Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#BabbleOnto

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite block for topic ban violations, see block log and see enforcement log

Administrator imposing the sanction

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I'm aware. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 My extended confirmed status was revoked for WP:GAME.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

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

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

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

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

Dear asilvering, it could be any edits, excluding good faith mistakes, that disrupt the Wikipedia articles, it could be obvious and major or hidden. Besides major and obvious ones, writing unsourced information, removing sourced information, disrupting a page to align with certain political agenda or POV. For sockpuppet, as I already referred in my case, I would gather evidence and as I did before I would create a report in the necessary board. In case of big disruptive edits I would ask for temporary or permanent page protection in ANI. I know my topic ban also covers sockpuppet investigations in AA topic area. Göycen (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC) Copied reply to asilvering from user talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Guerillero, Göycen already has an indefinite tban from AA, placed in June 2024. Topic ban violations led to a 1-week block in June 2024 and the indef block placed last month. One issue with their last AE appeal was that they did not initially mention the tban; this time, they do mention it in their second bullet point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping this can get a little attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I'm sure there's no written rules about consideration of more than one AE unblock request. I'd suggest to you that we'd be better off without an unwritten rule. We don't have such an abundance of AE admins that we can afford the attrition of multiple unblock requests, and this sort of appeal is not at all a review of the previous decline's merits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, TBAN already exists. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fair enough, @Firefangledfeathers. We're now at 2:1 on this, which isn't exactly WP:1AM, but I'll take my lumps. I Don't Like It, but I like leaving editors hanging for two weeks even less. Will have another look. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 28 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.

It sounds like this user has identified specific, concrete actions that he or she must refrain from performing in the future, and it seems from admin replies that the user has identified them correctly or close enough to correctly. I note that the user offers an informal arrangement rather than a formal topic ban, and at least two admins want a formal one. I offer this: A topic ban with an expiration date, one year, five years, doesn't matter so long as it is automatic and long enough for the user to have established a proven track record. That would probably be the smoothest scenario for all parties. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Will they be able to, though? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: In theory. In practice, eeeeeeh... Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Procedural comment responding to asilvering I disagree that AE admins who decline a request are as INVOLVED as the admin who placed the block. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am open to this appeal, but the topic ban from AA needs to be real and not an informal agreement. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just posting to prevent bot archiving; I'll try to dig into this more when I can. I don't want to see an appeal get archived without a decision actually being made on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I would agree with Guerillero's suggestion, an unblock with an actual topic ban from AA, not just an informal agreement. And a clear understanding that any further misconduct is likely to lead to the indefinite block being reinstated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the response, I'm withdrawing my support for an unblock. None of writing unsourced information, removing sourced information, disrupting a page to align with certain political agenda or POV is vandalism. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Göycen, sorry for the "pop quiz" questions after you've already written such a lengthy unblock request, but: can you explain a) what we mean by "vandal"/"vandalism" on Wikipedia, and b) what you would do if you spot an account/IP that you think is a sockpuppet? -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade, hold on, I think we can work with this.

  @Göycen, I'm glad to hear this about sockpuppetry, in particular that you understand that you can't deal with AA related sockpuppets while under a topic ban. Regarding vandalism, you say it excludes good faith mistakes, which is good. But it's very important to be aware that vandalism excludes good-faith editing of any kind. If someone is here because they are attempting to improve the encyclopedia, even if they are pov-pushing, removing sourced or unsourced information, etc, they are not engaged in vandalism. I asked the question about vandalism partly because you had previously given this as a reason for intervening in behaviour you found disruptive, and this is part of what led to your earlier problems. But the other reason I asked this question is because I hoped your response would also answer a much more important question, namely, "what does WP:AGF mean to you, in practice?"

  You don't need to respond - I have more to say here and I think we can work with this appeal, but I have to step away from this and I wanted to get at least this bit up so that your appeal doesn't close as declined before I make it back. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, back. I'd be happy to support an unblock with AA topic ban this time around, if you believe you can make a real, genuine attempt to change your relationship to WP:AGF. It looks to me like you understand the meaning of AGF perfectly well, but that you allow your assumption of good faith to drop far too easily. It's easy to AGF when people aren't doing things that look disruptive or like pov-pushing, but it's when they are doing that that it's most important to AGF. You don't need to accept bad edits and do nothing about them, but you do need to believe that they're bad edits made for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. That means engaging politely and helpfully with other editors, and only giving up on communication when they make it very clear that they're just here to trash the place. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Darkfrog24, if this editor ends up with a proven track record, they will be able to appeal the topic ban. I don't see any reason to make it time-limited, especially when all of us in support have supported with some form of "support, but..." -- asilvering (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Darkfrog24, yes? Why wouldn't they? No one's handing out unappealable bans. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support unblock, as the topic ban if followed should suffice and this editor seems to be sincerely trying. But Goycen, you really, really need to get clear on what constitutes vandalism before you revert anyone on any page as "vandalism". In fact, if you still believe adding unsourced content, removing sourced content, or pushing a POV is vandalism, you should not be reverting vandalism at all. I also want you to be very clear: if you see an AA edit that you believe to be a sock, you cannot report it anywhere, you cannot open an investigation, you cannot ask anyone else to open an investigation, and if an investigation is opened, you cannot comment. I know that sucks, especially when you're probably the expert in that sock. I have placed all of the food-related articles you've edited on my watch. Valereee (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Flavor of the Month (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sanction being appealed Banned from discussing American politics on any Wikipedia page for a period of one year by User:SarekOfVulcan for posting "excessive contrafactuals" on an article Talk page. (His words, not mine.) [1] Administrator imposing the sanction SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification Statement by User:Flavor of the Month [edit]   Flavor of the Month's statement contains 661 words and exceeds the 500-word limit. Review my diffs. I am fully prepared to back up every word I've said with sources that anyone, even the most rabidly partisan editor of Wikipedia, will agree are reliable. I ask that the ban be lifted for this page, so that I can prove my case. Sarek put me in a Catch-22. My defense is that everything I post is 100% true, but I'm not allowed to prove it -- because that would violate the topic ban. Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Also, if you haven't heard a particular fact yet, or if your favorite sources have called it a "conspiracy theory," perhaps you need to find some more reliable sources. The most notorious "conspiracy theory" that turned out to be 100% true is "Hunter's laptop is NOT Russian disinformation." That happened in October 2016. The FBI had already authenticated the contents of the laptop in 2015, but chose to remain silent. And we finally found out that yes, it was authentic .... 2-1/2 years after October 2016. Take careful note of the very, very careful timing. • Then there was "COVID vaccines are NOT safe and effective." • And "The COVID virus DID come from the Wuhan lab." • And "If you take the vaccine, you CAN get sick, you CAN die, and you CAN spread the virus." And there were many more, focused on politics rather than public health (so they're affected by the topic ban), all labeled as "right-wing conspiracy theories" until they turned out to be 100% true. You may believe that what I've posted are "conspiracy theories." To that I would respond, "Wait six months, or a year or two. Even your favorite, allegedly reliable sources won't be able to deny it any more." Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] They're not "conspiracy stories," and I say again, I'm prepared to prove every word I've said, with sources that even you will agree are reliable. But Sarek has put me in a Catch-22 here. I'm not allowed to discuss it, so how am I supposed to defend myself? Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Am I allowed to respond? Because Boasberg's starting point -- that district court judges can issue nationwide injunctions against the entire executive branch and are, therefore, the de facto co-presidents of the United States -- has, in fact, been reversed by the Supreme Court. [2] And if I may say so, Justice Barrett's smackdown of Justice Jackson was epic. Legendary. Several legal observers, on both left and right, have made the same observation. Boasberg's conflicts of interest are fully discussed in that diff, and the "appearance of impropriety" standard is well-known. Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply] I didn't say the left "applauded" it. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Legal experts on the left recognize that it was a smackdown of epic proportions, and that we've seldom seen anything like it before between two Supreme Court justices. [3] Here's MSNBC, since it appears you like that source: [4] Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] You were trying to make it sound as if they thought it was a good thing. Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply] Boasberg's starting point was, in fact, overruled. He can no longer issue nationwide injunctions against the president to prevent the deportation of dangerous criminals. Read the CASA, Inc. decision. I decline to engage in greater detail, since the topic ban is still in place, even on this page. So if you continue, please bear in mind that you're beating up a guy in handcuffs with duct tape over his mouth. Not very sporting. Flavor of the Month (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply] Statement by User:SarekOfVulcan [edit] Statement by MilesVorkosigan [edit]    MilesVorkosigan's statement contains 331 words and complies with the 500-word limit. The clearest argument against revoking the TBAN is the user’s own words. In response to being asked to not put their own commentary into an article, they posted *this*: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFlavor_of_the_Month&diff=1282562336&oldid=1282359864 Personal attacks, extreme NPOV, several different conspiracy theories, plus it is almost all opinion, not the claimed “facts”. The editor claimed that this diff shows they’re a MODERATE. And as SCOTUS said, clearly wrong on the law. I see no sign that they’ve learned to put less trust in disinformation and conspiracy theories since. We’d just have to go through this all over again. I would suggest trying to get a reputation for quality work in non-controversial subjects before appealing again.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] You’re just providing further proof that you are incapable of even *attempting* to edit with a neutral point of view. And confirming what I said about how much of your posting is editorializing instead of facts. The weird choice to bring up a “smackdown” (and lie that people on “the left” applaud it!) is more of the same. You are here to “win” for your ideology. We are here to write an encyclopedia. If you can’t even avoid such extreme partisanship an ANI, how could you be trusted as an editor? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Of course, you could not, which is why you lied just now and claimed that this video supported your (then) claim. Don’t assume people won’t check citations. Or when you claimed that SCOTUS over-ruled Boasberg. Misinformation like this doesn’t work as well on Wikipedia as it does on Twitter, people read the sources. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Right, as I said, you got two entirely different cases confused and are now appearing to admit that you knew this, and lied deliberately. If you can’t stop lying even while appealing a ban, then the ban should not be overturned. We are not here to be a debate club, or be “sporting”. We are here to write an encyclopedia and you have made clear that you Are Not. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by involved AndyTheGrump [edit]    AndyTheGrump's statement contains 288 words and complies with the 500-word limit. To be honest, I was always a bit unsure as to whether the reasoning given by SarekOfVulcan for the ban ('"excessive contrafactuals') had rather missed the point. The actual issue at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner wasn't so much the random 'contrafactuals' but the total failure of Flavor of the Month to acknowledge that Wikipedia policy is built around sourced content, rather than politically-motivated speculation accompanied by demands to disprove the same. What was supposed to be a discussion on content turned into an exercise in soapboxing, driven by someone with an obvious agenda, and an equally obvious urge to impute sinister motives on anyone who disagreed. Time and time again, we got the same facile because-I-say-so refusals to contemplate any evidence beyond that supposedly 'proving' their exercise in mind-reading. This didn't come as the slightest surprise to me, having already been on the receiving end of exactly the same thing on my talk page. [5] In my opinion, Flavor of the Month got off lightly with a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Regarding starship.paint's offer below to "engage Flavor of the Month on their talk page to explain what went wrong", while I can understand the thought behind it, I would have to suggest that this would very likely devolve into a discussion clearly in breach of the topic ban. I'd also add that even if such explanations were appropriate, they might be better coming from someone who hadn't just chosen to involve themselves in the Loughner content dispute at the same time. [6] Starship.paint is naturally as entitled to discuss such content as anyone else, but doing so while engaging with FOTM, topic-banned for their behaviour in the same place, seems less than optimal, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Acroterion [edit]    Acroterion's statement contains 119 words and complies with the 500-word limit. Since I reverted FOTM twice at James Boasberg [7] [8] I will recuse from the resolution, apart from removing FOTM's inappropriately placed response in the administrator's section and to remind them that they may not post in sections other than their own, and to limit their total responses to 500 words. I placed the contentious topics notices on their userpage after that revert, and I don't see that they have made any effort to take the notice seriously, or to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. That this conduct continues into this appeal to me confirms that the topic ban is necessary. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I've added a CT notice for Covid, since it has come up here. Acroterion (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (involved editor 2) [edit] Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Flavor of the Month [edit] Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by caeciliusinhorto [edit] The fact that FOTM spends nearly 100 of their allocated 500 words relitigating Hunter Biden's laptop, which has absolutely nothing to do with their behaviour on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner for which they were sanctioned, does not give a great deal of reassurance that they are not going to treat this topic area as a battleground. Especially given that, despite repeatedly making claims that they are just noting "facts" (e.g. [9], [10], [11]), and specifically making note of the very, very careful timing, all of the dates they give are wrong. The Hunter Biden laptop controversy did not break in October 2016 but October 2020; the FBI investigation into the laptop was not in 2015 but 2019. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by starship.paint [edit] I am going to try to engage Flavor of the Month on their talk page to explain what went wrong. It will be necessary to examine their past actions and I hope admins will grant that latitude despite their topic ban. Thanks. Disclaimer that I've edited James Boasberg before but I have never engaged with this user. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Alpha3031 [edit] Well. I haven't really interacted with our appealing editor nor the areas they have edited in, but I must say that if the dotpoints mentioned in their appeal indicate the next CTOP they intend to edit in, I'd expect it to be equally poorly received. BANEX covers the limited exception of discussing a topic for the purpose of appealing a ban. It does not mean that one should drop a... let's say "learned discussion or discourse", on how one is actually completely factually correct on a matter and it is the allegedly reliable sources that are wrong, while complaining about how one is not being allowed to prove it so. The intent of the exemption is for the appealing editor to make a case that they will not be disruptive in a topic area. Whether one is allowed to make a statement does not make commentary on how "epic" or "legendary" a "smackdown" is relevant (the editor is evidently aware of the concept of editorialising given this edit summary) and such comments are unlikely to engender confidence on one's likelihood to adhere to expected standards of behaviour, at least in my opinion, which is the actual matter at hand. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by CoffeeCrumbs [edit] While it appears to be true that sources did a poor job initially with Biden's laptop, I'm not sure how that's relevant. This is a good block as the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is intense. There's also more WP:SYNTH here than in a 1983 album; when FotM uses a reliable source, it's used to support or link to conclusions they personally draw and argue for. This is most apparent on the Zeitgeist discussion. By design, we don't connect the dots, but report the reliable sources connecting the dots. FotM may become a net positive, but while they learn how Wikipedia works, it's clear there's zero benefit to the encyclopedia from their involvement in WP:AMPOL. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result of the appeal by User:Flavor of the Month [edit] This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It's a sad state of the world that there is a large-scale (social) media landscape supporting these conspiracy stories. Flavor of the Month, I would recommend a website like groundnews to you which tries to find coverage from different political leanings. In the meantime, I do not believe you can constructively edit this topic area when you seek to right great wrongs using conspiracy stories. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I would agree with Femke. Flavor of the Month, I think you need to gain some experience editing in less controversial areas before you return to this particular contentious topic. I would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I agree, the editor needs significantly more experience editing before editing in this highly contentious topic. FotM, learn to edit by editing something noncontentious; other editors in those articles tend to have a lot more patience with newbie mistakes. Valereee (talk) 15:26, 6 July 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) 16:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anywikiuser (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 / WP:3RR

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

1. July 2-10 - 3RR vio to describe a form of conversion therapy as a "controversial treatment"[12][13][14]. Did not go to talk when asked
2. Jul 1 Removal of sourced material with forumy comments
3. June 21 - July 1 - 3RR vio to remove material about false claims about desistance[15][16][17]
4. June 2024 - Edit warring / 3RR at conversion therapy about gender exploratory therapy[18][19][20]
   • July 1 2025, puts similar material in again[21]

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)

• Warned for edit warring at puberty blockers June 2024[22]
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Jul 2 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Simply put, Anywikiuser has a long history of edit-warring in GENSEX to push WP:PROFRINGE content. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth I forgot about the 24 hour aspect. But I would character AWU's behavior as edit warring in violation of the spirit of 3RR - seemingly deliberately attempting to skirt it. Also, points 1 and 3 each have an additional revert I missed

1. For Zucker
   • July 1 AWU rewrites section[23], I revert noting talk, July 2nd adds it again[24] without summary, @Snokalok reverts, July 2nd adds it once again[25], I revert asking him to stop edit warring and take to talk, then he redoes the change July 10th with no intervening edits[26]
   • There was also a discussion at talk on the material I'd already participated in and I was not the only to revert his changes
2. The snarky comment isn't AE-worthy, this is mostly about edit warring, other poor behavior is additional evidence not the focus
3. Same issue as 2, skirting 3RR and I missed some diffs. After the June 21st edit[27] removing the note on desistance, makes 4 gnoming small edits to other articles the same day, before immediately reverting June 30.[28] Then he deletes the whole section July 1st[29], then he deletes a larger section containing the whole section[30]
   • Ie, he removed the same content he objected to one on June 21, once on June 30, then twice on July 2nd
4. That's 3 reverts in ~36 hours, followed by giving up, followed by reinstating the same change a year later. I don't think edit warring is acceptable if you just wait in between trying to push the same edit

Also, there was past edit warring at the puberty blockers article June 2024, so this has been a problem for a while. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anywikiuser not trying to get users you disagree with banned. - I am reporting you for edit-warring, for repeatedly reinstating content you want (usually without edit summaries) while ignoring editors asking you to use the talk page. And for, when you're up to 3RR, waiting and then going back to the same edits. Not because I disagree with you. The fact you're edit-warring to introduce FRINGE content is secondary to the fact that is unacceptable editing practice from anyone in any situation. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified

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.

My response to the allegations:

• July 2-10 "3RR vio" - this allegation is false. The 3RR rule is not to revert within 24 hours. I made only two reverts on 2 July, then made a similar but different edit a weak later. This is serious allegation to put on a WP:BLP article, especially as he ran his practice in Canada, a country where conversion therapy has since been made a criminal offence. I actually understand why some would see Zucker's methods as conversion therapy, but this is a complicated case because Zucker also supported gender transitioning for children. Instead, his methods are being proclaimed as conversion therapy based on primary sources.
• "Did not go to talk when asked" - The user actually said "See WP:FRINGE and the talk page" (emphasis added). It was not a request to have a discussion on the talk page. Even if it had, my earlier experience with the Conversion Therapy page in June 2024 was that the ensuing talk went absolutely nowhere.
• July 1 - This is simply an edit they disagreed with. Fair enough if the "forumy comment" was inappropriate.
• June 21 - July 1 "3RR" - this allegation is false. I reverted once, then made an alternative edit, and another to a separate section. As sources like the Cass Review and this one note, it is uncertain as to how gender dysphoria in children results in persistence/desistance.
• June 2024 "3RR vio" - this allegation is false. I reverted twice within 24 hours, then tried a smaller edit. The other edit I made to the page ("July 1 2025") was not until over a year later.
• "Warned" - The warning and alert came from users, not moderators. Any user can post such a warning, though it's not something I do myself.
• "push[ing] WP:PROFRINGE content." There is legitimate scientific uncertainty about gender dysphoria in children, hence why medical institutions have come to differing views in different countries. From my perspective, having seen UK medical institutions take a cautious stance, Wikipedia's coverage does not acknowledge the uncertainty, but it may appear different to users in other countries.

I'll lay my cards on the table: I think that trans people should be accepted in society and able to live their lives, free of harassment, discrimination and shame. I oppose the inflammatory politics of the Trump administration and have concerns about the recent UK Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act.

I'm more than happy to work with users who have differing opinions on the subject matter to me, but that requires flexibility and willingness to compromise on their part, not trying to get users you disagree with banned. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AWU's edit warring at Kenneth Zucker included multiple reverts with no edit summary (1, 2), and no engagement with the talk page discussion. When I dropped the CT alert template, I remember being surprised that he'd been around for years and thousands of edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@anywikiuser

Regarding Kenneth Zucker: By technicality it's not 3RR, but reverting three times without engagement or a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict is still edit warring in every meaningful sense. Additionally, they're not primary sources, they're two books and an academic paper, those are secondary sources. And lastly, according to the sources in the body, it's therapy the explicit goal of which is to make transgender children identify with their AGAB because cisness is directly seen as the preferable outcome. That's conversion therapy, flat out. Wikipedia is under no obligation to soften that.

Regarding desistance: Again, it's still edit warring.

Regarding conversion therapy: Again edit warring, and also this is such a false balance rewrite.

Regarding The Cass Review: The Cass Review is not a reliable source for anything but what The Cass Review says. That's why the entire global medical community outside the UK has openly rejected it. It cannot be cited for contentious or MEDRS claims, and it's not helpful for editors to take it as an indicator of what a page should say.

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

• Looking at the diffs:

  Point #1: First diff is 15:40 1 July 2025, second diff is 12:12 2 July 2025, third diff is 11:04 10 July 2025. This is not a 3RR violation. 3RR is "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Even if all three diffs were in the same 24 hours, there are only three, not more than three. While Anywikiuser didn't go to the talk page, neither did the OP.

  Point #2: The edit comment is definitely snarky and not really a good look, but I'm not seeing that a one off snarky comment not even directed at a specific editor is something worth bringing someone to AE. Just removing sourced content isn't against the contentious topic rules.

  Point #3: First diff is 21 June 2025, second diff is 15:00 30 June 2025, and third diff is 12:45 1 July 2025. So we have two edits within 24 hours, but the first edit is nine days previous, and there aren't four diffs within 24 hours, so I don't see the 3RR violation in these diffs.

  Point #4: First diff is 17:19 19 June 2024, second diff is 13:29 20 June 2024, third diff is 9:39 21 June 2024 which again, isn't a 3RR violation. The fourth diff is from 1 July 2025, so over a YEAR after the third diff. Still not a good thing to be edit warring, but it's not a 3RR violation.

• I'm not opposed to an informal warning to drop the snark, use edit summaries, engage with the talk page more (I do see they did some engagement), and stop reverting quite as much, but it's most definitely not a 3RR violation. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:18, 10 July 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

LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Chess (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

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

1. 05:35, 12 July 2025 Makes a WP:POINTy thread on WP:FTN arguing for a position he does not believe (and which it's not clear anyone believes as stated) specifically to mock it.
2. 16:56, 12 July 2025 Admits he's making the thread explicitly because he finds the position "absurd" and "McCarthyist".
3. 19:29, 12 July 2025 The full discussion, after being hatted because it was clearly not intended as a serious proposal.
4. 04:09, 19 February 2025 A previous time Chess made a similar WP:POINTy thread at WP:FTN to argue for the opposite of the positions he actually holds.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• I am not aware of any previous relevant sanctions.

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: [31].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Chess clearly was not happy with the RFC declaring SEGM a fringe organization, and it's his right to disagree with it, or with other editors interpreting it more broadly than he'd like. But he's now made two separate threads at WP:FTN on two separate occasions which have both been hatted for being disruptive. It would have been easy for him to simply ask direct clarifying questions instead of making, to quote Parabolist from the recent hatted thread, these obnoxious pseudo-swiftian fake proposals that try to make his 'enemies' look bad and waste everyone's time. I would like an admin to formally warn him to knock it off and WP:AGF. Loki (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Important context is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Paper co-authored by FRINGE org founder, which prompted this.

The February 19th diff was me asking a "direct follow-up question", which is whether being anti-trans is WP:FRINGE since the hate group status of SEGM was given as a justification for declaring it as fringe. "Not in scope for this forum" is an acceptable result and I think we need more meta discussions about what is in-scope at various noticeboards. That's why I keep trying to write various essays on the subject, e.g. WP:TITLEWARRIOR on in-scope arguments at requested moves.

The result of that discussion is recognition that a fringe theory must have a "body of knowledge" it is on the fringes of. That benefits the encyclopedia because in future WP:FTN discussions we can ask for the body of knowledge a viewpoint should be considered WP:FRINGE from.

As it happens, we now have an RSN thread saying that a source should be disqualified because it was co-authored by an activist. Ultimately, merely knowing the primary author of a study in question is nowhere near enough for them to not be independent. If it is determined to be so, then sources need to be re-evaluated across multiple topic areas, including multiple CTOPs such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, for one.[32] I was considering leaving a similar remark that "this would be inconceivable in any other topic area: we wouldn't start declaring US government sources as unreliable because of their affiliation with a group pushing WP:FRINGE scholarship", and thought maybe it's a better idea to create an WP:FTN thread. That was a mistake, and I apologize for it.

The thread itself was worded too sarcastically and indirectly to civilly explain the question I was asking, which is whether we should be designating groups as WP:FRINGE in an attempt to discredit authors affiliated with those groups. I would say the answer is "no", and that thread wasn't an appropriate way of answering that.

I've mostly ignored Parabolist. Most of their edits to the Wikipedia namespace since October of last year involve following me around to various noticeboards and telling people that I am on a crusade against people I dislike. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: That's an accurate summary. I don't have a good excuse and it was a bad decision. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parabolist: Does this have anything to do with the Wikipediocracy thread? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who hatted the WP:FTN thread ('per WP:IAR', though I'm fairly sure I could find a policy-based justification too), I'm presumably 'involved'. Frankly, I'm surprised nobody hatted it earlier. As to whether this merits an actual sanction, or merely a formal warning to stop wasting people's time, I'll leave that to others to decide, but since it appears this isn't the first instance, something clearly needs to be done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Chess above: The thread itself was worded too sarcastically and indirectly to actually elaborate on the question I was asking: indeed. Which is why it was a bad idea to start a thread in that manner. It shouldn't be necessary for contributors to read though absurdities in order to get to whatever point you are actually trying to make. Even with a clear proposal, threads in such places have a tendency to wonder off topic, and intentionally burying the intended topic is obviously liable to result in more of the same. In my opinion, such silly rhetorical stunts are liable to be counterproductive, to discourage participation, and to make people less interested in debating whatever underlying issue is actually intended to be the focus. In my opinion, what you started was a self-disrupting thread. Ineffectual, and annoying for those who expect threads from experienced contributors to have a point, and get to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been mentioned here, no, I don't follow Chess around. We're both interested in similar topics (GENSEX/PIA), and all I've done is notice that Chess has learned to do these sorts of bait discussions with no pushback. He proposes the opposite of what he believes, in a purposefully ridiculous way, trying to get a broad audience to go "Well of course that's ridiculous!" and luring people on the other sides of arguments into defending a strawman. It's genuinely insidious and time wasting behavior, in GENSEX and in PIA, and the fact that he's immediately jumped to "Well yeah, I did all that, but noticing it is being obsessed with me." is just more monkey wrenching nonsense. Sky's blue, grass is green, and Loki's final link to that discussion at FTN combined with this recent stunt should be more than enough to prove it. If not I can try to find more. Egregious stuff. Parabolist (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing these tinderbox topics need is a gleeful fire-starter; it's one of the worst kinds of WP:NOTHERE. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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