Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PerspicazHistorian

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Göycen

Göycen is unblocked. The AA topic ban previously imposed remains in effect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 19 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: Göycen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite block for topic ban violations, see block log and see enforcement log

Administrator imposing the sanction: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Statement by Göycen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

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]

Statement by asilvering

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

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

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]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Göycen

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

Statement by Darkfrog24

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]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Göycen

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

Procedural comment responding to asilvering I disagree that AE admins who decline a request are as INVOLVED as the admin who placed the block. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Well, if everyone else supports an unblock, I suppose I won't stand in the way. Göycen, I certainly hope you'll take on board the advice you've received here; "vandalism" has a much narrower definition than you seem to be under the impression of. Adding random profanity to an article is vandalism, but even an obviously POV edit is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 13 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]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this with an unblock (the existing topic ban will remain in place). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to get a response to my 6 July comment that would make me more confident in "support unblock", but right now I'm at "doesn't oppose unblock", so don't let me get in the way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anywikiuser

Anywikiuser, and other editors involved, are reminded that editors can be sanctioned for edit warring even if they do not breach an xRR restriction, and xRR is not an entitlement to revert that number of times. Editors are also reminded that it is generally expected that one will, upon request, discuss their objections after they make a revert. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Anywikiuser

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

July 2-10 - 3RR vio to describe a form of conversion therapy as a "controversial treatment"[1][2][3]. Did not go to talk when asked
Jul 1 Removal of sourced material with forumy comments
June 21 - July 1 - 3RR vio to remove material about false claims about desistance[4][5][6]
June 2024 - Edit warring / 3RR at conversion therapy about gender exploratory therapy[7][8][9]
- July 1 2025, puts similar material in again[10]

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[11]
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

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's statement contains 521 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

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

For Zucker
- July 1 AWU rewrites section[12], I revert noting talk, July 2nd adds it again[13] without summary, @Snokalok reverts, July 2nd adds it once again[14], I revert asking him to stop edit warring and take to talk, then he redoes the change July 10th with no intervening edits[15]
- 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
The snarky comment isn't AE-worthy, this is mostly about edit warring, other poor behavior is additional evidence not the focus
Same issue as 2, skirting 3RR and I missed some diffs. After the June 21st edit[16] removing the note on desistance, makes 4 gnoming small edits to other articles the same day, before immediately reverting June 30.[17] Then he deletes the whole section July 1st[18], then he deletes a larger section containing the whole section[19]
- Ie, he removed the same content he objected to one on June 21, once on June 30, then twice on July 2nd
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]

I'd like to note AWU's recent argument he doesn't know which sources can support an allegation of conversion therapy is novel. He never raised this issue before or with present sources. And Zucker has gone on record stating the goal is preventing "transsexualism" repeatedly... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:18, 14 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

Discussion concerning Anywikiuser

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 Anywikiuser

Anywikiuser's statement contains 550 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

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]

(moved from admin section) What sort of sources would be required to support treating an allegation of conversion therapy as a fact? My assumption would be that it would be either a MEDRS-compliant source, a criminal conviction or a disciplinary ruling by a medical professional organisation. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, while I mentioned the Cass Report in my earlier response, I haven't been using it as a source in my edits because it's unclear whether it meets WP:MEDRS. (Other than the review articles published with it, which are.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anywikiuser (talk • contribs) Moved from admin section, again. Please comment and reply only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (Anywikiuser)

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]

Statement by Snokalok

Snokalok's statement contains 177 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@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.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anywikiuser

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]
To me, the response by awu is not satisfactory, and does not seem to recognise that edit warring short of a 3RR violation is problematic. Instead, they indicate they've given up on discussion as one discussion was frustrating to them. Dismissing an edit warring warning because it didn't come from an admin is also not great. For the edit warring, I would think a sanction might be appropriate (WP:1RR limit?), or, if we see recognition here about how disputes should be resolved, a logged warning. In terms of pro-fringe pushing, is there on-wiki consensus that the Cass report is unreliable? Or even fringe? To me uninitiated eyes, the edits do not fall squarely into this bracket, but that might be because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the sourcing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass report is reliable for stating what the Cass report says. The issues with it are threefold. (1) its findings have been strongly and widely criticised, and not just by advocacy organisations, but also by clinicians and clinical bodies (2) Its findings have been misreported, eithe accidentally or deliberately, and misinformation about what the report actually says has spread into even other reliable sources (3) As even Cass herself has admitted, it has been weaponised by transphobic people and organisations against trans people. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to be the most recent one at RSN, and there is no clear consensus here on overall reliability, even though many urge caution. I don't see any closed discussions on the topic however. I don't consider referring to Cass as a sign of FRINGE pushing.

I'm a bit more worried about the 'living in your own skin' method as only possibly conversion therapy, but feel like the disagreement on the numbers on desistance, can be AGFed as honest disagreements. People are allowed to be wrong and make mistakes, as long as they behave within conduct rules. (Just fyi, AWU, 2019 is on the old side per WP:MEDDATE; more up to date sources may have come to an agreement that the numbers are not reliable). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need, at the very minimum, a reminder/informal warning for Anywikiuser (and anyone else involved; one does not normally edit war with oneself) that xRR is not an entitlement to revert that often, but rather a bright line at which edit warring has definitely become disruptive. Editors can be and have been sanctioned for edit warring even when they have never breached an xRR restriction. It is also generally expected that an editor who reverts should, upon request, be willing to explain and discuss the reason for their revert. And yes, the snarky edit summary, while not something I'd sanction for on its own if it's not a pattern of such behavior, should not become a habit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this request as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

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

Request concerning Chess

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

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.
16:56, 12 July 2025 Admits he's making the thread explicitly because he finds the position "absurd" and "McCarthyist".
19:29, 12 July 2025 The full discussion, after being hatted because it was clearly not intended as a serious proposal.
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: [20].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

LokiTheLiar's statement contains 569 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

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]

FWIW, this diff from YFNS is a great example of what I mean by simply ask[ing] direct clarifying questions, and so I don't believe it's disruptive at all. To be frank, I think many of YFNS's diffs alleging WP:POINTy-ness aren't disruptive, and in general that threads of the form X person on Y page has said something I disagree with. Who's right? aren't WP:POINTy. My objection is to threads of the form Should we do a strawman version of this thing I disagree with? (E.g. this PIA diff really is on the line, since the person it's about came in explicitly saying Chess had strawmanned them.)

That all being said, I do agree Chess has repeatedly strawmanned people he disagrees with outside just the context of WP:POINTy threads doing so, and originally had these diffs about that but removed them to keep this filing as focused as possible. Loki (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I came here to ask for a warning and nothing I've seen so far changes that.~~ IMO it's plausible enough that Chess thought we should not deadname that shooter to give him the benefit of the doubt: he certainly wasn't the only one arguing something similar at the time and this diff from Moneytrees suggests to me that he was being genuine. Most of the other diffs are great evidence of Chess repeatedly strawmann[ing] people he disagrees with, but I already wanted him to be warned for that, so more evidence of it doesn't change my mind. Loki (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also my longstanding opinion that GENSEX is too broad of a topic area, so if the admins here do want to impose a tban I'd like to suggest a trans or LGBT specific one. Loki (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees has convinced me on my talk page that a t-ban from LGBT issues would in fact be appropriate. Loki (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Moneytrees has been campaigning hard for much harsher sanctions than, I think, literally anyone else involved. Loki (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Chess

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 Chess

Chess's statement contains 2259 words and exceeds the 800-word limit.

Extension granted to 800 words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.[21] 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]

Thanks for the clarification. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parabolist: It seems unlikely I get a logged warning, but I'm getting out of ~~GENSEX-adjacent culture wars~~ everything regardless of what happens here ~~because of the reduced tolerance for disruption.~~ Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesVorkosigan: I thought I made it pretty clear I didn't have a good reason to violate WP:POINT and the most recent thread was inappropriate to begin. Sorry if that didn't come across in my response. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I didn't believe the thread was WP:POINTy at the time.

I think an indef WP:TBAN is a harsh response. I immediately apologized for my actions & recognized them as problematic when the proposal was to give a formal warning, because Loki raised a pretty good point despite being ideologically opposed to me. I probably should've listened to Parabolist earlier as well.

I'm not going to be posting more threads on FTN about SEGM, but I'd still like to write articles such as Hooker Harvey's.

Is there anything that would convince you to give a logged warning at this point? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Following up, is there anything you want my response to focus on? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Well, for the most recent one, I was tilted from the ongoing RSN thread and wanted to make a hypothetical comparison to the Republican Party per WP:NOTPOINTy. I wrote it very sarcastically because I was angry.

I obviously knew it was a questionable post at the time because I edited it 3 times over 30 minutes to "clarify" my thinking that this was hypothetical and not a real proposal to blacklist the Republican Party. [22][23][24] At that point I went to bed. Then I woke up and started arguing with people. It was obviously a bad decision.

For the earlier FTN thread in February, that one was entirely serious. Most scholarly sources recognize trans identities and gender-critical feminism isn't a mainstream branch of feminism. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Starting a wholly new discussion that presents itself as a modest proposal to in fact do those things is classic WP:POINTY behaviour. I'm aware. It was a really bad mistake made because I was emotional and wasn't thinking rationally about how my words would be viewed by others. I figured it out within a day of cooling off. That's why I started apologizing as soon as the WP:Arbitration Enforcement thread was started, because I was obviously in the wrong and I saw that even before the threat of a topic ban.

I shouldn't have started that thread and I am going to avoid doing it again. The action I'll take is to avoid editing while emotional, because I don't want to end up back here. Sometimes I draft out an angry post and wait a day before deciding whether to post it. This is something I'll do more often because it prevents me from posting hot takes.

I will also stop creating new WP:FTN threads because I am clearly not adding value to that noticeboard. I believed my post in February was beneficial, but it's clear the community disagrees. I would like to comment and gain experience with the process and expectations, so I don't make the same mistakes. This is something I can do with a logged warning, though I understand if you'd rather I didn't contribute at all. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Any reason it can't be a transgender-specific topic-ban? Both Moneytrees and Loki appear to be OK with that. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: If I am added to the GENSEX2 ArbCom case (4 editors including Moneytrees have called for it), will the GENSEX topic-ban prevent me from participating? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, EvergreenFir is an admin and according to their own words is uninvolved beyond self-identity. Unsure if they're objecting in their capacity as an admin or not. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Most of those involve me going out of my way to solve conflicts and I'd need an extension to respond in-depth. But out of the easy ones to refute:

Cass Review at RSN is useful because an admin at WP:Arbitration Enforcement#AnyWikiUser asked yesterday is there on-wiki consensus that the Cass report is unreliable? and cited that discussion.[25]
The "RM during an RM" in PIA was me working out a compromise with another user to try and resolve the interminable conflict on Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre.[26] Proposing compromises during contentious moves can make them easier to close and aren't disruptive.
"Starting an RfC w/o a WP:RFCBEFORE" was because two users were fighting and an admin told them to start an RfC.[27] I started the RfC for them to try and end the fight.
The NPOVN thread was to get a focus on policy for the Rafah aid distribution incidents -> Rafah Gaza Humanitarian Foundation massacres requested move, because editors wanted to correct for bias in sources. Nobody called the thread itself a strawman, EvanHallBear called an essay I wrote (WP:TITLEWARRIOR) a strawman directed at them.[28] It's not targeted at them: it's an essay I've written that is broadly applicable to the area and is the result of me spending years trying to get people to use better arguments at requested moves, and the essay was appreciated by uninvolved admins.[29] Also, that RM successfully ended on-time because I proposed a compromise wording of Rafah aid distribution killings in the middle of the existing RM that got wide consensus.[30]
The thread on "What definition of antisemitism should we require sources to have?" is my response to the WP:ADL and Times of Israel RfCs where editors accused both of making false accusations of antisemitism against pro-Palestinian protestors. I believe that argument was unhelpful at the WP:ADL RfC and distracted from the ADL's factual errors on other, more important topics. An explicit commitment that editors should not apply their own definitions of antisemitism was acknowledged by others as being potentially helpful.[31]

Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees:

"Trolling" = making a "based" userbox for me. Maybe my generation uses it differently than yours.
Consensus at the article was to avoid "they/them" or "he/him".[32] Some editors also agreed with the DEADNAME point.
Shifting "gender identity" up by a header level in the MOS is fair because it's treated differently than other forms of identity on Wikipedia in that we almost always accept it.
I try to take myself to ANI so admins can tell me if I'm being too abrasive. The first time with Locke Cole, Colin said I made accusations against Locke. The second time, I tried to avoid mentioning others and focused on myself. It's hard to have nuance in my framing when I'm asking an admin for help because I believe I'm starting to get overly heated.
I don't think it's a FRINGE issue for editors to assert "trans children should be aborted". That's a user-conduct issue. I don't want a list of FRINGE opinions building up.

All that being said, I respect your opinion because I've interacted with you in a variety of places over the past several years outside of this topic. It's hard to hear this from you.

If you view me as a net-negative I'm inclined to acquiesce to your view. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: Are you open to a time-limited topic-ban?

I don't feel strongly about "trans culture wars", as you've pointed out I haven't edited many of the articles and kept fighting with anti-transgender editors who I felt distorted sources. I do feel strongly about sourcing & policy which is why I'm quitting FTN for the time being. I should also be given a (time-limited) topic ban from FTN since I clearly don't understand WP:FRINGE.

Getting involved in "trans culture wars" is distracting me from the edits I care about and I'm now acutely aware I'm on thin ice. I want to get out of that area as soon as possible.

An indefinite GENSEX topic ban would prevent me from writing about gendered metaphors of colonialism in Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor or Hooker Harvey's (sexuality) or Bais Chaya elementary school shootings (targeted a girl's school), none of which are "trans culture wars" but are gender or sexuality related controversies/disputes. There are also transgender people/activists in Category:Succession box misuse tracking which I am working on cleaning up with AWB (I've made over a thousand edits towards that goal). Reviewing for "is this person trans?" would take my edit time from 15 seconds to 55 seconds. It also prevents me from cutting that category to 0.

I'd like the ability to make those types of contributions in the future. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked hard on Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor. It's the first article I've done on an academic paper. I don't view it as a trolling attempt and I was proud of getting outside my comfort zone by writing on something I didn't agree with until you said it was indistinguishable from POV-pushing.

I've spent the last 5 to 14 years wasting time and being harmful everywhere I go. I've spent the last 3 days feeling terrible about my actions and the fact pretty much everything I've done including conflict resolution, policy work, and content creation has unknowingly wasted other editors' time. You+many others clearly think I'm a net-negative across multiple areas that I contribute to and I don't see any disagreement on that, so I'm inclined to accept whatever is proposed. That's the standard I've believe others should follow and it's the standard I am holding myself to. I wish it could've gone differently, but at this point the die is cast and I just want the admins watching this thread to get it over with. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: There's ~~two~~ one pro-Palestinian (JDiala and ~~Bluethricecreamman~~, based on userpages) editors that are advocating against harsh sanctions, despite the fact I'm accused of pushing an anti-Palestinian viewpoint.

That is extremely rare for Arbitration Enforcement. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman: Sorry for misunderstanding.

For context, Moneytrees advocated that I should be added to the GENSEX2 case and many other editors agreed.

@Moneytrees: I was one of the people defending Nableezy.[33] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I wouldn't call it a "defense" to concede almost all substantive points in my first response and agree with Loki that I should get a logged warning.

It's more like throwing myself on the mercy of the court. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I never used the words "minor trolling" in this discussion. I'd prefer it if an admin got "substantively engaged" because I want this thread to end.

I feel like shit. Please put a bullet in the thread and get rid of it so I can move on. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Moneytrees seems to disagree, as they said Mia Khalifa (straight cisgender sex worker) was covered by WP:GENSEX when providing diffs.[34] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: WP:BROADLY says that any plausible dispute over the scope of such a topic-ban means I cannot edit. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

AndyTheGrump's statement contains 228 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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]

Statement by Parabolist

Parabolist's statement contains 231 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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]

@Chess: I have no idea what you're talking about? Parabolist (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this really doesn't end with a TBAN, it would at least probably be helpful to have a note indicating that the bar for disruptive behavior will be lower in the future. Part of the problem here is the the habitual pattern of trying to skirt up to the line of being disruptive, but not so egregious that it's worth bringing here. Parabolist (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

Bon courage's statement contains 22 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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]

Statement by jps

jps's statement contains 23 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I feel duped. I thought Chess was asking these questions in good faith. Above, it appears that was not the case. jps (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JDiala

JDiala's statement contains 109 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

While I don't support Chess's conduct here, and agree with other user's assessments that his conduct is a violation of WP:POINT, I am inclined to think a warning should be adequate. He did not cast a spell which forced other editors to participate in a frivolous discussion. The fact that the discussion went on is ipso facto an indication that the question being discussed (the fringeness of the GOP) wasn't a trivial one.

More importantly, I think sarcasm and understanding when it is and isn't appropriate is a difficult one for many people. This editor, to my knowledge, has no prior disciplinary history and is prolific contributor. JDiala (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

MilesVorkosigan's statement contains 48 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I find it troubling that 75% of Chess's response is 'But I had a good reason to violate WP:POINT and waste everyone's time' followed by an absurd slippery slope argument and then a random attack against another user. This is not a matter of being 'too sarcastic'.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

Simonm223's statement contains 86 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Considering this context I'm rather alarmed that Chess rather deliberately tagged me into the most recent of these disputes. I've been somewhat less active on Wikipedia in the last few weeks and, on those occasions I decide to log in, being immediately invited to fight with someone over one of these "Swiftian" thought exercises is rather disruptive. I did, at the time, make it very clear I had no interest in participating in that discussion but I do find the behaviour rather unnecessarily antagonistic. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YFNS

YFNS's statement contains 531 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

Within GENSEX, he has started other problematic threads that on retrospect are Swiftian:

He starts a discussion on Puberty Blockers without an RFCBEFORE and with a plainly poorly worded question [35]
He started a discussion on the reliability of the Cass Review at RSN[36]
- He says many editors in the transgender topic area believe it promotes misinformation and quotes me and Simonm noting false claims in the Cass Review. Importantly, he doesn't mention any of the RS we used for our claims.
- RSN is about use in context. He leaves out any context for how it will be used, to center on abstract reliability (which other's pointed out, calling it poorly formatted, POINTY, etc)
  - I will note, that editors who argued diametrically opposed positions at the FTN threads thought it was an unhelpful RFC

At these FTN conversations, he said we should debate FRINGE theories not organizations. Then when we had an RFC on if the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness [is] WP:FRINGE, he says Value judgements don't make a source WP:FRINGE[37] and This is just about banning bad opinions, in my view.[38], then strawmans that this means it's FRINGE to say autistic people are more likely to be transgender and we're trying to declare the NHS Fringe.

On a personal note, his POINTY behavior at the last few threads seemed targeted towards me. He accused me at ARBCOM[39] and RSN[40] of duplicitous behavior - arguing I said SEGM authorship wasn't disqualifying previously but did now. As multiple editors noted at RSN, I never said this, as the discussion he linked was about a journalist positively citing SEGM. Not members of or, as is this case, the founder of SEGM.

I maintain that if the only source for the content you want is a paper by the founder of a group we agree is known for FRINGE bullshit - you're almost certainly tendentiously editing WP:PROFRINGE content.

But this POINTY behavior seems to extend to PIA too:

He starts an RM during an RM[41] and RFC's without RFCBefores[42]
He started a NPOVN thread on Should we try to correct for reliable sources being systematically biased against Palestinians?[43]
- Those he pinged said he was strawmanning their arguments
He starts an RSN thread which puts forward as an option Wikipedia editors create or adopt one definition of antisemitism and determine if sources are abiding by it.[44]
- Which multiple people tell him is not for this board[45]

And we see a double standard with RSN discussions from when he likes or opposes a source. Cass is already an example of liking but:

He starts a thread on the Palestine Chronicle, opening with a laundry list of reasons not to like it[46]
Shortly after, he starts a thread strawmanning criticism of the Times of Israel[47]

I found all this by experience and/or searching for new topics he created[48]. From what I've seen, Chess has a habit of starting POINTY threads where he strawmans those he disagrees with. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

Moneytrees's statement contains 1122 words and is within 10% of the 1100-word limit.

Extension granted to 1100 words.

As an outsider: Chess makes the topic area worse for everyone. SFR warned him for a comment in the area in February, and Colin gave extensive advice post/warning in December 2022. Context; Chess has talked about "trolling" before. He apparently meant a different kind of trolling than starting time wasting conflicts, but it lines up the other way, doesn't it? Let’s see…

2022: There was a shooting at an LGBT nightclub. The culprit said afterwards that they were non-binary. Reliable sources indicated culprit had previously identified as male, was involved with anti-LGBT extremist movements, and made an unrelated name change in the past, calling this self-identification into question. Chess argued aggressively on the article’s talk page to keep the “deadname” of the culprit out of the article. His behavior seems to be less about making sure an NB person is properly represented and more proving how WP:DEADNAME can be twisted around. (See 1 2 3 4 5) Given his statements above and elsewhere, why should any of what he’s said be taken seriously?

Let’s get real. It’s tasteless, time-wasting trolling. Locke Cole and Chess argue on the talk page. Chess goes to ANI with the header “Locke Cole accusing me of being disruptive”. Both are essentially told to cool off. Colin then leaves his message; they had gotten into an argument at a GENSEX related RfC. Colin made a blunt but fair comment, and Chess accused him of trying to ban sources under WP:RGW. Colin correctly notes Chess must be careful in a CT. Please read Colin’s message; while long, it contains invaluable advice for editing in a CT. Note Colin’s points about “going nuclear”, making accusations, and titling of ANIs. Note Chess’s short response.

In 2024, during an RSN discussion, Chess accused editors, such as Void if removed, of “downplaying” the findings of the Cass report. Chess’s evidence consists of VIR removing a misunderstanding. Several editors of differing viewpoints unite against Chess here. His intent in the message seems to be to agitate others in the discussion. As VIR and Colin note, he doesn’t seem to really understand the topics at hand and rarely edits related articles– only discussion board arguments. I believe this is because Chess cares more about culture war-type fights and pushing his own viewpoint than making compromises. There are hardly any friendly, neutral exchanges with other editors in these discussions.

This behavior continues into 2025, where Chess starts the above discussions. Another argument happens, and he starts an ANI similar to the Cole one. Note the heading and Colin’s previous advice. I don’t believe him here. He is called out for a lack of nuance in his framing. Some of these could be actual questions, but his intent appears to agitate and divide editors. Now, look at what SFR warned for: Tewdar and VIR discuss, while Chess goes on about how it’s RGW to dismiss editors talking about how trans children should be aborted.

Don't warn. He knows what he's doing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that my initial comment was at 497 words)

@LokiTheLiar @EvergreenFir No, this is not minor trolling at all. See my comment on Loki's talk. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EvergreenFir I think you’re missing the dates; only two things I mention are from 2021. The rest is within the year. (anyways, it’s not about old dirt, it’s about demonstrating a pattern) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have further expanded at Loki's talk, although that has less to do with this particular topic area. Take of that what you will, or don't. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess, However serious you are in saying you view me as impartial, I do appreciate it; it is something I strive for and it's why I care about this particular case so much. I don't know how much you still feel about this all; feel free to take your time in making up your mind on what to do. But personally I think the best-case scenario for you is taking a GENSEX topic ban, refraining from editing anything "culture-wars" as much as possible, and never doing any sort of "bait-and-switch" posting ever again. Because actually I do think it is useful to have "contrarian" editors, and that they are necessary to prevent calcification among those in power and the house-POVs; it's that you have gone about it in the completely wrong way.

Beyond that, it's up to the uninvolved admins to decide on what should be done. Let's leave it to them. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A time limited one would not be proportionate, given the evidence presented so far. I don’t have any feelings right now on the scope of one, although I will point to my discussion on Loki’s talk about the “Decolonization” article. And it does not seem like this is confined to LGBT topics in Gensex. Otherwise I’ll reiterate everything I’ve said so far. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on the Khalifa diff, I thought it fell under GENSEX as the edit related to comments that resulted in her getting dropped from her podcast at Playboy; that seems like the a “gender related controversy”. But no matter; even if not in GENSEX, as Tamzin says, it is further evidence of disruptive editing around “culture-war” type issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for the extension grant) Asilvering, Seraphimblade, I think the GENSEX Tban makes sense; I think a trans only one is too narrow. Personally, I'm between two options; the first is an IPA + Gensex TBAN/general "culture war issues" TBAN, although I recognize implementing a "culture wars" Tban might be outside of what AE can do. The second is a disruptive editing AE block. I had forgotten about this earlier, but Chess was warned at AE (unlogged?) in 2020 for "vexatious" behavior involving an IPA filing, similar to what's been discussed here. Out of those, I think the culture war TBAN seems most appropriate, but that's also a pretty large area, so I can see an argument for keeping it simple with hefty sanctions but no block (like AC did for Volunteer Marek at HJP) or a full block because there's too many problem areas at that poing (like AC did for BHG and Laurel Lodged at Smallcats). The thing that's keeping me from choosing the former is that Chess's good faith has been called into question more than most of those who I just mentioned (maybe with the exception of LL). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is true @Loki; there have been a variety of views expressed and I've been the most open about harsher sanctions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Chess; Levivich/Nableezy/Nishidani/Tombah had "opposing" editors defend them at AE on various occasions. Beyond that; Blue seems to be more thinking about the Arbcase, while JDalia commented before IP stuff was discussed. Ultimately, we'll have to see what evidence is strongest in the AE admin's mind's. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

I don't think I'm involved here other than by dint of my self-identity. After looking at the comments and reflecting on my own interactions with Chess, I think Loki's initial suggestion of a formal warning is appropriate. Chess acknowledged his poor judgement.

Generally Chess' personal positions on GENSEX topics are fairly obvious and he can be snarky/blunt/rude/etc, but nothing presented here warrants wholesale banning from the topic. If this is the new standard, we have a lot more people to ban. We should use this sanction only for intractable cases and not for cases of minor trolling. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: If those has been with the past year, I would shift my opinion. But over 4 years? We've suffered much bigger assholery with clearer prejudice in the past. IMO Chess should stop the trolling/snark and say their thoughts directly. The warning would be to do just that (stop the snark/trolling). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

A procedural note that, despite the very misleading abbreviation, GENSEX does not directly cover sex. So I don't see anything in Hooker Harvey's that would prevent Chess from improving it if GENSEX-TBANned. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Then I respectfully disagree with @Moneytrees. I don't see anything about Khalifa that makes her whole BLP fall under GENSEX, although the couple sentences about sex worker activism and discourse might be covered. That said, setting aside the procedural question of what falls under which CTOPs, I do think the Khalifa diffs count toward a general showing of issues on "culture war" topics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that BANEX probably includes a related ArbCom case, to avoid any doubt for the two people I TBANned from IPA going into WP:ARBIMH, I included clauses explicitly allowing participation in that case request and any subsequent proceedings. ArbCom then wound up issuing a limited general exception for all parties when they started the case. So both of those options are on the table here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

noticed this statement from the arbcom trans healthcare case request. [49], Participation of myself in the case is mooted by the AE thread which will likely end in my topic-ban. I concede/retract everything and no longer want to engage in this area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if its not too forward, perhaps punting to an arbcom case, with a tban/warning until the case, could be better? It seems a gensex2 case is incoming. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess, i have no opinion on the severity of a final sanction and am not necessarily advocating against Moneytree's suggestion.
I meant to provide context that there is a broader arbcom case request happening soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvansHallBear

Confining my comments solely to this discussion [50]. As Chess noted above, my accusation of straw-manning was related to his (since deleted) title warrior essay and not to the original NPOVN discussion. His characterization of my comments was definitely uncharitable, but I interpreted this as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum instead of straw-manning. While a more direct approach might have been better, this did ultimately cause me to reconsider my arguments. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallangryplanet

I've had bad experiences with Chess that I still find quite shocking, particularly in that they have not yet led to a t-ban. Chess is, imo, not someone who can be civil for long periods of time. In addition to the WP:POINTy behaviour detailed above, he has been consistently disruptive and WP:BLUDGEONy. I do not participate in GENSEX often, but I do interact with Chess in PIA. What I can see is a POV pusher who constantly acts like he owns every discussion he is part of, replying to pretty much every person with a different opinion from his own (mostly anyone who supports calling massacres of Palestinians as massacres), usually accusing them of, or tagging them as, SPAs, socks, and/or POV pushers, lately linking his own (now deleted) essay and acting like it is accepted policy. Some examples are here and here. He shares pieces defaming editors and alluding to a pro-Palestinian mass canvassing operation, but never opens proper cases. Some of those pieces border on WP:OUTING territory. It seems to me like he either expects others to get his hands dirty for him, or is doing these things to intimidate.

Chess' overall attitude has already been highlighted by multiple people, including an admin ([51]). Yet nothing has been done about it. I don't think a "formal warning" will do much at this point. He was already warned about filling groundless or vexatious enforcement requests yet he did that to me and another editor recently, knowing that the case would fail, just to be able to then use that as "proof" of Lf8u2 and myself being part of a supposed canvassing operation. He has been spamming every PIA discussion for months whenever any shoddy outlet talks about it, sharing zero concrete proof of various allegations, yet he uses them as justification to, for example, re-litigate RMs. We are talking about someone who has been here for almost 15 years. People with less experience are not afforded such grace. There is a limit to WP:AGF and I think this has been weaponised by Chess, as you can see in this discussion when someone expressing legitimate concerns is then accused of being obsessed with him. One can argue that I am not a neutral party, since I have been accused by Chess of being impartial, biased, a sock, a canvasser, etc. I have already talked about his toxic behavior in the ARBPIA5 case last year, well before those accusations. Nothing has changed since then. Even when I obviously disagree with others, I can usually find a level of compromise, and we can work on finding a common ground. That hasn't been my experience with Chess so far, and this seems unlikely to change, so I believe a t-ban for PIA and GENSEX is warranted here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chess

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

WP:POINT actually lists exactly this type of behavior (seemingly ridiculous proposals for something one does not really believe or want to happen) as a textbook example of disruptive behavior to make one's point. I think Chess has been around long enough to be fully aware of that, and as such, I would question whether his participation in the GENSEX topic area should continue. My answer is leaning toward "no", as the two "proposals" in question both wasted a substantial amount of volunteer time, and that is our most valuable resource. That said, since I'm proposing a sanction, I'll grant Chess an additional 300 words to respond. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, honestly, I'm not sure it's any better if you intended these as serious proposals. But really, why is it that you did propose them? Did you really think a major US political party would be wholly considered "FRINGE", or...what, exactly, was the thought process? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon what we've seen so far, unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I would close this with a GENSEX topic ban on Chess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some narrower areas have been proposed (and in fairness, GENSEX is a very broad area), to either transgender or LGBT related topics. Asilvering or anyone else, what would be your thoughts on a restriction like that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from @Moneytrees first (go ahead and take the 1100 extension). To half-answer the question, I'm not sure that narrowing the tban makes much sense when what we're hearing is that the issue is "culture-war topics". -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was along the lines of my thoughts too, but I wanted to get some more input before finalizing anything. I also think we tend to be relatively reasonable regarding interpreting GENSEX; it doesn't mean you're prohibited from editing about people across the board or anything of that kind, just on areas where gender/sexuality is actually part of a controversy or the like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Chess, that's... that's not what WP:NOTPOINT is about. It's saying that it's not pointy to say, in a discussion, "but if we did that, we'd have to do these other things". Starting a wholly new discussion that presents itself as a modest proposal to in fact do those things is classic WP:POINTY behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess you're nearly three times over your already extended word limit, stop posting. But to answer your question, no, a tban would not prevent you from taking part in an arbcom case. -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed some more of these diffs and poked around for others (to see if this is overblown compared to their "normal editing"), I have to say that I'm sympathzing more with @Parabolist's Part of the problem here is the the habitual pattern of trying to skirt up to the line of being disruptive, but not so egregious that it's worth bringing here. than @EvergreenFir's We should use this sanction only for intractable cases and not for cases of minor trolling.

@Valereee, I don't think the logged warning against starting pointy discussions will do anything more than this discussion already has done. I am also not sure that this discussion will measurably change Chess's behaviour, since it was the 14th of July when Chess said The action I'll take is to avoid editing while emotional, because I don't want to end up back here. Sometimes I draft out an angry post and wait a day before deciding whether to post it. This is something I'll do more often because it prevents me from posting hot takes. This action, I think we can all agree, has not been taken over the past five days. I understand that being the target of an AE thread is not a pleasant experience, to put it lightly, and I'd hardly want to judge someone by their worst moments. But I think we're well past warnings.

I don't have any idea how to tban someone from "culture wars topics" in a way that doesn't promote endless wikilawyering. We could at least hand out tbans for PIA and GENSEX as two particularly heated topic areas in which this kind of disruption has occurred. -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not substantively engaged with this report, but I find minor trolling incompatible with the expectation that Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia and Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced. So I'm a bit surprised that "it's only minor trolling" is what is being used as a defense here. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess let me reveal the extent to which I haven't substantively engaged: I didn't realize you started the minor trolling piece. I saw it from comments of Loki and Evergreen (and Money). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, [e]ngaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution... is an exception to bans. If you were not a party to the case, I think participating in it would be questionable, but if you are I cannot imagine anyone taking issue with your participation. Of course you could ask ArbCom yourself to be sure, but I know I wouldn't sanction someone for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a behavioral issue that isn't limited to a single CTOP, although it looks like GENSEX is the CTOP where it's most disruptive. I wouldn't object to a tban from GENSEX/a subset of GENSEX/some reasonable crafting of "culture wars" with the understanding it can be appealed after six months if Chess has avoided starting pointy discussions anywhere. But as an alternative solution, I'd also support a logged warning against starting pointy discussions anywhere. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thedarkknightli

No action taken. Involved editors should participate in the talk page discussion, and engage further dispute resolution if this reaches an impasse. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Thedarkknightli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Absolutiva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

18:51, 8 January 2025 helpful links (violates MOS:GEOLINK)
00:34, 31 March 2025 helpful links (violates MOS:GEOLINK again)
21:27, 07 May 2025 MOS:INFONAT
17:19, 25 May 2025 no consensus
10:37, 13 June 2025 MOS:INFONAT
10:43, 13 June 2025 no consensus that we should replace "Russian Empire" with "Russia"
16:59, 14 July 2025 no consensus

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thedarkknightli continued edit warring on infoboxes related to Vladimir Lenin and Vladimir Putin. They began editing contentious topics related to Eastern Europe while edit warring on Milla Jovovich infobox, then notified by ToBeFree as a contentious topic. Then later editing of biographies of Russian people and Soviet leaders for infobox purpose. The recent discussion for subordinate countries in infoboxes via Template talk:Infobox person#Subordinate countries in infoboxes. Other Arbitration Committee-related topics involved with American politics, and India and Pakistan both designated as contentious topic. Absolutiva 01:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is ongoing discussion on Talk:Vladimir Putin#Omit Russian SFSR from infobox. Absolutiva 01:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Thedarkknightli

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 Thedarkknightli

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Thedarkknightli

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

It takes (at least) two to edit war. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unimpressed that you brought this to AE in the midst of an ongoing content dispute for which both sides have reasonable positions. I'm more unimpressed that both of you are continuing to try to impose your preferred version instead of holding off until consensus develops. I recommend withdrawing this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discussion happening on the talk page, which is exactly what should be happening. AE does not decide who is correct in content matters. I would not take any action here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icecold

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

Request concerning Icecold

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Icecold (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: GENSEX

Diffs:

Icecold has been just sort of, crashing out at people for the last month over what appears to be the Graham Linehan page, and making no other edits beyond that.

Jul 16 2025 [52] Accuses other editors of being activist editors

Jul 16 2025 [53] ditto

Jul 16 2025 [54] Accuses editors of gaslighting because a consensus didn’t go his way

Jul 1 2025 [55] Accuses editors of prioritizing their own feelings over “facts” because consensus didn’t go his way.

22 May 2025 [56] Aspersions against pretty much every editor that disagreed with him in consensus, among other things accusing other editors of “stalking”

22 May 2025 [57] Personal attacks

22 May 2025 [58] ABF, personal attacks

22 May 2025 [59] Personal attacks

22 May 2025 [60] Aspersions

22 May 2025 [61] Admits to using LLM for his text while attacking other editors

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): [62]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[63]

Discussion concerning Icecold

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 Icecold

Icecold's statement contains 880 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

@Seraphimblade just to confirm I have a word limit of 800 in total?

I'm not allowed to respond to every allegation about me, due to the word limit, so I'll respond to the biggest attacks against me here.

I think the worst criticism of me is that I'm NOTHERE. I think this is completely wrong. This account is 19 years old, this isn't a new fly by account here to edit on one topic. I've made small edits on varying different topics, from cleaning up vandalism [64] to adding new news [65] to challenging incorrect facts [66]

So to accuse me of NOTHERE because of edits on talk pages about a contentious article is, in my opinion, disingenuous and casting aspersions on me for my reason for being here. People are also trying to criticise how half of my total edits are on the Graham Linehan talk page, I also think is disingenuous. I had proposed a change request and I obviously had to respond to people who were discussing that request. I've never been involved in a contentious discussion before, so it's clearly going to skew my stats. Pointing to this as evidence I'm only here for one thing, is trying to twist the narrative to get a result they want.

People are trying to link me with a now banned editor, to try and make me look guilty by association. I reached out to this editor because we were arguing for the same changes to the article, and I reached out for advice and to help build a consensus as they appeared to be more knowledgeable about Wikipedia process. No, I hadn't studied their edits and realised they were relatively new editor when I spoke to them. Other involved editors also posted on the banned users talk page and no-one is criticising them for doing so. The other accusation I stand by, I do believe, fundamentally in all aspects of life that any accused person deserves a right of reply, even people who have committed the very worse of real life crimes, so the failure of Wikipedia to allow a user to have one is imo a failure of Wikipedia process. I never defended the user from the ban, just their right of reply.

As for editors speculating on what I might do as an attempt to push for a full Wikipedia ban, you cannot punish people for what they might do. The only controversial article I've edited is Graham Linehan and its talk page. Despite what other people have said I will probably do, in the 2 months since my request was rejected, I haven't edited any other page, I haven't edited other GENSEX articles, or any other “culture war” topics.

Then my stalking allegations. I stand by them, it was clear to me that GP was constantly appearing across 3 talk pages to respond to me when they hadn't been tagged [67] [68] [69]. Once or twice could be a fluke, sure, but more, implies they were following me around. The argument that GP may have other friendly editors on their watchlists falls apart when we consider user Gazumpedheit, whom GP clearly disliked. Editors are defending GP and saying it's not stalking, but if I had engaged in similar behaviour to GP, that these editors would be accusing me of stalking. I was accused of all sorts, such as bludgeoning, when all I was doing was responding to people's arguments against my request, which I feel as someone proposing a request I had a duty to do.

I also stand by my comment that at least one editor was editing based on personal feelings and not following the evidence [70] [71]. One editor literally admitted doing this. If I had said something similar, it would have been brought up against me at this arbitration. That editor earlier got banned for admitting they were editing based on a personal feeling not based on the evidence. Reminding people of that editor's comment isn't a personal attack. I apologise for accusing others of arguing in bad faith, my biggest frustration was that I was asked to find various reputable sources to support my claim, I did so (finding more reputable sources for my claim than reputable sources on the article supporting the status quo), and then this was still denied. My proposed change also brought that article more in line with other equivalent articles that use my wording, so I was following precedent, but that was still denied. That says to me that the article wasn't being evidence-led, but guided by people's opinions, against wikipedia policy.

I'm summary, I don't really feel like a ban of any type is particularly needed, simply because I will voluntarily refrain from editing Wikipedia, especially on contentious topics, simply because this experience has been so unwelcoming and uninclusive, and having wasted time coming up with what I believe to be a solid editorial change suggestion only for it to be dismissed with not really any good opposing evidence. As my history has shown, I am very much able to go years without editing Wikipedia, it won't be hard for me to refrain from editing. I certainly think a whole Wikipedia is completely disproportionate for my first arbitration in 19 years of this account.

Statement by GraziePrego

GraziePrego's statement contains 486 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I think everything has been well covered, thank you Snokalok for starting this thread- I was strongly considering starting one myself about Icecold's behaviour. I would only add

this, where Icecold casts aspersions and personally attacks User:HandThatFeeds, describing them with " it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful". This is on top of repeatedly casting aspersions about HandThatFeeds in the previous discussion, the diff for that is already linked I think.

My personal feeling is that Icecold isn't going to move on from their previous discussion on Talk:Graham Linehan not going their way, and they are now going to reply in every single discussion that begins on that talk page to complain about a conspiracy of activists silencing their viewpoint. In my opinion, this is disruptive.

(Editing to add a little to my comment) I would be in favour of a GENSEX topic ban for Icecold, as their desire to work against "activist editors" is not just limited to Linehan's page, they believe it's a conspiracy that extends to other GENSEX related articles. I believe they will start participating in discussions on other GENSEX related pages making the same comments about how the consensus there is all artificially created by biased editors. GraziePrego (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my comments based on what Icecold has said so far. I think the fact that they can look at this diff where they called my editing "moronic in the extreme", and said "You argue in bad faith", and Icecold looks at that diff and denies that they were making personal attacks and just commenting on editing? Seriously? I'm not seeing much understanding from Icecold that they was being highly personal with their comments. GraziePrego (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icecold, which is a personal attack out of "your editing is moronic in the extreme" and pointing out that you were making an exhibition of yourself by:

bludgeoning one discussion,
going to remonstrate with those who disagreed with you on their talk page,
restarting the discussion immediately when it didn't go your way,
then going and remonstrating with the closer when that also didn't go your way,
and then making a second post on their talk page attacking them when they closed your first attack on them,
and then coming to my talk page to accuse me of stalking you?

To me, that is making an exhibition of yourself- and that entirely describes your *editing*, and is not an attack on you personally. I never accused you of behaving in bad faith- you made no secret of accusing everyone who disagreed with you of acting in bad faith, including me. GraziePrego (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

Icecold, while your account isn't new, I would suggest based on your limited recent edits you should be granted a bit of wp:ROPE that is frequently given to new users. The path you're on is clearly not working and at best it will result in a tban and possibly an outright block. I think at least an outright block could be avoided if you understand and agree to the following.

Do not comment on users (unless the statement is clearly positive). Many online forums draw the line at actually insulting people (exp: Editor Patel is stupid). Wikipedia's CIVIL policy is stricter than that. Suggesting someone's motives are other than trying to improve the content of the encyclopedia is casting aspersions. This means you should not suggest someone is "clearly a conservative/liberal/right/left/up/down/etc". It is of course acceptable to argue an edit might make a reader think the article is biased or that a source is biased and that negatively impacts it's WEIGHT etc. But just don't comment on the other editors as a person. If in doubt I'm sure the admins below, if contacted on their talk page, would help you understand where the limits are if you aren't sure about a comment.
Stick to the facts, not emotions. Yeah, sometimes it's naturel to think, "what the Belgium[72] is that person thinking". However, sometimes it's just our own failure to understand their perspective that is the issue. Trying to reach out civilly on user talk pages may not always work but I've been pleased how often it does.
Agree to stay away from the Graham Linehan page for a while. I would suggest 6 months or/and until you have say at least 1000 edits. The idea is to work on other parts of Wikipedia to show that you understand how to work with others. If you declare a self imposed tban, and stick with it, that will show that you are trying to avoid issues.

I think it you agree to the above and stick to it you should be able to avoid a formal tban and certainly an outright block. People around here can be quite forgiving if they see that an editor has understood and fixed a problem. Also, one more thing, don't reply in the admin space, just reply in your own section. Springee (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icecold, unless the admins say you need to reply to the other editors, you don't. Also, it seems that the admins are open to the idea of you stepping away from the Linehan page. It's not clear they would accept a voluntary tban but if you feel you can stick to it I would offer it. Do make sure you understand what broadly construed means - don't edit content about Linehan on other pages. Even if you get an article/tban, it seems like they are otherwise giving you the benefit of the doubt and just a warning to not do the same things in the future. Again, no reason to reply to the other accusations unless admins ask. Springee (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YFNS (Icecold)

Just want to note they were collaborating with and defending a user blocked for NOTHERE behavior and transphobic rants.WP:AE/Archive353/Gazumpedheit

In May 2025, IceCold went to User talk:Gazumpedheit to say (regarding Graham Linehan) , but it's clear that handthatfee... is a biased editor who has made up their mind to shut down all debate. I've tried to hash it out with them on their talk page, but it's clear that no amount of reliable sources I could provide will change their mind as they're pushing their own viewpoint on Wikipedia, which I think is pretty shameful. ... So I was reaching out to see if there's some way we can appeal in a way that doesn't allow them to shut down the discussion unilaterally, either through a RFC or DRN? While I would rather not lose the argument, if I feel like I've lost the argument fairly, by consensus, then I can take it, when it's artificially shut down by activist editors then I cannot take that lying down..

When the response is Hi @Icecold, welcome to Wikipedia of 2025. I'm afraid I can't have much to offer rather than to ping Void if removed for their advice, as a person who has far greater knowledge of the mechanics of Wiki than I. I would wager that Hand That Feeds owes you an apology to be honest, for their unqualified dismissal of your valid point

IC responded But yeah, it's very scary. In both the UK (due to the supreme court judgement) and the US (with Trumps exec order) the overton window is shifting to stopping the shutting down of gender critical viewpoints by calling them transphobic, but yet if you come onto wikipedia (or reddit), you're told that any criticism or worries raised is transphobic and bigoted. I've had gender critical accused of being the same as racism which is pure hyperbole. Wikipedia isn't representing society, and is clearly, on several contenious issues, just representing the opinions of a Wikipedia editors, like like how Reddit moderators enforce their opinions on their subreddits.

Gazumhedit once again pinged in VIR
IC responded I've just seen they've banned you without seemingly a chance for you to respond and then gloating about it on your talk page. Classy.

Followed by arguing Gazumphedit's NOTHERE block was unfair since they couldn't defend themselves [73]

Pretty plainly WP:NOTHERE and seeking to WP:RGW IMHO. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Icecold, you reached out to request help from a user who, it had been noted in the thread they replied to you in, made bigoted comments[74]

An editor who'd made less than 20 edits (not a good idea to ask advice based on that alone) and who you reached out to as the only person who agreed with you. You insulted other editors on their talk page.

And WP supports no right to reply. If somebody came on insisting that the truth of Aryan supremacy would win over the next few years, they'd be blocked. Not given a chance to explain why they said it (because the answer is bigotry). Bigotry is a no-go here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IC accusing GP of stalking over Gazumpedheit's page is particularly nonsensical. GP edited the page before IC did[75] so was presumably watching it, and gave IC a very neutral clear answer to their question about how blocks work.[76][77] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

The discussion which YFNS referred to at User_talk:Gazumpedheit#Linehan page, indicates that IC is WP:NOTHERE. It appears that they are here to engage in culture war WP:BATTLE. I don't see that a ban from Graham Linehan or from GENSEX more broadly is going to cease the disruption as there is plenty more in Wikipedia that editors can engage in culture war battle over. TarnishedPath^talk 02:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Icecold, I can tell you for a fact that it is not uncommon for GP to visit my talk page. We have overlapping interests and I would make a bet that they have my talk on their watchlist as I do with them. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Icecold

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

So, as appearing in order:
Diff 1 ([78]), comment on content, not editors. You're certainly free to disagree with other editors, but trying to assign bad motives to them is unacceptable. In many cases, reasonable people can disagree.

Diff 2 ([79]), same as diff 1.

Diff 3 ([80]), same as diff 1, and the "laughing" face at the end even more so. While again you are free to disagree with other editors, ridiculing them is totally out of line.

Diff 4 ([81]), same as diff 1.

Diff 5 ([82]), expressing frustration in one's own userspace, and users are allowed pretty wide latitude in their own userspace. Not as concerned about this one.

Diff 6 ([83]), criticizing someone else for contributing a lot is completely inappropriate.

Diff 7 ([84]), casting aspersions. If Icecold genuinely felt like someone was inappropriately stalking them, they should have brought that up in the appropriate venue, with actual evidence, to request action on that. However, it is not uncommon for editors interested in the same topic area to run into one another at more than one article. While one can tell other editors not to post on their user talk page, one cannot demand that another editor [l]eave me alone in general; that would effectively amount to a unilateral interaction ban.

Diff 8 ([85]), the nastiness and sarcasm is unacceptable and unnecessary.

Diff 9 ([86]), talk page discussions are open to participation by any interested editor; again, Icecold may not unilaterally decide that another editor should not participate. And, again, editors interested in the same area may have one another's talk page on their watchlist; that is neither uncommon nor inappropriate.

Diff 10 ([87]), while the use of LLMs is not strictly forbidden, disruptive behavior is, and in practice, LLM usage often leads to disruption. Icecold has committed to no longer doing this, so as long as they uphold that, this is again not as much of a current concern.
All that said, I think Icecold needs, at minimum, to be removed from the subject of Graham Linehan, as they clearly don't have the appropriate temperament to edit on that topic. I'll give Icecold an additional 300 words to explain why that shouldn't just be a GENSEX topic ban overall; as they're relatively new, I'd prefer a narrower restriction if possible, but not if that just means the disruption will get moved elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not relatively new. The account is 19 years old. The problem is that of their 261 edits, 100 are from 2025 and 70% of those are on Talk:Graham Linehan. This user is being disruptive and at minimum a partial block from Graham Linehan is needed. I would argue, however, that this is beyond AE and just a case of NOTHERE. I see no evidence that the user is here to improve the encyclopedia. I only see WP:BATTLEGROUND. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm applying "relatively new" in terms of experience at editing, not account age. There's a lot of fighting going on, certainly, but there seems to be at least some concern for article quality and reliability in with that, so I'm reluctant to give up any hope. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icecold, you are far over the word limit. Further responses from you will be removed unless you request and receive an extension (which at this point is unlikely), and there is no need for you to reply to everyone who comments here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a p-block from Linehan, certainly. If the problem recurs in other GENSEX topics, a tban. Icecold, you say I'm not allowed to respond to every allegation about me, due to the word limit. That is incorrect. You have plenty of space if you write short. Spit it out on the page, then edit it down to what's necessary. I could edit out a third of your statement easily. Learning to write short is extremely valuable here. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I'd say learning to write concisely is a valuable skill in general, and on Wikipedia in general, not just for AE. Whether or not I'm always good at it is a separate question.) I was thinking as a topic ban from Graham Linehan enforced by p-block but also applying across the project, since a fair bit of the disruptive behavior was on user talk pages and the like related to that subject. I think Icecold needs to step away from that subject entirely until they've gained more editing experience elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Icecold, a topic ban from Lineham means you cannot discuss him -- or anything closely related to him, such as his works -- anywhere on Wikipedia, including in talk pages. The only place you can even mention him is within an appeal of the topic ban. The reasoning behind a topic ban for a very inexperienced user is to prevent you from being disruptive while still giving you the opportunity to learn how to contribute productively by allowing you to edit in other topics.

I (and most other experienced editors) would advise editing in noncontentious topics while you learn. Arguing about the appropriate use of "gender critical" vs. "anti-transgender" in a BLP is a minefield even for highly experienced editors. And accusing someone of stalking you because they appeared at the talk pages of other editors you both have interacted with is evidence of your lack of experience. That is completely normal. I do it literally every day, and it happens to me regularly. Valereee (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants

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

Request concerning MjolnirPants

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Samuelshraga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MjolnirPants (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: American Politics (Also intersects with WP:GENSEX and WP:CT/BLP)

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

25.6.2025 MjolnirPants asserts that six sources Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic... GLAAD described a BLP as 'anti-LGBT'.
28.6.2025 MP reiterates I've already given you a whole list of sources. Additionally and relating to a second issue, flagrantly goes after another editor, explicitly casting aspersions on their motivations.
29.6.2025 After being asked twice to substantiate the claim with links to the articles, says Every example I mentioned was used as a source in Jesse Singal, and I had every expectation that anyone who disagreed with me would go there, first. Apparently, my expectations were too high.
8.7.2025 After I did go and check the sources there and didn't find the descriptions MP claimed, MP replies If you're trying to ensure I stop taking you seriously, that's a damn good tact to take. I dunno what to tell you. Maybe read the sources?

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

21.2.2019 I don't know how much of this user's block log is relevant and I don't understand all of it, but this indefinite block for personal attacks I would think is relevant.

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. This notice with reference to American politics. I don't know if MjolnirPants is specifically aware of the other CTOPs

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The key fact is that the sources listed by MP don't carry the claimed description 'anti-LGBT' (with the sort-of but not really exception of GLAAD, which as discussed in the talk page section includes 'anti-transgender' in an article tag). Given this was a discussion about whether to retain a description of a BLP as 'anti-trans', this claim was important to the discussion.

MP claimed another editor was ignoring this evidence (diff 2), and when I asked for the specific citations doubled down (diff 3 and diff 4). They since stopped responding on this issue, while continuing to engage in other parts of the discussion.

There's a separate issue of MP's tone and behaviour throughout the talk page section, of which diff 2 includes a fairly blatant example.

If MjolnirPants can substantiate the claim quoted in diff 1, that Slate, the CJR, The Economist, the Social Market Foundation, The Atlantic... GLAAD described [Jesse Singal] as 'anti-LGBTQ', I will of course withdraw this complaint. I have asked them to already of course. Otherwise I'd like them to answer for misrepresenting the sources.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [88]

Discussion concerning MjolnirPants

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 MjolnirPants

Statement by Sweet6970

Regarding MjolnirPants and notifications for Contentious Topics: On 11 June 2025 I started a new section on his Talk page headed Gensex, saying: I see that at the top of this page you say that you are aware of all D/S topics related to politics. Presumably this means there is no need to serve you with a Contentious Topics alert for gensex. [89] His response was to revert this, with the edit summary: No room for creeping on my talk page.[90] I’ve no idea what he meant by this. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

This seems like a simple misreading of the sentence? The only source he's saying uses the term "anti-LGBT" exactly is the GLAAD source. That's why the ellipsis is there. It's two separate sentences. And having only read the Slate article, I think you would be hard pressed to not say that the article paints Singal as anti-trans broadly. Parabolist (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I'll start by stipulating that I consider myself to be a wiki-friend of MPants, and I am not objective here.

That said, I've looked at everything in the complaint, and what I am seeing is a content dispute in a very sensitive area, where tensions are high, and nothing that the complaint attributes to MPants rises to the level of disruptive conduct. This is indeed a sensitive area (by which I mean GENSEX, although in this case it hits the jackpot by being intertwined with AMPOL and Trump), one where ArbCom is in the process of starting a case, so I can sympathize with editors on either side who feel slighted by comments. If you read the linked talk page section from the beginning, editors on both sides are to some extent talking past one another. Here is MPants' first comment there: [91]. Aside from the last sentence, which in context is a fairly mild request to read before posting, the comment is entirely one that is about sources and content, and that seeks to identify areas of agreement while arguing against disregarding reliable sources. As the discussion goes along, there's ongoing WP:IDHT from other editors, and MPants becomes increasingly blunt, it also looks to me like MPants is taking a position that looks like the consensus in the discussion, with Samuelshraga taking a partially different content position than MPants, and, as I said, MPants is not being disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MjolnirPants

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

I believe that the header on MjolnirPants' talk page clearly indicates awareness, so I would not consider that an issue here. Awaiting a statement from them before I go into this any further than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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