Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive356

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Closetside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

#2 June Per @Chicdat gaslights, POV pushes, bludgeons, and falsely accuses me of bludgeoning. Additionally, falsely accuses me of making irrelevant replies and ignores transliteration variants despite clearly being aware of their existence (Latinization of Hebrew and Arabic is not standard across the literature)

1. 3 June Denies Reuters' reporting is reliable despite WP:REUTERS because the Kenyan government didn't confirm or deny the report in their official statement.
2. 17 June Insists 3O is binding, creating a new status quo ante bellum despite 3O explicitly being non-binding and being told so multiple times.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [1] Blocked for disruptive editing (quite similar behavior) 2 months ago.
2. [2] Page blocked in January 2025 for one week, edit-warring
3. [3] Blocked for disruptive editing in 2015.

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

[4]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@Richard Nevell that was for 3O. This was for what I considered to be policy violations as opposed to a legitimate content dispute. I now understand that I shouldn't follow - even for ostenible policy violations. Closetside (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally 3O requires a neutral editor, following is ill-advised even if from the start the editor is not pretending to be neutral - like I was doing incorrectly. Closetside (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

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

All I can say is that Closetside (who is irritated by my !vote) keeps hounding and insulting me in order to provoke a reaction from me. This report from someone who edits nothing else but PIA articles, to push a nationalist pov,[6][7][8][9][10][11] (and many many more) is inline with the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the clarification Closetside. Based on the subsequent discussion at Talk:Political_status_of_Western_Sahara#Kenya's_position, it seems like there's more to M.Bitton's position than "Reuters is not reliable" and that they would have been willing to provide an explanation if given appropriate time (i.e. more than 35 minutes) and were asked collegially rather than with threats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BOOMERANG: Closetside's editing patterns are really concerning and nowhere near constructive. Apart from the probable WP:GAMING that Sean.hoyland pointed out, their edits on islamophobia-related content are... Islamophobic: They "created" the 72 virgins article which used to be a disamb page which clearly stated that it is a misconception and "is a pervasive Islamophobic trope in non-Muslim societies," but they ignored that and created that article and called that myth "an Islamic teaching." In this edit [12] they've removed the sourced sentence "In reports of this in Western media some of the Arabic words translated as "virgins" could be more accurately translated as 'angel' or 'heavenly being'." and pushed for their fringe theory as a fact. That is not to mention the fact that they've deleted 73,419 bytes from the Islamophobic trope article per... nothing [13]. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that they were WP:SEALIONING at Talk:Besor Stream#Discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a Hadith traditionally considered good by Islam is not Islamophobic, just like quoting Leviticus 18:22 is not anti-Semitic or Romans 1:26-27 is not Christophobic.
That wasn't the point, but there are no secondary sources on the hadith, no RS called it an Islamic teaching as you're claiming in that article, Despite the hadith's traditional acceptance stemming from its classification is WP:OR, and whatever the fuck "There is a common position that Muslim men, especially Islamic terrorists" is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the filer has retired from editing [14] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS Well then I still think that sanctions should be placed on them, just in case they un-retire again 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay so I've checked their userpage history and they seem to retire every time they get bored [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They also seemed to have previously "retired" when there was a case against them here: case, retiring message. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

adding a note for future archives that Closetside has deleted 90% of their original filing: [21] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• I continue to not have time for this issue, but whether or it's formally merged (as per Samuelshraga's suggestion) I do think responding administrators should consider this case in tandem with the previous case which was procedurally rather than substantively closed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there some unwritten rule that there has to be a complaint at A/R/E involving M.Bitton every week? We see the same names over and over again on this noticeboard, it just varies who is the filer and who is the accused. Is it possible to discuss your differences with other editors on article talk pages and DRN without seeking sanctions against them?Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The western sahara diff is outside the bounds of any CT and should be dropped. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GENSEX and WP:ARBPS

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

1. Jan 2024 Removes all sourced material on how the GC movement 1) has fought against the criminalization of conversion therapy and 2) argues that affirming trans kids is conversion therapy
2. March 4 2024 Adds misleading text describing a review explicitly not about ROGD as one into ROGD. Soon reverted per talk[22], where VIR tendentiously argued it wasn't "scientifically unsupported" with sources saying no evidence shows its real[23]
3. April 2024,[24][25][26] slo-mo edit wars to remove a MEDORG saying several people involved in the Cass Review (CR) have promoted non-affirming 'gender exploratory therapy', which is considered a conversion practice.
4. October 2024 -He re-adds that only 12-27% of trans kids become trans adults based on an older source I removed/replaced with better MEDRS while trimming[[27]], removes link to conversion therapy and most criticism of the statistic. On talk he argues tries to outweigh systematic reviews with claims from a CR report (which MEDORGS/RS explicitly called BS on) [28]
5. November 2024 argues he's "painfully aware [following NPOV] is often unpopular, and often in the minority".
6. January 2025 Argues on Transgender health care misinformation talk we can't say it's a myth that the data shows most kids grow out of being trans because "there simply isn't the data", restarting debate from #4. When consensus opposes, he restarts on the GA Renomination then GA Review[29][30]
7. Feb 18 2025 Argues that an RFC on trans pathologization is too broad and "some" kids are trans as a a maladaptive coping response to factors like trauma, abuse, homophobia (internal or external), bullying or other mental health issues, among classifying other FRINGE views regarding ROGD, GET, desistance, etc as legitimate.
   • This is not the first time he's argued this false balance between pathologization and mainstream medicine[31]
8. May 11 17:25 Acknowledges his views are in the minority on desistance, detransition, ROGD, and Gender exploratory therapy and he shouldn't "relitigate", proceeds to
   • argue we can't say the data suggests detransition is rare[32], and that a review saying data shows it's rare (and likely overestimated) doesn't support that[33][34]
   • Argue that inclusion of sections on ROGD, detransition, desistance, conversion therapy etc are uncalled for and unsupported on MEDRS, though we have MEDRS in there too.[35]
   • Say the article should cite MEDRS that back up ROGD is misinformation (we very much do)[36]
9. June 2025 VIR attempted to remove well-sourced content stating that the "living in your own skin model" is a form of conversion therapy, calling it just "controversial", trying to counter it without RS on talk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

• See past cases

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

VIR demonstrates a clear pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS/WP:PROFRINGE editing across GENSEX. He repeats arguments across multiple forums and misrepresents MEDRS/RS to push a constellation of closely related FRINGE povs pathologizing trans people[37].

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

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

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

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

• At the GA reassessment, most comments are about desistance.[38][39][40][41] (in that one claiming it's controversial to say there's no evidence people turn trans from mental illness)[42][43][44][45]
• At the second GA[46][47][48]

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified[49]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick response to Void:

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIR frequently assumes bad faith:

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

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

• [53][54][55][56]

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

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

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

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

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

Classic YFNS to populate the "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions" section with non-diffs showing non-sanctions. I'm sure the rest of YFNS' evidence holds up though, after all it's been a whole week since she blatantly lied about me at AE[60]. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not to detract from that apology, but the basic problem that YFNS cannot be relied on to truthfully report the content of previous discussions is a serious and ongoing one. I said very clearly to YFNS (multiple times) that her disputed argument wasn't the only one that she used.[61] YFNS linked to the discussion where I had said this twice, and characterised my argument as the opposite: he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM.[62] This in the context of an AE filing about misrepresentation of previous discussions to try and sway ongoing ones.

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

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

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

Hey could we kindly request some admin attention on this? The case against VIR is made, VIR has continued to edit GENSEX while not responding to this thread at all,[63][64], and now this thread is just devolving into User:Samuelshraga - whose own AE thread against YFNS above found absolutely no traction, to the point of being described by User:Extraordinary Writ as throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks - coming here and doing nothing but being unnecessarily disruptive towards her.[65][66]

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

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

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

I am particularly baffled by the supposedly ‘inflammatory comment’. This was in response to a comment by Snokalok[67] comparing the judgment by the UK Supreme Court on the meaning of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’, and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers) to a judgment by the American Supreme Court ‘that slavery was all fine and lovely’. This is truly grotesque. And Aquillion says that is a comparison that they are surely aware is commonplace. I have been following the media coverage of the reaction to the FWS case – I have never come across such a comparison, and I can’t imagine how Aquillion could think that it is commonplace. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This certainly looks like retaliatory reporting. I think the diffs presented by YFNS show that this user has engaged in tendentious editing themselves. To present gender exploratory therapy as "conversion therapy" in a wiki voice when sources diverge on the topic is not acceptable. For example, a major British MEDORG, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), strongly disagrees with such claim: [68] While one can debate which view represents the majority or minority opinion, presenting a contested claim as fact when there is ongoing disagreement within the scientific community constitutes POV editing. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Diff 1 ([69]) appears to be a content dispute.

  Diff 2 ([70]) looks to be a claim of source misrepresentation, but I do not see anything in the cited source stating that it is explicitly not about ROGD, and while the source doesn't say it is, either, three citations in it do mention it. I would need more specifics to find this to be a clear and unambiguous source misrepresentation.

  Diff group 3 ([71], [72], [73]) do indeed appear to be a slow motion edit war, but this is over a year old. I am not inclined to sanction for edit warring on something this stale, but would advise that this type of behavior not be repeated.

  Diff 4 ([74]) appears to be a content dispute.

  Diff 5 ([75]) is at most a mildly snarky comment; I would not sanction based on that.

  Diff 6 ([76]) is a discussion of a source on a talk page, which is a normal content discussion. There is a large volume of discussion on the GA-related subpages, so if it's asserted that Void if removed had some inappropriate conduct there, specific diffs would be needed.

  Diff 7 ([77]) was a comment and clarification of a position at a request for comments. That is a normal part of the RfC process.

  Diff 8 ([78]) is a comment on one's own talk page, for which there is considerable latitude. The other diffs in this group are content discussions of how best to present a source, and I do not see their connection to the talk page post.

  Diff 9 ([79]) appears to be a content dispute.

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

  In this diff ([80]), Void if removed states I am not a Japanese speaker, so I'm relying on machine translation.. Especially in contentious areas where context and nuance may matter a great deal, one should not rely on machine translation, and I am especially unimpressed with Void if removed's continued insistence on using those translations. That is especially true given that Void if removed (correctly) later recognizes that machine translations can even contradict one another, and are not particularly reliable, especially when nuance is of importance ([81]). I would, at minimum, want Void if removed to undertake not to rely on machine translation for contentious issues going forward.

  In this diff ([82]), Void if removed states Are you saying that it is a FRINGE position that human beings aren't sexually attracted to paperwork? No other editor had suggested any such thing, so that assertion is irrelevant and, frankly, bizarre. Similarly, in this diff ([83]), Void if removed again puts words in other editors' mouths by stating I'm sorry you dislike UK equality law. Again, no one had said that. It is not appropriate to put words in someone else's mouth, and that most certainly needs to stop happening. Respond to what people actually said, don't put things in their mouth that they didn't say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Fairly straightforward request regarding addition of factual errors. The first source cited (The Washington Post) says "The Taliban on Monday seized Panjshir province, a restive mountain region that was the final holdout of resistance forces in the country, cementing the group’s total control over Afghanistan a week after U.S. forces departed the country." The second source ([84] The Long War Journal) says "The Taliban completed its military conquest of Afghanistan and took control of the mountainous province of Panjshir after seven days of heavy fighting. The fall of Panjshir puts the Taliban in full control of the country and eliminates the final vestige of organized resistance to its rule." The third source (Voice of America) says "The NRF has executed hit-and-run attacks against the Taliban in some parts of Afghanistan but has not been able to hold territory." They added a source just now (the OWP, an organization I'm unfamiliar with) that does not make any statement supporting the assertion of a territorial hold on part of the province.

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

@Liz: Sure, always happy to talk more about it. The sources they were using say the opposite thing, and the Taliban takeover is pretty SKYBLUE at this point in 2025, so after my one revert and warning I thought I'd just come here rather than try to engage further. If you think that's warranted, I'll explain further on the talk page. TEMPO156 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MyGosh789: Yes, they have some fighters scattered throughout the country including likely in Panjshir who do hit-and-run attacks but I haven't seen anything to support the claim that they hold territory in the province, in fact, the only information we have seems to say the opposite. TEMPO156 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[85]

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

To address what I thought were the users initial concerns, I included an additional source noting how they were based in Panjshir. [86] Despite this, the user still issued a complaint. I also later included a Washington Post article noting the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan's open presence in Panjshir.[87]MyGosh789 (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with this user (Mygosh789) on the talk page of the article, and the sources he cites makes no claim of controlled territory. When asked about it, he says it doesn't need to cite anything about controlled territory [88] ... even though that's what he's adding to the infobox. [89] [90] His claim in a June 2022 source is contradicted by a December 2022 source months later as well, see relevant talk page discussion. [91] Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cfgauss77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5

Seem to be gaming Extended confirmed

• Account created on December 10, 2024.
• First edit on January 16, 2025[92].
• Lots of minor edits where they update rankings[93].
• They seem to make edits in quick succession and even get things wrong sometimes[94].
• On March 16 they become EC[95] and immediately go dormant.
• After a 1 month+ dormancy they suddenly vote on an super-contentious AfD[96] that is currently subject to off-wiki WP:CANVASSING[97]. They have never even taken part in a discussion on wikipedia before, let alone an AfD.

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

[[98]]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[99]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GENSEX

1. 12 June 2025 00:27 [100] MV accuses me of lying on the Talk page of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. This was in a discussion about a source [101] At that time, the only source for the statement that 'Adult human female' was 'anti-trans' was this [102] by the National, which does not say that the slogan is 'anti-trans'.

2. 12 June 2025 00:31 [103] reverts my CT Notice on his Talk page with the edit summary Undoing bad-faith template abuse by anti-trans POV-pusher.

3. 12 June 2025 17:57 [104] refers to me as an edit-warrior.

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

CT Notice [105] on 11 June 2025 at 22:00.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Only Raladic thought that these comments [106] were hateful and transphobic.

Serving a CT Notice is not intimidatory.

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[107]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, LokiTheLiar, the issue is less of MilesVorkosigan misinterpreting that source. The issue is, MilesVorkosigan telling Sweet6970: You’ve decided to pretend that there is some requirement for a second one despite how obvious it is. And thank you for admitting that there is no plausible alternative explanation, I appreciate it. [108], after Sweet6970 denies any such admission or pretense, in the next response MilesVorkosigan tells Sweet6970: Please do not lie about what the sources say, that just means everyone has to go read the link for themselves and you’re wasting our time. [109] Accusations of pretending and lying is assuming bad faith, which is an AE issue. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zanahary (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:PIA

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

1. 01:32, 8 May 2024 and 01:29, 8 May 2024 About a year ago removes a sentence “When used against Jews, it may take the form of the pejorative claim of "self-hating Jew"”, together with all four of its sources. Rationale was disputing whether the sources were clear enough.
2. 07:13, 29 June 2025 After sources were strengthened, returns to remove an equivalent sentence, again with all its sources, this time with the rationale Lead must follow body; no mention of this anywhere but in lead
3. 08:29, 29 June 2025 After it was added back and a section was then added to the body, removes the section added to the body, removes three sources, and cuts a quote.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 19 Oct 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See the discussion at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#1RR_and_removal_of sources. Zanahary refused to self-revert, and stated You’ll have to take this to a noticeboard if you want to settle it as a 1RR violation—I just don’t agree with you that my first edit in contention was a revert.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[110]

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.

This morning I removed a clause from the lead of Weaponization of antisemitism as being a violation of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. After Oiaw restored it with a new piece of body text, I reverted his change and replaced it with different body text, keeping the lead phrase I’d earlier removed (with fewer citations attached to it—I removed those that didn’t support the prose or even relate directly to the article topic). Oiaw indicated on the article Talk that my initial removal was a reversion. I told him that I don’t agree. New to his argument is the first diff linked from last year, showing me removing similar content once before. The latter diff from 2024 doesn’t appear to be relevant.

I don’t see how the first 2024 diff implies that this morning’s removal was a reversion. My edit did not restore the page to a previous version or undo an edit—it was just the removal of old content. Unless Oiaw is arguing that my edit reverted the page to this state, which it obviously did not. It would be appreciated if he clarified whether that is the argument he is raising with that diff. As I see it, I performed a non-reverting edit (removing the lead clause), then reverted Onceinawhile, then self-reverted (for technical reasons; Oiaw is not talking about this edit) to adapt what Oiaw had written using some of the sources in the previously reverted material. That’s four edits, in order:

1. Removing a lead phrase, not undoing anyone else’s edit nor resulting in the restoration of a previous page version.

2. Reverting the phrase’s restoration along with the addition of new body text by Oiaw.

3. Self-reverting the previous edit, so that I could…

4. Write a bit of prose in the body, allowing the lead phrase to remain (as now reflecting the body).

That’s one reversion.

Just for clarity, the self-revert was so that I could cite some of the sources attached to the removed lead phrase in my new piece of text. It was easier to work from that version of the article than it would have been to copy over the Wikitext from the old version. This is, again, not one of the reverts Oiaw is alleging. Oiaw says that the first two edits above were reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanahary (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that context Aquillion—my answer to your question is yes: I took that text to be longstanding and status quo when I edited it (though I hadn't gone in the history to look at how old it was; I just remembered it having been there awhile (probably from a combination of its latest monthlong tenure and its previous life)), and I still believe in this assessment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the text removed in the first 29 June diff above was added a little over a month ago, here. I can understand the frustration around how any removal is notionally a revert and how easy it can be to brooch the WP:1RR as a result (I even wrote an essay about it), but I guess I'd ask Zanahary this - do you believe the text you removed is longstanding (and therefore represents the status quo) or not? --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I do not see a violation of 1RR here, and so would close this with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to think that if text has been in an article over a month, that removing it is no longer a revert for 1RR purposes. I don't see a violation of 1RR here. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

RememberOrwell (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:ARBCOVID-19

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

1. 02:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Adds image taken from Ivermectin misinformation site c19ivm.org to COVID-19 misinformation. This image has formed part of previous WP:AE report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350#RememberOrwell
2. 03:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC) I revert it
3. 10:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Starts discussion arguing for inclusion of misinformation from c19ivm.org
4. 10:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "What is up with your and TarnishedPath's apparent aggressive attitude and obsession with this article/topic? Seems to be something you have a close connection to. Do you?"
5. 10:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. Do you use logical tricks like that intentionally?"
6. 10:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "As you refuse to answer and are using logical tricks, I choose to disengage. You have made it clear I am not welcome here."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350#RememberOrwell RememberOrwell warned for personal attacks

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

RememberOrwell has previously been warned for personal attacks in relation to discussions of the topic area nothing has changed. TarnishedPath^talk 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the discussion which occurred at Special:PermanentLink/1296905548#Your submission at Articles for creation: Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (June 22) is covered by WP:ARBCOVID-19 as the page the discussion is about (Draft:Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals) is covered by the CTOP. In that discussion RO argues that WP:GNG is something different than what experienced editors understand it to be and that AFC reviewers are misrepresenting policy. TarnishedPath^talk 09:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1296965136

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

I was kinda wondering what kind of fights Orwell has been getting up to since January. Claiming an AfC decline is against 5P1 apparently (the one about being an encyclopedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with fiveby's comment which seems to imply both, or any of the other editors involved have acted inappropriately in any way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An AE report for this? Looks like a couple battleground editors trying to bait others into "civility violations". Happens often at LL article, it's boring because most editors are transparent and tedious about it—at least they could try for a bit of style. For the supposed civility issues TBAN both or tell both to grow up a little.

However, per BC's WP:NOTDUMB comment the third time trying this with the image should go a long ways toward a TBAN for RO. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something's off here. Why a dogged insistence on inserting a screenshot from a site which isn't even discussed in the target article? It is, in contrast, discussed at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic#Misleading meta-analysis websites where RememberOrwell has also tried to insert it. I am sure there is no failure of intent here, but going to DEFCON ONE on editors for disagreeing isn't wise, especially on a WP:CTOP. Likewise to AfC reviewers.[111] Some toning-down is needed. Bon courage (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: Expecting "a bit of style" at AE? You want the Moon on a stick, you do ... Bon courage (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A topic ban for RememberOrwell would probably make sense at this point --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The previous AE thread was closed without formal action, but with an informal warning, as the underlying dispute was moot. Here again RememberOrwell has made personal attacks and then ended the underlying dispute. That shows that this is capable of repetition yet evading review, so I do think some formal action is merited here. That said, I'm not convinced as to a TBAN versus a formal warning. @RememberOrwell: I'd really like to hear from you. Unlike a lot of FRINGE-related disputes we get at AE, this does seem like a situation where both sides are trying to portray misinformation and misinformation, rather than one trying to legitimize it. On the other hand, it's not okay to accuse people of a COI without evidence. So I'd appreciate your thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As RememberOrwell has had notice of this request and plenty of time to comment at it, I think we should proceed with the presumption that they do not intend to do so (though of course they remain free to do so if desired). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the previous informal warning, I could get behind a topic ban. I might have been persuaded to a formal warning but the ignoring of this isn't giving me good feelings that a formal warning will get through to the editor. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If they're choosing not to participate in this AE thread, then they should not be participating in the topic area, especially given that Jack McCoy—style withdrawn personal attacks are part of the issue here, and this furthers that pattern of evading accountability. I favor a COVID TBAN. In the event of an appeal, what I'd want to see is a credible commitment to avoid personal attacks and take accountability in this topic area. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, not showing up here is a complete refusal to communicate, which means they shouldn't be editing in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Editking100 (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/India-Pakistan

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

Account created only 28 days ago, and is being disruptive across Wikipedia.

1. 17 June - Making false accusations of racism for this comment
2. 23 June - Removes maintanence tag with misleading edit summary
3. 23 June - Restored largely unsourced material removed by Cerium4b.
4. 23 June - Minutes later editor then hounds contributions by Cerium4b and reverts them in multiple places without any rationale [112][113][114][115][116]
5. 23 June - Never edited this article before,[117] but is edit warring here by falsifying the established consensus found on talk page.
6. June - 26 June - Not assuming good faith. Writes: "Clearly the motive to raise this deletion is highly questionable, outright biased and definitely not in a good faith."
7. falsifies this Wire source as "selective addition (especially quoting the Wire source) which says it's not a official gov confirmation but a personal opinion of someone". He also makes a misleading claim that the figure has to be officially from the government then only it can be included.
8. 26 June - Repeats his problematic claims that he made above.

This editor is thoroughly problematic. Their creation of Draft:Piddi Media should leave no doubt. Azuredivay (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[118]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Seraphimblade: Regarding #4 , I have linked many diffs in its analysis, the overlap is at over five pages and in quick succession and the reverts themselves are not constructive, as these two diffs which I already cited above about restoration of unsourced content (tagged with cn as well) prove.[119][120]

That said, a warning could be necessary only if Editking100 was sincere, however, he is abiding by nothing contrary to what he promised here, or what he said on the ANI report earlier.[121] He has resumed edit warring on Shubhanshu Shukla by making 2 reverts[122][123] after making multiple reverts on the same article just a few days ago,[124][125][126] and is rapidly making false accusations of casting aspersions against another editor on talk page.[127][128] Azuredivay (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I would like to bring to your attention that Editking is still edit warring and has made 2 more reverts[129][130] since my message above. He made a total of 4 reverts in just 32 hours and is making rude messages on talk page by assuming bad faith such as:

• "let alone with me and straightaway choose to mass revert content in bad-faith"[131]
• "Both IP are doing non-constructive and disruptive mass-reverts here."[132]

I don't think a simple warning is going to work given the continued problematic editing by this user even during this report. Azuredivay (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[133]

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.

Y Extension granted to 920 words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seraphimblade my detailed reply after the Azuredivay latest content is put in my talk page here [[134]] Kindly check it out

I wish to respond to the allegations with facts and transparency, backed by sources and contributions that clearly reflect my constructive intent.

1) The issue raised against me has already been addressed in great detail here: [[135]]. Even administrator Rosguill noted that such matters should not be escalated to ANI. I gave a prior explanation on the article talk page, and I’ve worked constructively across hundreds of pages. My editing history does not align with WP:NOTHERE behavior as per said by them.

2) There was nothing misleading in the edit here: [[136]]. I removed a maintenance tag citing improved grammar and based on this wikilink. The same page linked before and after this edit is: [[137]]. It contains sourced data, and the same is supported by this third-party source: [[138]]. I never knew that changing 'Asian airline' to 'airline in Asia' and backing the claim based on a already attached wikilink would land me into huge trouble.

3) Here: [[139]] — a valid Deccan Herald source was already present. The complete removal by Cerium4b lacked justification, so I reverted it to preserve the referenced version. Currently i got sources to back the same data and are attached as can be seen here [[140]].

4) Cerium4b made several deletion requests and removals from Hinduism-related articles. See their contributions here: [[141]]. Their deletions were denied or reverted by others, as seen in the page histories of [[142]], [[143]], and [[144]]. I only restored content that had previously existed; I added nothing new.

5) The discussion here: [[145]] concluded there was no consensus to merge. My edit was unrelated to merging and concerned the fact that there’s no formal confirmation of party dissolution. See edit: [[146]]. I reverted just once to a previously established version, which does not amount to edit warring as also confirmed by Toddy1 below.

6) In this AFD: [[147]] — over 10 users made similar points before me. I highlighted inconsistency in nominating this page while other astronauts from the same mission (with similar or fewer sources) were not. I also correctly referenced misuse of WP:NEWSORGINDIA clause. The closing admin also confirmed that my points were valid: [[148]].

7,8) I made my reasoning clear here: [[149]]. The Wire article cited says “India has not disclosed how much it has paid” in the lead making it speculative. This supports my objection to including unsourced figures. Other editors agreed here too: [[150]]. Here, I suggested an RFC to resolve the disagreement about cost info in the astronaut article, because most similar pages don’t include such speculative claims. This was reverted by a first edit of a IP editor. Another new account: [[151]] and an IP [[152]] made edits suggesting prior involvement and later re-added arbitration warnings to my talk: [[153]]. I also received personal attacks here: [[154]].

This is the summarized version of my statement, for the previously attached long version including reply to user Toddy1, see [[155]]

Thank you! Editking100 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Seraphimblade I got your points completely and have looked into WP:V as you suggested. I'll adress the first 3 Diffs here, as the remaining (4-8) were found to not-violate anything by you and Toddy1 above.

In the case of Diff 3, i would like to inform you that, i along with another editor have already put references to the edits that i reverted back to original (which needed citations). [[156]] As you can see i mentioned in the talk page that the already attached Deccan Herald (source 39) attached above also has the same content (that needed citations) here. I also suggested another source of historyofodisha.in which was latter used by another editor to cite the previously unreferenced information. It can be clearly confirmed in the edit history page given below, that the references are now added to the content i reverted back. [[157]].

In the case of Diff 2, i removed citation needed tag based on the already attached wikilink [[158]] that has sources to back the claim, as i mentioned above (and also in the edit summary). Later on i knew that it wasnt a correct way and so i have never repeated it again. This was merely a one-off incident and i have never removed citation tags neither before nor after this, as you can see from my other 1500+ edit contributions.

In the case of Diff 1, i appolozised not once but twice in the talk page, before the ANI was raised against me. Look at this for confirmation [[159]] here i said "So sorry, I take my comments back and will not come to this page ever again", [[160]] here i also said "Sorry...Sorry, Peace for all...". Even after that an ANI was raised against me. But i also want to add on that my talk page suggestions in the Disney+ Hotstar and Disney Star were constructive, I had sources with facts and data to back my claims like [[161]] and i also provided detailed explainations and counter explainations with previous such cases like in the case of Twitter/X as can be seen on both the talk pages, and i provided the reason as to why i raised the allegation previously here [[162]] which even an admin confirmed in my ANI [[163]] and said that i never repeated it again.

To sum it up. I vow to follow WP:V and be civil forever in addition to the constructive editing i am doing in my topics of interest like sports, travel, aviation etc in wikipedia. Thank you all. Editking100 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editking100: You said both here and at WP:ANI that you have a clean history. What do you mean by that?

You proved that you are capable of spotting and reporting a suspicious editor - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#User:ইমরান ভূইয়া suspicious mass edits - the editor you reported got blocked as a sock.

It is surprising that an account that is about a month old is editing at a rate of 46 edits/day. Did you have previous experience with Wikipedia?-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the complaint is an over-reaction to a series of minor and non-existent problems. For example:

1. Editking100 was wrong to talk about racist statements on Talk:Disney Star;^[164] it was the wrong page to do this on. He/she should have done it at WP:ANI or WP:AE.
2. Editking100's edit-summary described his perception of part of his/her edit, but did not mention deleting the maintenance tag.^[165] He/she probably did not realise that deleting the maintenance tag was important. A warning on Editking100's talk page explaining this was all that was needed.
3. A reasonable edit by Editking100, with a sensible edit summary.^[166] Nobody reverted Editking100's edit. Nor is there discussion of it on the article talk page. So why are you complaining about it here?
4. Having spotted what Editking100 perceived to have been a bad edit by an editor, Editking100 looked to see whether the editor had made other questionable edits and reverted them. Experienced editors and admins do that all the time.
5. You call making one edit^[167] an edit war! I could have understood that, if other editors had been edit warring, and Editking100 had joined it on one side. But that did not happen.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Editking100, if this is your first time at AE, you should really read the instructions at the top of the page that are in the pink section. AE has word limits and diff limits, both of which you have exceeded. Also, you should note that The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported which means that you should not use your limited number of words talking about other editors here as no action will be taken against them. This discussion is about your editing and that of the complaint filer. Also, keep your comments to your own section. I have moved some you made to Toddy1 to your own section. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Editking100, the word limits are not suggestions, and you have had plenty of time to trim your statement. If you have not done so shortly, it will be truncated at the 500 word mark; I presume you would probably prefer it to look differently than that. If you really feel you need more than that, you may request an extension after you have trimmed it to 500 words or less. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that's at least substantially better. Given that I'll give an extra 120 words, but please don't add to your statement unless you request more. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• So, having a look through the provided diffs:

  Diff 1 ([168]) is concerning. It is not "racist" to simply state the geolocation of an IP, and that's a serious accusation that should not be made lightly. This appears to be casting aspersions.

  Diff 2 ([169]) is indeed inappropriate, as a "citation needed" tag is removed but no citation was added. If that's the only time it happened, I'm willing to presume it was mistake rather than malice, but Editking100 will need to be careful not to do that again. The only time you remove a citation needed tag is if you have actually added a citation that confirms the fact in question, or if you are removing the challenged material as well.

  Diff 3 ([170]) is again concerning. When material is challenged as unreferenced, the burden is on any editor who wishes to restore it to find and cite a source which confirms the challenged material. Editking100 did not do so; they just added the material back, "citation needed" tag and all.

  Diff 4 ([171]) is a revert of an edit that Editking100 apparently disagrees with, and there was no further edit warring after that. One overlap does not hounding make, either, so I don't see anything actionable here.

  Diff 5 ([172]) was not any kind of edit against consensus, as the cited discussion, first, had a "no consensus" outcome (in the interest of full disclosure, I closed it as such, but I was not a participant nor do I have any opinion regarding it), and secondly, that discussion regarded an article merge, not article editing. One edit is not edit warring. So, again, I don't see anything actionable here.

  Diff 6 ([173]) could do without the hyperbole, but it's pretty mild as AfD comments I've seen go, and the AfD indeed did close with an overhwelming "Keep" result. I wouldn't sanction based on something like that.

  Point 7 has no diff link to an on-wiki edit, so I'm not sure what's being claimed here.

  Diff 8 ([174]) is a discussion of a source; this is a content discussion and not for AE to settle.

In sum, I think Editking100 needs to carefully review the verifiability policy, especially as regards challenged material. If they will agree to do that, I would not impose any sanctions at this time, but I think an informal warning that continued breaches of that policy are grounds for sanction is in order (and if you're going to call someone racist, you better have very solid evidence for that claim; else knock that off). AE requests are limited to discussion of the filer's and respondent's conduct, so I do not and will not address claims made against any third party here; if anyone thinks it's necessary, file a separate request regarding them. I'll give Editking100 an additional 300 words (above the current 620) for the purpose of replying to this; please keep your response confined to what you intend to do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jonathan f1 (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:PIA5

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

1. 2 July 2025 edits here sum up to at least 1000 words
2. 27 May 2025 I'm counting at least 1000 words here, up to about 1.5k words
3. 6 June 2025 at least 1.5 k words here again too
4. [175] warning from SFR about the word limits as well in yet another section in the Gaza Genocide talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. November 2020 Article-space ban due to Jonathan F1 doing WP:TE

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

• Warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 1 April 2025, and 2 July 2025 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 1 Nov 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Significant reports by multiple users to ask to stop foruming in general (myself included) on many contentious topic areas. Generally engaging in WP:TE regardless.

• [176] - related to Gaza genocide
• [177] - related to Killing of Brian Thompson (technically not part of the PIA area)
• [178] - gaza genocide again
• [179] - ask to not forum again
• [180] - collapsing a giant thread cuz Jf1 was doing foruming

Pinging @Sameboat, saw they were thinking of doing an ANI thread on User_talk:JzG#Request_for_talk_page_topic_ban_for_Jonathan_f1. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: apologies, I could have been more clear about stating that Jf1 is violating the 1000 word limit sanction that was passed between PIA4 and PIA5 [181]. Its my first time filing a report here, and I don't know how to show word counts easily for these types of reports

• [182], the word count for his contributions when posted into a google doc is 1214 words [183]
• [184] word count here in a google doc is 1825 words [185]
• [186] the word count here is 1774 [187]
• [188] the word count here is 1805 [189]

Though the wordcount in the google docs would not reflect the carveout for quotes, links, and refs, most of these would probably surpass the 10k limit. Sidenote:Is there a better way to show word counts in the future? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Moved to already existing section for filer; please don't open a separate one since you already use this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

to Liz, i agree. additionally, the word count is most certainly exaggerated, some of the links and quotes in the google docs are being counted as multiple words. but in lieu of any other way to present a count, and as im certain at least some of these are way past the word limit even with limitations of google docs, i didnt know what to do. apologies if there is a better way to have done it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SFR suggested a wordcount tool on my talk page, but I can't make it work. As SFR has been warning JF1 for awhile, i'll assume that other could verify the word count vios. Here are more traditional diffs characterizing behavior in the topic area.

• forumy post - As an analogy, imagine if a group of right-wing academics invented a field called "critical woke studies," invented their own journals, reviewed each other's work, and were demonstrably involved in political activism. I doubt Wiki editors would deem such research reliable. [190]
• forumy post - I need a verifiable source do I? Where is the evidence that has moved whole academic fields to consensus, anyway - [191]
• passive aggression about trying to disqualify a source because its not "science": I'm also going to asusme this NRC article uses a very European definition of "science" (ie a system of knowledge) and is not using the term as most English-speaking people understand it.[192]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[193] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Y Extension granted to 1000 words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was offered a chance to respond to some of these accusations, but I don't know how many additional words I'll need. I suppose I'll try to address some of the more serious allegations in 3/4 bullet points, namely that I "misrepresent sources" and "assume bad faith" against editors/"outside parties":

• The academic paper on genocide studies (linked here[194]) concludes on two big points: that 1) GS has a promising future; but 2) there's a problem with activism in the field that needs to be corrected. The second point is made clear when the author says "severe methodological and ideological implications hamper the further development of the field.... There is no consensus on how to define genocide... Activists and profit-oriented actors have entered the stage and dominate the external perception of the field... Whereas scholars are bound to scientific standards and objectivity, activists want to mobilize public opinion through the spread of simple truths... we need more Lemkin and less Clooney...the influence of activism in the realm of genocide scholarship must be clarified."(p.254). When I raise these issues in talk and suggest that perhaps we should consider reducing weight in the article (considering how contentious the subject is), there are editors who act like I'm making it all up, when in fact it's exactly what the source says, and seems to be supported by other academic work (I want to say more about this but I'm trying to make this brief as possible).
• I assume bad faith against other editors do I? Notice no names were mentioned, and that's because I never directed bad-faith sentiment at any particular editor. If you read that entire discussion, and not just the cherry-picked segment, a group of editors were concerned about the potential of "far-right" canvassing during the next move request, and I simply responded by saying there's no evidence of any "far-right" manipulation anywhere in the I/P space, and if anything the problem is coming from the other direction. In the past year at least 8 editors were topic-banned from I/P and 6 of them were the so-called "Pro-Palestine" side. One of the editors even apologized for using the term "far-right" when I reminded him that disputing the genocide allegation isn't far-right or even right-wing -it's the mainstream position of the Democratic Party in the US, and was the position of the previous Biden government and, last I checked, the majority of EU and Western governments.
• I don't know what it means to assume "bad faith against outside parties," but Amnesty is an advocacy organization and I'm far from the only editor who's had reservations about this source in controversial topic areas. I've nothing more to say about this as this is getting too tedious.
• This is already a lot of text so I'll wrap it up. A final point I'd make is that assuming good faith applies to me as well as my accusers. That means that if you're faced with three possibilities -an editor misinterpreted a source, you misinterpreted a source, or the editor deliberately misrepresented the source -you give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that someone who disagrees with you is "lying" or "misrepresenting" or doing something underhanded isn't good faith. And piling on baseless accusations mixed in with accusations that are not entirely baseless but happen a million times a day on here and particularly in the I/P area seems to me to be an abuse of this process. This noticeboard does not exist to act out personal vendettas, but is rather for serious and consistent conduct violations. I did not derail any talk page, edit war, harass anyone, or disrupt any process.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request a word count extension? I tried doing this last night but never heard back, don't know how this process works. I also need to respond to more accusations that have just been made...I'm just going to delete the first part and leave the relevant responses up. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More cherry-picking by Blue...

• Discussions about the reliability and weighing of sources is not forumy -it's exactly why talk pages exist.
• Nor is it forumy to ask for evidence that every academic field that studies genocide has reached a consensus, as claimed by another editor.
• If you had bothered to read that entire conversation, it was about 2 sources that were seemingly at odds with each other. I wasn't really trying to 'disqualify' the source, but it contradicted another source published a few months prior, and my point was that there wasn't any new info in it. The way that you are cherry-picking these statements and characterizing them is completely inconsistent with the way these conversations went down.

I tried removing superfluous text to reduce the word count but I'm still probably well over the limit and hoping I don't need to respond to any more of this type of allegation. All I see here is multiple editors scanning everything I've said to see if something sticks, but there's nothing of any significance. I also see Sean Hoyland has produced evidence backing my claim that I'm not very involved in I/P articles -more than 90% of my revisions have been outside the I/P topic area (which sounds about right), and I'm going to guess the ~8% in this area are on the same article, which just happens to be a current event and not anything I'm passionate about or personally connected to (I'm not Jewish, Muslim, a Christian Zionist, a religious believer or 'right winger'). Not a good look for this space when newcomers who don't conform to the status quo are ganged up on like this. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but there have been more accusations, now from an uninvolved editor, and I need an opportunity to respond. I'm requesting another extension on my text, but do not know how much I'll need, only that I'll have an opportunity to respond around lunch time (a few hours from now). Hopefully this will cover everything important and we can put a cork on people jumping up with more allegations. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sameboat, for whatever reason, is still struggling to make sense of the conversation I had with DavidA. It's very simple: Dave was concerned about 'far-right' activists trying to rig the next requested move (which is inevitable there), and all I did was remind him that I/P doesn't have a far-right problem. Neither Dave nor I directed our remarks at any particular editors.
• I also take exception to the claim that my response was any more inflammatory than the characterization 'far-right.' The far-right are associated with racism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia -all things I reject. Whether the phrase "Hamas sympathizers" is worse than "far-right" is completely subjective and irrelevant to the fact that neither description was directed at any editor in particular.
• An ADMIN named 'Ealdgyth' has now joined in with an observation that I've never produced any value for this encyclopedia, before or after my article space ban. A couple of things to say about this...
• I've actually managed to contribute more to Wiki post-ban than pre-, mostly because I was banned almost immediately after joining or getting active ~5 years ago, a decision that was unreasonably punitive and unnecessary (I was new and unfamiliar with the rules and processes). I was able to manage this by, for example, writing out text for an article on the talk page and having another non-banned editor insert it into the article for me, which would count as his edits and not mine. I was ready to cite examples of this, but on second thought, I think I'd rather not waste more of my time.

If you want to ban me, then do it. It won't affect the encyclopedia one way or the other, but Sameboat and Blue will sleep well tonight, and my life will go on completely unscathed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• But this does seem personal to you Sameboat -your outrage is highly selective and you present a subjective assessment as a statement of fact. The only people I had in mind when I made that remark (and the only way that conversation makes any sense) were the types who were banned from I/P over the past year, and so one cannot 'assume bad faith' against editors who were already judged to be bad-faith editors by administrators. This last point alone takes all the air out of this balloon.
• I think I was clear last night that I'm done entertaining the merits of this inquisition. Enjoy blocking me, bye.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read Jonathan f1's statement here, this is an attitude that is simply not compatible with contentious articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting sources:

• not every woman and child killed is a civilian[195][196].
  • The Amnesty report from 2004 about "a 16-year-old Palestinian child was found to be carrying explosives" has no bearing to the Gaza Genocide topic.
• Research on genocide studies has described the role of these academics as "scholar-activists,"[197] which would explain why they all have the same political profiles[198]
  • The cited source does not condemn that activism-motivated study exaggerates certain genocides, rather it argues that activism "plays down other instances of mass violence".
• another news report offering more evidence that the IDF has been evacuating civilians from bombing targets before commencing[199]. Note also the Palestinian man shouts "we're tired of war!" -implying that he recognizes what's going on around him as a war and not an extermination[200]
  • The news report merely cited the IDF's statement of order of evacuation, nothing remotely "evident". Citing anecdotal evidence by quoting a random civilian's opinion, even if it was being reported by a reliable source like Channel 4 News. Civilian opinion is only considered having sufficient weight when it is conducted through academic polling, not interview with a random civilian on ground. Not to mention that the interviewee in question did not deny that he was experiencing a genocide/ethnic cleansing/systemic displacement by Israel.

Assume bad faith against Wikpedians and outside parties:

• respected NGOs like Amnesty have jumped on this [Gaza Genocide] bandwagon[201]
• NGOs like Amnesty are at this point no more or less reliable than a think tank or other advocacy group[202]
• there is also some evidence that 'far-left' activists (or whatever you'd call Hamas sympathizers) are coordinating on and probably off Wiki[203][204][205].
  • Then proceeded to cite ADL and repeat ADL's accusations against Wikipedians, despite knowing it is banned on the IP topic on Wikipedia.

-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC) (minor grammar change)[reply]

For context, Jf1’s remark referring to 'far-left' activists (or whatever you'd call Hamas sympathizers) was made in response to a comment by @David A. While David A did use the term "far right", his usage was explicitly directed at external sources and public figures, not fellow editors. Although I do not endorse the use of such labels in general, Jf1’s invocation of "Hamas sympathizers", even without naming specific Wikipedians, is far more inflammatory. It constitutes a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take the [I] will sleep well remark personally, as it implies that I’m pursuing some kind of vendetta for personal satisfaction. This is an example of the kind of incivility that Jf1 should take time to reflect on. I’m not calling for an indefinite ban, but a short-term talk page restriction would be a proportionate and constructive measure. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak much to Jf1's behavior on PIA pages since I don't typically follow that area for my own sanity. But I can speak to Jf1's behavior at the Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson page, where Jf1 veered straight into WP:NOTFORUM off of a tangent multiple times despite multiple warnings, and potentially violated WP:BLP several times in his characterization of Mangione. While this conduct could be tolerably problematic on a merely BLP page, I am disappointed to see that their conduct is no better in an active arbitration area. guninvalid (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is already a bit off-topic so I won't bother to provide diffs. If diffs are wanted nonetheless, let me know and I can provide. guninvalid (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe talk page chattiness is an unintended consequence of blocking an editor from article space. Anyway, Jonathon made some statements about 'involvement in the I/P conflict space'. You can measure this. The number is 8.6% of revisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Bluethricecreamman, if you're requesting us to sanction someone for some particular behavior here, please show specific diffs actually indicating that behavior, rather than diffs of claims of it. Especially in this topic area, it is, shall we say, far too common to see baseless accusations of misconduct thrown around (I'm not saying these either are or are not baseless, just that I'm not going to accept them at face value without backing evidence). I would agree that the thread in diff 5 ([206]) drifts into NOTFORUM territory by the time it was concluded, but the responsibility for that lies with several participants, and it looks to me more like it just drifted off track than that any individual deliberately derailed it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Sameboat, specific diffs are a lot more helpful. I'll take a look at those as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Jonathan f1, if you need an extension to word count to reply to claims against you, you're able to request one, just say about how much you think you'll need. As long as you're going to use it to respond and not just continue the underlying dispute, I'm generally inclined to grant additional words to the respondent to, well, respond. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Will grant the extra 500 words accordingly to Jonathan f1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I agree with Guerillero. The attitude shown here is incompatible not just with editing contentious topics, but largely incompatible with editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't spend a lot of time at AE but since when do we take Google docs diffs as evidence of behavior done on the project? I'm not sure what these links are meant to represent with their word count displayed. These are user-generated, I don't think we can take them as reliable indications of edits an editor has made here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• So from my reading, the ban on article space was supposed to help J1 learn how to collaborate with others to form consensus for desired edits. Frankly, I'm not seeing that they've learned a thing about trying to collaborate. Instead, what I'm seeing is a bunch of forumy posts that don't do much to advance actual editing. Some attempt it, but most are borderline battlegroundy. It looks like J1 just gets to hang around and make the same sort of talk-page posts they did before Nov 2020, without any change. Therefore, it's unclear to me what benefit they provide to the encyclopedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Jonathan f1, if by "there have been more accusations, now from an uninvolved editor" you mean my observations, those aren't accusations, but the observations of an uninvoled ADMIN, who is one of the people deciding what, if anything, will come from this filing. I suggest that you take that into account, if you were referring to my observations. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good with an indef. If no one takes care of it in the next few hours, I will. (I just got in from gardening and need a shower... bad). Ealdgyth (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan f1, you're asking for yet another extension, but you're wasting your words. Things like I was offered a chance to respond to some of these accusations, but I don't know how many additional words I'll need. I suppose I'll try to address some of the more serious allegations and This is already a lot of text so I'll wrap it up. give zero info, yet use nearly 10% of your original 500. Write, then edit to make shorter by removing anything that isn't necessary. You don't need to tell us it's hard to write short. We know. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we have reached the point of an indef block --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JFHJr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#TenPoundHammer_topic_banned_(1)

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

Each diff invites a deletion discussion of some sort at WP:BLPN. Note that the topic of notability and wording as such to avoid saying deletion does not mean it's not about deletion.

1. 4 July 2025
2. 10 June 2025
3. 7 June 2025

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive339#TenPoundHammer 29 August 2024: "By consensus of uninvolved administrators, TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is reminded, as presently topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed, to not make comments on noticeboards or elsewhere on Wikipedia that suggest editors take an article to AfD."
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1) 2 August 2022: Initial.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• I WP:NACd the threads at BLPN linked above with commentary to the effect of renotification.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Here.

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.

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

• The 4th of July diff is a clear deletion request. Blocked for a week --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with Guerillero, the 4 July diff is a clear wink-wink "This should be deleted", and not something an editor banned from deletion discussions should be doing. The 10 June diff regards the appropriateness of part of an article; "deletion", despite its colloquial use, means the deletion of an entire article, so TenPoundHammer is allowed to discuss whether portions of an article are appropriate or should be removed. I don't see that one as a violation. The 7 June diff is also suspect, it also seems to be implying that the article should not exist, so I think that also crosses the line. I don't think there's anything further to be done here, so will close shortly as already resolved unless there's any objection from an uninvolved admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]