonesty from VIR, so I also would be reluctant to sanction him, although throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks is rarely a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I am heading out of town for a while and will not be able to participate further in this thread. I'm just going to abstain as far as the result is concerned; other admins are welcome to consider my comments insofar as they're useful, but please also note the responses to them from other editors above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'd view these types of variations in argument re: any given source as possible sealioning if it were all in the same article talk discussion, but I'm not sure making inconsistent arguments across multiple discussions in a variety of fora is really evidence of rhetorical dishonesty.

Also everyone commenting here should go read the draft essay at User:Tamzin/Arbspace_word_limits, paying special attention to the paragraph that starts And part of this is social and rhetorical advice: Using too many words replying to other commenters is not often a good reason for an extension. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970, re: Don’t you care that YFNS lied about the ‘far right’ smear on this page?, I've searched both "far right" and "smear", and both times came up with your own posts. Can you give me a diff/explanation to the lie you're talking about? We're at 9k here, it's not easy to follow the conversation. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)

1. 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.
2. 17 June Insists 3O is binding, creating a new status quo ante bellum despite 3O explicitly being non-binding and being told so multiple times.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [51] Blocked for disruptive editing (quite similar behavior) 2 months ago.
2. [52] Page blocked in January 2025 for one week, edit-warring
3. [53] 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)

[54]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  Closetside's statement contains 796 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

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]

@Tamzin In the first paragraph of the "In counterterrorism research" the viewpoint is explained and isn't fringe: Assaf Moghadam and a few other researchers say Palestinians who are willing to die in attacks on Israelis are motivated by the promise of rewards in the afterlife, that are described in "Islamic teachings" and various hadiths. Even now, the lede says There is a controversial position held by some counterterrorism scholars that Islamic terrorists are enthusiastic about dying in battle because they believe that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven due to the myth. While some others disagree, it isn't an overwhelming majority so the first isn't fringe. Saying a position is common isn't endorsing it - climate change denial is a common position that is incorrect. Nonetheless, I should have used controversial instead and attributed it to the counterterrorism scholars and its supporters in the West and Israel. Lastly, there seems to be a consensus that this is a myth and even though I disagree, I have no intention of editing against it now that it formed in the AfD as long as it holds. Closetside (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I also regret writing Muslim men, especially Islamic terrorists instead of just Islamic terrorists. It was a direct descendant of the Islamophobic tropes section, which only says Muslim men. I never implied that traditional Muslims support terrorism (indeed most believe terrorism is forbidden and thus the terrorists aren't eligible for martyr's rewards), similarly to citing the Amalek teaching in Judaism is not an endorsement of "Palestine is Amalek." Lastly, is there any action I can do for you to reconsider? I recommit to abiding by NPOV as I edit in the future and recognize that sentence is a violation, giving undue endorsement to the afterlife rewards position motivate terrorists. Closetside (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to @M.Bitton - the pot calling the kettle black. You baselessly accused me of wanting to "erasing Palestine" because I preferred Besor or Gaza. Considering you are disregarding policy to back your opinion, while policy backs up mine, this is unfortunately the most reasonable explanation imo. Closetside (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I probably shouldn't "retire", rather use wikibreak but that's not against policy. Lastly, I'm genuinely open to improvement - I'm a relatively new editor eager to learn. Closetside (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also formally withdraw my allegations against M.Bitton. Closetside (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Liz @Barkeep49 @Guerillero as well Closetside (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero anything I could do for you to reconsider? Closetside (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[55]

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.

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,[56][57][58][59][60][61] (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]

Closetside's timely "retirements", fake apologies and false promises are part and parcel of their usual system gaming (when facing sanctions). You'll notice that they are still casting aspersions (accusing those who disagree with their pov of being title warriors who are attempting to right great wrongs). M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, Tamzin, Liz, and Guerillero: after realising that a TBAN is imminent, Closetside went on a disruptive editing spree: initiating a POV RfC, recreating the exact copy of their last RM on the same article, and countless other edits such this one (essentially, removing again the content that was restored). M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

   Abo Yemen's statement contains 357 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 [62] 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 [63]. 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 [64] 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 [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] 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]

and they're back.... 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a topic ban on Closetside, and their "formal withdrawal" was made in an attempt to avoid the WP:BOOMERANG. This case shouldn't be closed without taking any action 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

adding a note for future archives that Closetside has deleted 90% of their original filing: [71] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

  Based on this diff, I reject the withdrawal of the filing and would like the boomerang to go forward -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No actionable claim has been made against M.Bitton here, just a vague wave to a content dispute and an out-of-scope discussion. Closetside, on the other hand, comes off as pushing an anti-Islam POV. The original version of "72 virgins" is pretty bleak. There is a common position that Muslim men, especially Islamic terrorists, are enthusiastic about dying in battle because they believe that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven due to the teaching is as weasely a sentence as I've ever seen. The body of the article only gets to According to some researchers the story of the 72 virgins promised to suicide bombers in paradise is a myth with no basis in Islam, and it is an Islamophobic trope in the second paragraph of the third section, even there downplaying the significance of that viewpoint. Obviously we're not here to rule on the merits of the article, but Closetside comes across as either unwilling or unable to comply with WP:NPOV in writing about such a difficult topic. I am inclined to TBAN from PIA, broadly construed as to include related topics regarding Islamic terrorism. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC), ed. 09:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC) to clarify[reply]
• I agree with the topic ban from PIA, both on the grounds above and that I think we need to start taking a firm hand against the use of AE as a means of harassment. That said, I don't think PIA gives us the authority to topic ban someone from the subject of Islamic terrorism in general; I think we could only do so insofar as terrorism which is linked to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this request as above (a topic ban from PIA for Closetside). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My reading of the "any other reasonable measures" wording at WP:CTOP is that we can exceed a topic area's scope if reasonable, and we've done this on occasion in small ways. But I'm actually not proposing that here, just proposing that we stress that topics in the Islamic terrorism topic area that relate to PIA (such as 72 virgins) are covered. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh also, I forgot to say above that I think we should use the "appeal only to ArbCom" option that is available to us in the topic area, as is usually my preference given the challenges presented by PIA AN appeals (and to a lesser extent AE appeals). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd definitely agree on the "appeal only to ArbCom" part, and I think the specific reminder you suggest is in order as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Void if removed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GENSEX and WP:ARBPS

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

1. Jan 2024 Removes all sourced material on how the GC movement 1) has fought against the criminalization of conversion therapy and 2) argues that affirming trans kids is conversion therapy
2. March 4 2024 Adds misleading text describing a review explicitly not about ROGD as one into ROGD. Soon reverted per talk[72], where VIR tendentiously argued it wasn't "scientifically unsupported" with sources saying no evidence shows its real[73]
3. April 2024,[74][75][76] slo-mo edit wars to remove a MEDORG saying several people involved in the Cass Review (CR) have promoted non-affirming 'gender exploratory therapy', which is considered a conversion practice.
4. October 2024 -He re-adds that only 12-27% of trans kids become trans adults based on an older source I removed/replaced with better MEDRS while trimming[[77]], 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) [78]
5. November 2024 argues he's "painfully aware [following NPOV] is often unpopular, and often in the minority".
6. January 2025 Argues on Transgender health care misinformation talk we can't say it's a myth that the data shows most kids grow out of being trans because "there simply isn't the data", restarting debate from #4. When consensus opposes, he restarts on the GA Renomination then GA Review[79][80]
7. Feb 18 2025 Argues that an RFC on trans pathologization is too broad and "some" kids are trans as a a maladaptive coping response to factors like trauma, abuse, homophobia (internal or external), bullying or other mental health issues, among classifying other FRINGE views regarding ROGD, GET, desistance, etc as legitimate.
   • This is not the first time he's argued this false balance between pathologization and mainstream medicine[81]
8. May 11 17:25 Acknowledges his views are in the minority on desistance, detransition, ROGD, and Gender exploratory therapy and he shouldn't "relitigate", proceeds to
   • argue we can't say the data suggests detransition is rare[82], and that a review saying data shows it's rare (and likely overestimated) doesn't support that[83][84]
   • 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.[85]
   • Say the article should cite MEDRS that back up ROGD is misinformation (we very much do)[86]
9. June 2025 VIR attempted to remove well-sourced content stating that the "living in your own skin model" is a form of conversion therapy, calling it just "controversial", trying to counter it without RS on talk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. December 2024 In an AE case filed against Raladic, administrators noted VIR's tendency to describe reasonable disagreements as "misrepresentation" or "misleading", sanctions were considered against VIR
2. September 2024 AE case against VIR closed no action, though VIR was warned to take on board admin/editor commentary (to drop the stick more often)

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

• See past cases

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's statement contains 744 words and is within 10% of the 720-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 720 words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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[87].

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]

@Seraphimblade not all diffs were sanctionable, they were to show patterns.

Diff 4 is the start of consensus being against his view of "desistance". Diff 6 is him raising it at the trans healthcare misinfo article with consensus against.

• At the GA reassessment, most comments are about desistance.[88][89][90][91] (in that one claiming it's controversial to say there's no evidence people turn trans from mental illness)[92][93][94][95]
• At the second GA[96][97][98]

Diff 8's subdiffs are him repeating the desistance discussion again on talk. It would take many more diffs to show the extent to which he won't DROPTHESTICK on ROGD, detransition, and associated topics.

It's not multiple content disputes, but pushing the same few fringe theories in all venues as he acknowledges consensus disagrees. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade requesting 50 words to provide context for VIR's claim I "exaggerated the scope of the Supreme Court ruling" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified[99]

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.

   Void if removed's statement contains 500 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]

@Seraphimblade Thank you for the analysis - I would like to respond to your comments on the diffs on translation and sexual orientation. I think there is additional context. Void if removed (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Seraphimblade The google translated quote was added to Cass Review by Raladic after YFNS posted it on talk.

On Puberty Blocker I replaced a similar quote with a summary. Raladic reverted, because "caution" didn't appear in a (machine translation of) the text. At this diff I was disputing Raladic's reason for reverting, because machine translations aren't authoritative and that is why I wanted to avoid a quote.

The whole exchange across two pages is my arguing against directly quoting badly sourced translations after other editors introduced them.

I proposed a paraphrase instead of a quote, which got consensus on both pages and is still there to this day. Void if removed (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade YFNS exaggerated the scope of the Supreme Court ruling and claimed it was somehow WP:FRINGE. I asked for clarity, and got replies, unrelated to the ruling, all still reasserting that it was FRINGE. I made what I thought was an obvious reference to a widely reported, relevant line from the judgment, which I also subsequently quoted, to question how YFNS' bold assertion relates to what the source actually says.

And I'm still not sure why you suggest I need a warning for spending 2 weeks getting talk consensus to remove YFNS' machine-translated text after Raladic inserted it into a CTOP article. Void if removed (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar No its not. Void if removed (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   LokiTheLiar's statement contains 451 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

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

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

@Seraphimblade YFNS had already been granted an extension to 700 words on the talk page that she ended up not using at the time. Loki (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response to Void:

a) At no point did YFNS say that humans were sexually attracted to paperwork or anything similar. What they said is that The idea that the sexuality of trans people is determined by their assigned sex at birth is WP:FRINGE. Void's paperwork claim was a clear strawman at best.

b) Raladic's sourcing for her translation was ambiguous. If Void wanted to oppose it on those grounds, they could have. Instead they used machine translations to dispute the exact wording.

Loki (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Void keeps linking that diff, since a) the section along with the only direct quote in the article predates YFNS's suggested changes; b) more importantly Void still could have disputed the sourcing at the time instead of suggesting their own machine translation. Loki (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• [100]: 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:

• [101] - the latter is worded to talk about "the article" but in a way that is clearly ascribing bad faith to its editors.
• [102]: 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:

• [103][104][105][106]

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

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

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

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

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

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[110]. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade on reflection you're quite correct that my comment above is uncivil, and for that I apologise.

Not to detract from that apology, but the basic problem that YFNS cannot be relied on to truthfully report the content of previous discussions is a serious and ongoing one. I said very clearly to YFNS (multiple times) that her disputed argument wasn't the only one that she used.[111] YFNS linked to the discussion where I had said this twice, and characterised my argument as the opposite: he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM.[112] This in the context of an AE filing about misrepresentation of previous discussions to try and sway ongoing ones.

So while the manner of my comment was clearly below the standards here, I think the substance is relevant.

I'll also note that I was subject to numerous bona fide personal attacks in the YFNS filing which no admin sought to police.

All that said, I do apologise for the incivility. The fact that standards may not be enforced elsewhere doesn't excuse my not living up to them here, however frustrated I may be. I will endeavour to do better. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@user:Seraphimblade In regards to diff 2 the main point would be that a review titled "a PRISMA systematic review of adolescent gender dysphoria" (note the lack of onset) that specifically says that they changed the scope of the review because of the lack of evidence on AOGD / ROGD should not be described as a systematic review on AOGD / ROGD and to do so is a misrepresentation of the source. I'll note that the review says they changed the scope just above the cherry picked quote VIR chose to use so there's no way he missed it. There probably is a side point one could make about the differences between Adolescent Vs rapid but given the review did not review either because there was no evidence on either it seems rather mute. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that there exists a diff limit as well as a word limit. By my count VIR is now at 29 diffs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

@Void FYI diff numbers change whenever some diff links above you change, e.g. a different thread gets archived. It's probably better for you to just repost the links; I don't think replacing a number with a link changes the word count. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the personal attacks @Samuelshraga says were made against him in the AE filing. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given Seraphimblade's statement below that the AE cases should proceed regardless of if ArbCom take up the bigger issue at play, making a statement here. I've not been editing in the past 6 months as I had to take a wikibreak due to the mental toll it took on me, but I continued to poke my head in to read (it's hard to fully let go) every now and then. That being said, the irony is not lost on me that some of the points contended here by the report, are making some of the very same/similar points that I and others made about VIR's behavior in the AE request from last year - it indeed appears a lot of VIRs behaviors and action from then are just as applicable now and nothing has changed in their tendentious arguing or editing. Their history of saying variants of the same thing over, and over, and over and over (and having been rebuked every time by a large variety of editors across the different venues) trying to push the WP:PROFRINGE agenda of SEGM (an organization that has been marked WP:GUNREL at RSN in 2022) is far past WP:DEADHORSE. It is surprising that not more people have caught on to the WP:TENDENTIOUS nature and started questioning VIR's motivation, or whether he has an inherent undisclosed COI (the fact that the organization has cited him in in a paper that he tried to argue for inclusion last year as was found out during a discussion back then was ignored other than him being warned about COI) and how much time all these repeated discussions have cost the community at large. This repeated pattern of trying to defend the organization as if there were dragons at play that has been ongoing for YEARS at this point, so I ask AE to consider the cost that the community is paying for this. Raladic (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Without commenting on the substance here, I don't think we can very well reject a report like this for being retaliatory while also enforcing a two-party rule on each case—not unless it's a case where someone's like, trawled through the contribs of the person who presented evidence against them to find some unrelated minor violations, as with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive351 § Smallangryplanet (although that was subject-vs.-filer regardless). There needs to be some procedurally valid way that someone can say "I think this third party is in fact in the wrong", else we've essentially made WP:VEXBYSTERANG not apply to AE, which I don't think was ArbCom's intent in adding the rule. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd agree with Tamzin, and would actually prefer that complaints against third parties go on separate threads, else they just result in trainwrecks with everyone pointing the finger at everyone else. I'll try to get more into the substance of this request later today. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Also, I'll add, after starting to look at some of the related threads, I appreciate everyone's efforts thus far to keep within the word count limits, but will note that going forward they will be strictly enforced here. You can ask for an extension if you really need one to present relevant information, but if it's just to argue back and forth with other people involved, don't expect to get one for that reason.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• So, after reviewing this, here's what I'm seeing:

  Diff 1 ([119]) appears to be a content dispute.

  Diff 2 ([120]) looks to be a claim of source misrepresentation, but I do not see anything in the cited source stating that it is explicitly not about ROGD, and while the source doesn't say it is, either, three citations in it do mention it. I would need more specifics to find this to be a clear and unambiguous source misrepresentation.

  Diff group 3 ([121], [122], [123]) do indeed appear to be a slow motion edit war, but this is over a year old. I am not inclined to sanction for edit warring on something this stale, but would advise that this type of behavior not be repeated.

  Diff 4 ([124]) appears to be a content dispute.

  Diff 5 ([125]) is at most a mildly snarky comment; I would not sanction based on that.

  Diff 6 ([126]) is a discussion of a source on a talk page, which is a normal content discussion. There is a large volume of discussion on the GA-related subpages, so if it's asserted that Void if removed had some inappropriate conduct there, specific diffs would be needed.

  Diff 7 ([127]) was a comment and clarification of a position at a request for comments. That is a normal part of the RfC process.

  Diff 8 ([128]) is a comment on one's own talk page, for which there is considerable latitude. The other diffs in this group are content discussions of how best to present a source, and I do not see their connection to the talk page post.

  Diff 9 ([129]) appears to be a content dispute.

  There were also diffs presented by other editors. In the interest of brevity, I'm not going to list all those here, only the ones which are of some concern. The rest look to be content issues or discussion over such.

  In this diff ([130]), Void if removed states I am not a Japanese speaker, so I'm relying on machine translation.. Especially in contentious areas where context and nuance may matter a great deal, one should not rely on machine translation, and I am especially unimpressed with Void if removed's continued insistence on using those translations. That is especially true given that Void if removed (correctly) later recognizes that machine translations can even contradict one another, and are not particularly reliable, especially when nuance is of importance ([131]). I would, at minimum, want Void if removed to undertake not to rely on machine translation for contentious issues going forward.

  In this diff ([132]), Void if removed states Are you saying that it is a FRINGE position that human beings aren't sexually attracted to paperwork? No other editor had suggested any such thing, so that assertion is irrelevant and, frankly, bizarre. Similarly, in this diff ([133]), Void if removed again puts words in other editors' mouths by stating I'm sorry you dislike UK equality law. Again, no one had said that. It is not appropriate to put words in someone else's mouth, and that most certainly needs to stop happening. Respond to what people actually said, don't put things in their mouth that they didn't say.

• In conclusion, I would not topic ban Void if removed at this time, but given previous issues, I think a warning for inappropriate use of machine translation and putting words in other editors' mouth (while not responding to what they actually said) would be in order. I also would give at the least a warning to Samuelshraga for their totally inappropriate personal attack in this very thread, and I would consider more than that—if an editor can't even conduct themself appropriately at AE, I have little confidence in their ability to do so elsewhere in a contentious topic. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, as above, the word limits will be strictly enforced. As I would've given you the extension to respond, I'll give you the extra 220 words, but any more without receiving a further extension will be removed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (As a reminder to reviewing admins, if you approve an extension for someone at some other place than this request, please note that here somehow, either by using the template or just making a comment in this section. Not everyone will know about discussions held elsewhere.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd appreciate some additional admin input, but I know a fair few are rather burned out on this whole area. If anyone would like to chime in that would be great, else if no one does within a day or two, I'll close as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very much against giving any additional word extensions here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The google translate problem is not just VIR. I would generally warn everyone against the use of machine translations in contentious topics instead of just one person -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TEMPO156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MyGosh789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 1 May 2025 Changed the infobox to say the NRF has territory
2. 1 May 2025 Part 2 of the edit
3. 11 June 2025 Revert to restore the edit
4. 11 June 2025 Addition of source (blog post from The Organization for World Peace), which makes no claim about territorial control.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11 June 2025 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Fairly straightforward request regarding addition of factual errors. The first source cited (The Washington Post) says "The Taliban on Monday seized Panjshir province, a restive mountain region that was the final holdout of resistance forces in the country, cementing the group’s total control over Afghanistan a week after U.S. forces departed the country." The second source ([134] 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

[135]

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.

To address what I thought were the users initial concerns, I included an additional source noting how they were based in Panjshir. [136] 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.[137]MyGosh789 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [138] ... even though that's what he's adding to the infobox. [139] [140] His claim in a June 2022 source is contradicted by a December 2022 source months later as well, see relevant talk page discussion. [141] Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

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[142]. 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[143]. 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)

[144]

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[145] 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[146] 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[147], but they didn't bother to join the discussion at talk.
• Admitted to making reverts[148][149] but again no sign of discussion.
• Another example where they are aware they are making a revert[150] but don't bother discussing at talk. There was plenty of discussion at talk[151] regarding the use of the "colonial" framing they reverted.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[152]

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

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.

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

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

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

• A few general notes here. Generally speaking, I would expect that editors who make major reverts be willing to explain themselves upon request, but it generally isn't required to offer an explanation (beyond a descriptive edit summary) absent such a request. And of course, life happens. That said, it is indeed expected that editors who add maintenance tags to articles be willing to explain why they did so upon request as well, though generally it is better practice to ask them to do that rather than remove the tags as a first resort. I don't, though, see anything here meriting more than perhaps a mild reminder that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and so communication with other editors is a core part of participation here, not an optional nicety. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As there does not seem to be any appetite for enforcement action here, unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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[153].
• Lots of minor edits where they update rankings[154].
• They seem to make edits in quick succession and even get things wrong sometimes[155].
• On March 16 they become EC[156] and immediately go dormant.
• After a 1 month+ dormancy they suddenly vote on an super-contentious AfD[157] that is currently subject to off-wiki WP:CANVASSING[158]. 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)

[[159]]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[160]

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

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

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.

I participated in a discussion that any Wikipedia extended confirmed user could participate in as long as it was in good faith. As a newer editor, I was under the impression anyone could have a discussion about any topic. I did not make any changes to articles, only tried to participate in a conversation. Additionally, the accuser Vice Regent was cited for Serious Violations of Wikipedia Policy in Recent Edits, and reached out to me directly only because I am in opposition of this editor’s view. At this time, I am not going to defend my edit history (I will if I have to) because it should be irrelevant as I only tried to participate in a conversation, did not make any edits on any contentious topics. I am happy to have any further discussions you deem necessary. Thank you in advance for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfgauss77 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@newslinger For this reply, I used ChatGPT only to edit my response. I wrote a statement, had ChatGPT edit it, then personally reviewed and edited it and finally posted it. I understand that Wikipedia is a major source for that LLM, so writing a paragraph about a topic is just being circular. I did not realize that using it to edit work was an issue. I reviewed my ChatGPT history, and this was my only instance of doing this. Obviously I will not do it again, and deserve any sanction you feel fit for that infraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfgauss77 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@newslinger I have heavier family obligations that run from April-July. As an FYI, the US College Rankings are updates annually around end of August/beginning of September, I fixed what I found, and will revisit if there is a need to do so. Cfgauss77 (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• There is not per se a policy against being canvassed, although if it's a persistent thing it can be meatpuppetry, and a closer can downweight apparently-canvassed !votes. Furthermore, there are multiple plausible ways the user could have found the AfD other than through canvassing. I don't love the immediate dormancy and pivot upon hitting EC, but I don't think it's outright WP:PGAMING, so I'm not sure there's anything for us to do at this juncture. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to be clear, this complaint is about one edit that this editor made at an AFD? What sanctions is the filer seeking for this edit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 out of 505 edits being in the topic area is not a reason to impose sanctions. This filing feels very battleground-y from VR. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The central point of Vice regent (VR)'s request is the allegation that Cfgauss77 gamed the extended confirmed permission (WP:PGAME) because Cfgauss77 made approximately 502 relatively minor edits to articles prior to entering the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, which is subject to an extended confirmed restriction. The strength of this allegation depends on how constructive Cfgauss77's first 502 edits were and whether Cfgauss77's edits after entering the contentious topic area are compliant with policy.
  Cfgauss77, would you please disclose the extent to which you have used a large language model (such as an AI chatbot or similar tool) to author your comments such as Special:Diff/1295383228? — Newslinger talk 14:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cfgauss77: Thank you for your disclosure. Please be aware that, per the WP:AITALK guideline, LLM-generated comments in talk pages "may be struck or collapsed", and that comments such as Special:Diff/1295383228 are not appropriate in discussions. (LLM-generated content is also inappropriate for article edits due to these AI tools generally not being able to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.)

  I do want to direct your attention to your editing history prior to 27 April. Is there any particular reason you decided to stop updating university rankings after 16 March, which is the date that you accumulated 500 edits on your account? — Newslinger talk 17:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your response, Cfgauss77. As Wikipedia editors have no reasonable way to confirm your explanation, I am going to disregard the timing of your edits (i.e. what Tamzin noted was your immediate dormancy after accumulating 500 edits). — Newslinger talk 21:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, enough information has been presented for me to suggest a course of action. Inappropriately posting an LLM-generated argument for the first time is something that an editor would typically receive a warning for, regardless of the topic area that the discussion is in. However, the permission gaming aspect complicates the situation.

  Per Cfgauss77's contribution history, among Cfgauss77's first 500 edits, over 250 of those edits are updates to university rankings. These edits are rote in nature and involve either basic changes to numbers and links (e.g. Special:Diff/1276851335), or the insertion of near-identical sentences into multiple articles (e.g. Special:Diff/1280135170, Special:Diff/1280134926, and Special:Diff/1280134696). One of the purposes of the extended confirmed restriction is to help ensure that editors have sufficient experience before entering the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. Because Cfgauss77 made a large number of rote edits, Cfgauss77 did not gain the experience that would be expected of an editor participating in this area, which partially explains why their deletion discussion comment (which is also their first-ever discussion comment outside of user space) was problematic.

  To help Cfgauss77 recoup their experience deficit, I am inclined to revoke Cfgauss77's extended confirmed permission (as a standard administrative action) and recommend that Cfgauss77 reapply for the permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions (WP:PERM) after they have accumulated at least 750 total edits, including substantial edits that show constructive interactions with other editors. (The 750-edit threshold is simply the 500 edits normally required to gain extended confirmed plus the 250 rote edits described before.) — Newslinger talk 21:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cfgauss77, I would agree that we need to discuss your likely use of chatbots, and that you need to disclose any prior use of them. The appropriate use of chatbots on Wikipedia is "never", but if you've done that, say you have and then hopefully we can move forward from there. If you don't answer that, maybe we need to issue sanctions to prevent that going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Newslinger's proposal of removing ECP with reapplication allowed later is fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sweet6970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MilesVorkosigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GENSEX

1. 12 June 2025 00:27 [161] MV accuses me of lying on the Talk page of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. This was in a discussion about a source [162] At that time, the only source for the statement that 'Adult human female' was 'anti-trans' was this [163] by the National, which does not say that the slogan is 'anti-trans'.

2. 12 June 2025 00:31 [164] reverts my CT Notice on his Talk page with the edit summary Undoing bad-faith template abuse by anti-trans POV-pusher.

3. 12 June 2025 17:57 [165] refers to me as an edit-warrior.

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

CT Notice [166] on 11 June 2025 at 22:00.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

If you read the discussions which Raladic refers to, you will find that her accusations are wholly without substance.

James Esses discussion: I was correct, and successful in getting the wording changed. It is not wikilawyering to say that guidelines should be followed.

Only Raladic thought that these comments [167] were hateful and transphobic.

Serving a CT Notice is not intimidatory.

RW 16.1 is described as a counter-vandalism tool. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

response to Raladic’s post of 19:38 19 June 2025: Raladic has not interpreted the discussion correctly. She should not make unfounded statements about my motives. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[168]

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.

I'm happy to change the 'lie and claim that policy says two sources are needed' to just 'incorrectly claim that policy says two sources are needed', that's fair, I should not have assumed their familiarity with policy.

In fact, I'll just go do that now, it appears to be the forming consensus, no need to pause that until after the ArbCom case over edit-warring. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited - I misremembered the comment and quoted myself incorrectly. In any event, I've struck through the section where I assumed they were lying. Ah, and I see someone already noticed that. Please remember that I am not currently part of an AE case where uninvolved editors have repeatedly asked that people be more forthright and accurate when they make claims about what diffs say. AGF goes both ways, right?

@User:LokiTheLiar - The line from the source that made it stand out for me was "The group’s website says it aims to ensure the word woman “is retained to mean ‘adult human female’ only”. It adds: “2023 is the year of the TERF [trans-exclusionary radical feminist]”." Seems pretty clear how the subject of the article intends it to be taken.

But that isn't intended as a defense on your point about assuming bad faith.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Well, LokiTheLiar, the issue is less of MilesVorkosigan misinterpreting that source. The issue is, MilesVorkosigan telling Sweet6970: You’ve decided to pretend that there is some requirement for a second one despite how obvious it is. And thank you for admitting that there is no plausible alternative explanation, I appreciate it. [169], after Sweet6970 denies any such admission or pretense, in the next response MilesVorkosigan tells Sweet6970: Please do not lie about what the sources say, that just means everyone has to go read the link for themselves and you’re wasting our time. [170] Accusations of pretending and lying is assuming bad faith, which is an AE issue. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Berchanhimez: - not sure I quite agree because this incident seems relatively simple to understand and take action on, at this point. I think it should end in a warning not to assume bad faith. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Seraphimblade: That was basically what I was getting at. There is nothing immediate here other than a warning, and if the reported party ends up being a party to the ArbCom case, they're going to get either a warning or a more severe sanction anyway. I do, however, disagree with you that AE needs to take action in the face of a pending ArbCom case. You all deal with enough as it is, and if ArbCom is potentially going to deal with this topic area soon, you should at least be able to take AE reports related to this topic area off your plate (so to speak) until ArbCom determines whether they will be assuming such reports into the pending case. In other words/TLDR: You're fully right, and I wasn't trying to encourage anyone not take action here - but I just think you have enough to deal with as it is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as connected to the proposed ArbCom case. This is not a topic regular who's been involved in any of the protracted medical disputes over the last 18 months. Rather, this is a fairly straightforward case of incivility and casting aspersions in a contentious topic, and refusing to moderate or retract that behaviour even after being asked by an admin. Editors ought to be able to point out a statement is not adequately supported by a provided source without being subjected to this invective.

I think a reminder of WP:AGF and WP:NPA and an instruction to strike the accusation of lying would help ensure this editor displays the necessary decorum to usefully contribute to contentious topics in future. Putting a simple, short report over a straightforward display of unrepentant incivility in GENSEX on hold until a massive (still-hypothetical) ArbCom case comes to a conclusion is unnecessary, and IMO just risks further unproductive incivility. Void if removed (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesVorkosigan the statement was Please do not lie about what the sources say. Nothing to do with "two sources". Misrepresenting that here is not a great look, and doing so with obvious snark like I should not have assumed their familiarity with policy is just a continuation of the problematic incivility. Void if removed (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) While the wording chose by MilesVorkosigan was a bit strong, they apologized above for it.

As Loki already elaborated above, reading of the existing source supported the statement per WP:SKYBLUE.

Notable however is that Swee6970 has a history of taking umbrage with minutiae and has regularly used it for WP:WIKILAWYERING in very similar ways - instead of just opening google to grab sources themself, they instead will go argue against an existing source. While most AGF editors interpreted the words from Miles "about what the sources say" say to mean what do sources at-large say - another user - Helper201 fixed quietly, by adding additional RS that explicitly use the wording, which supports the notion that (again, not excusing the strong wording from Miles) indeed, sweet was incorrect. The fact that Helper201 added the sources should have been the end of the saga. Note that those sources were added before this AE report was even made.

Other good examples of Sweet's wikilawyering were this discussion, which they tried to have with many users until they eventually got the point. Or this one right below, including when a disruptive user popped up (there and in some other article) spewing hateful commentary and Sweet defended and argued that these hateful and transphobic comments were somehow okay, when I removed them in line with policy from my experience having spent a lotof time in WP:CVU dealing with disruption of the nature, including RD2 disruption with assistance from admins.

2) Sweet indeed has a history of weaponizing the manner/timing in which they post alerts to other editors they are arguing against with using the CTOP notice, in volation of the Template:Alert/first - Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor. policy.

They did the very same thing to me in July last year, after having already been in various discussions with me FOR MONTHS and knowing my history and awareness of the area. The timing of them posting this alert to my page was specifically done as a hostile act trying to intimidate me because I reverted an erroneous removal of them minutes prior.

Not only that, they doubled down trying to intimidate me by making up stuff as they went and saw I used WP:RW for the reversion and tried to accuse me of "attacking them" somehow because I used a maintenance tool to make my life as an editor easier as I explained to them in my reply - they never apologized.

So, I would suggest an informal warning for Miles to chose their words more carefully (despite having been proven right), but request a WP:BOOMERANG for Sweet6970. In retrospect, why I didn't file a request myself back then, I don't recall, but given that their behavior of nitpickery and weaponization of templates and wrongful accusations to try to intimidate other users clearly has not changed, I think it is entirely warranted. Raladic (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade - just wanted to make sure you see my statement, which I just made, a day after @Guerillero's statement to ensure you don't close this preemptively without taking the request into account. Raladic (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade - request about 50-100 words plz (so that the reply isn't over) - What I meant was, that Guerrillero's statement was made prior to my report, thus their own suggestion from then may not be the same anymore and they may reconsider themself (not having seen my statement yet) about seeing the similarity of problematic behavioral actions by Sweet then and now. Raladic (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@admins requesting extra 200 word extension please to correct false statement by Sweet above: You WP:WIKILAWYERered using MOS:NOLINKQUOTE as a false-pretense of your real motive, which was removal of all links to conversion therapy as was caught by @YFNS and the links were reinstated (and present today). You didn't care about the quotes, but used them as a pretext to not have the links at all. You know a movement may be on the wrong side of history when the United Nations Office of Human Rights and the Committee on Torture calls their practices out.^[1]Raladic (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think we can close this with a general reminder that civility is important and editors are required to AGF --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• AE is for dealing with immediate issues, while ArbCom cases handle longer-term patterns of behavior. So, I do not agree that any AE issues should have any "pause" due to a proposed ArbCom case; they are separate processes with different focuses. That said, in this instance I would agree with Guerillero's proposal, and hopefully everyone will be mindful of that and further action won't prove necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As a general note, I do read all statements in an AE request prior to commenting, but do not reply individually to them unless I have followup questions for the editor who posted it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I noted above, I'm not inclined to grant word extensions for people to argue with one another. If someone made a statement that evidence doesn't support, it will be disregarded anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]