This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.98.23.90(talk) at 17:30, 23 September 2025(→CapnJackSp: the road to hell is paved with good intentions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 17:30, 23 September 2025 by 85.98.23.90(talk)(→CapnJackSp: the road to hell is paved with good intentions)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Cortador
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
19:15, 15 May 2025 failure to AGF, failure to FOC, obstruction of article cleanup
20:49, 19 May 2025 Refusal to address article content problems as described in detail in talk page discussion and FOC, failure to AGF, BATTLE mentality.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:19, 21 March 202316:40, 31 May 2023(see the system log linked to above).
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Cortador
This issue started because Hipal kept adding whole-article tags to Hasan Piker, when this discussion 1 had made it clear that Hipal was the only editor supporting the tags, whereas at least six other editors (LittleJerry, Bluethricecreamman, jonas, CeltBrowne, Alenoach, and myself) disagreed with the addition. The talk page consensus was clear, so I removed the tags. Hipal also made other edits against talk page consensus, as per this discussion. 2.
Following that, Hipal started this discussion 3 where they made it clear that their intend was not assess issues with the article and then add appropriate tags, but instead add tags and then look for a justification afterwards. Evidence for this is is that when Hipal stated that they planned to add the tag again, they only had found one issue with one source, which was missing an author, but speculated that there had to be nine other sources with issues ("That's one in ten, so I'm extrapolating that there are some nine more."). Hipal also falsely claimed that nobody was objecting to this when Ratgomery and myself did, both on the talk page ("As there are no objections based upon the state of the article, the tag should be restored.") and in a diff description 4 ("no dispute over content problems identified"). Lastly, Hipal admitted to this in their statement here, where they stated that "only the first ten sources had been reviewed at this point". It is not appropriate to demand the addition of whole-article tags after only having reviewed ten sources out of (as of the making of this statement) 104 sources. This, in my opinion, further demonstrates that it was Hipal's intend to just have the tag there instead of providing evidence that it is needed.
They also attempted to revert the burden of proof, stating on the talk page that "No one has indicated that no further problems remain to be found". Demanding that whole-article tags be added until proven that they aren't needed is an abuse of tags.
I'm willing to assume good faith with other editors. However, this does has limits, and those include editing against clear talk page consensus as well as openly stating that it is one's intend to simply have tags on the article and search for a reason after adding them, which is disruptive behaviour. Cortador (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal was asked to drop the stick and communicate the specifics of their issue with the article using specific examples, not generalities or guesses. The filing of this request for enforcement suggests that this advice was not taken. I believe that the request is a waste of administrator's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesVorkosigan (talk • contribs) 11:36 May 22 2025 (UTC)
Hipal stated on my talk page that they had made (at least) two specific comments about the article and what was needed for it, one was on May 15 and it was addressed. The other diff goes to May 3 and as far as I can tell is Hipal saying that editors who wanted to remove the tag were not displaying competence. I don't see how that is helpful for their position, but there it is. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (Ratgomery)
Commenting because Hipal has also left me an edit warring notice over a revert regarding these tags, and because I was named in the discussion. Incase it's been overlooked, let me point out there are 3 talk page discussions regarding this exact issue in total, as I believe only one of these discussions has been referenced so far. [| POV_and_BLP_sources_tags] , [| Disruptive_Editing_and_Removals] as well as [| Complete_citations_needed] which has already been linked. Hipal has engaged with a large number of editors over these tags.
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Cortador
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning The Final Bringer of Truth
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
5/30 Calling others "too many bad faith editors...who want to lean on their pointless knowledge of wikilawyering to manipulate process".
5/30 Accusing others of being "right wing editors who think they own the article and that anything not taken from congressional republican press release is NPOV".
5/31 "Just take your L and move on. You’re embarrassing yourself" - personalizing it and being rude to others.
5/30 clear admission they're just here to RGW of what they see as corruption in the current/prior Trump administrations.
5/30 calling something a "propaganda brochure" in the edit summary.
5/30 claiming their remarks were "humor" (when in reality they were not, but were tendentious).
5/28 accusing others of being "off wiki coordinators" in their edit summary.
5/30 creates userpage wanting to "kill all the wiki-lawyers". Also accused people of "cosplaying that this is a court of law". Even if this was "humorous" as they claimed in another edit, this is absolutely unacceptable behavior.
Adding their first and second replies to this notice as diffs. I think they speak for themselves.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 5/25.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is clearly an editor that does not intend to contribute constructively in this topic area. The diffs above show tendentious editing and personal attacks against other users (including calling them vandals). I've collected the most recent diffs, some of which happened after I gave them a clear warning that they needed to stop. They haven't stopped, and they've actually kept going. It's clear this editor is not here to constructively contribute to the AP2 topic area. If they are here to contribute constructively they should be required to display such by editing in other areas constructively first.
There are many more diffs - basically all of their edits either have an edit summary they're attacking others, or they are attacking others on the talk page with the edit. It's clear this user is here to right great wrongs and not to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. I apologize for not going even further back in their edits to get more of them, but virtually their entire edit history is clearly battleground in this topic area. I'm not advocating for a full wiki block at this point, but a topic ban from AP2 would be beneficial until they learn how to contribute constructively. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!03:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I tried to give them one last chance to improve their behavior in the topic area, but they either chose to ignore the massive "you have new talkpage messages" notice, or they chose to ignore my attempt to give them one last chance. Thus, I ended up filing this report. For full clarity, I have not been directly involved with them in any discussions that I recall - I have simply observed their behavior on multiple pages and it is not acceptable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!03:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to reply to the user's rebuttals because I think they speak for themselves - I'll let this user dig their own grave. If any admins or other users have any questions for me, I ask you please ping me because I'll probably stop watching this complaint otherwise. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!04:45, 31 May 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.
Statement by The Final Bringer of Truth
I’ve never interacted with this individual in my life. I see nothing here but tone policing. Not once is article content mentioned. Does such a weak case even deserve an answer?
And my god, this is an encyclopedia, learn some Shakespeare
Also, the individual who I “accused” of off wiki coordination had themselves stated they were coordinating off wiki and cited an off wiki discussion as the reason for “boldly deleting an article.” This is very dishonest stuff. Be sure you understand a situation before opining. The editor cited an off wiki discussion as reason for “boldly removing” an article. I correctly advised that this is off wiki coordination and is unacceptable.
As for the accusation of vandalism, you be the judge of whether the following constitutes vandalism. An editor removed 3 reliable sources. After removing the sources, they then tagged the underlying sentence as needing citation. Then they deleted the sentence for needing a citation based on the tag, which they had deleted the citations. If this kind of behavior, like any vandalism, is allowed to stand, you cannot have an encyclopedia. This matter was discussed on multiple talk pages. The author of the enforcement request has had no involvement with the relevant pages and does not appear to have any understanding of the talk page discussions they are mentioning. They hope you will just take their word for what they say instead of actually reading them. Zero of the diffs cited by OP actually say what OP has falsely claimed they say. Again, this arb request has been made dishonestly and in bad faith and WP: Boomerang surely applies here.
You haven’t shown one poorly sourced or false or misleading edit I made to any article. Even someone seething with anger at me is unable to show a single bad edit I made. (Indeed, I always come armed to the teeth with sources and hew scrupulously to their content. I counsel OP to try doing the same.) All you’ve said is “I don’t like this guy’s tone!” That’s tone policing, is carried out in bad faith, and is a waste of time for all involved. Cheers friends
Rebuttal All you have to do is learn the content of WP: Synth, Toffenham. What do you mean “let’s assume it was speculation”? I showed you why it is speculation. The articles you cited don’t make the claim you cite them to claim. Hence your addition of that claim is your personal speculation. It isn’t in the sources. In an encyclopedia, we rely on sources and what they say, not the personal theories of editors on what a source might imply. You can’t add in your personal inferences or speculations about the outcomes of hypotheticals. Any editor would tell you can’t do that. Please read the many patient explanations I gave you. The articles you cited don’t mention democrat deaths and hence can’t be used to make your synthetic claim that the democrat deaths did not affect the outcome! That’s your personal speculation! Please Read Synth already!
At no point have I have been “radio silent” you are willfully lying to the Arb board there. Your sources do not claim what you say. Notice also you claim you were suggesting article changes without having read the sources cited. The sources you cited do not mention democrat deaths. Hence you cannot rely on them to make an inference that republicans would have not abstained if Connolly et al hadn’t died. There is no source that says that. That is purely your speculation and has no business in an encyclopedia, and you’ve been wasting everyone’s time because you don’t understand what Synth is. Show me even one article with a direct quote that supports your position. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration isn’t meant for complaints about tone either. This entire discussion is a bad faith waste of time and abuse of process. When you claim that “republicans would have voted differently if democrats hadn’t died” this is not a referenced claim, and this is not a claim that belongs in an encyclopedia. It is pure speculation. Read the sources, learn synth, and make better contributions to article space. That’s what matters. Not “tone” The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Moved comments to own section. Please comment and reply only in this section. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These editors have misrepresented edits to you, and have also been uncivil. At least I can say I positively contributed to articles and I was on the correct side. At least I can say I brought sources. All these 2 brought is dishonesty and incivility of their own . I care about improving the articles though not policing their condescension and dishonesty. They should follow my example or make way for editors who use sources in their edits The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What did I say that was mistaken Seraphim? These are two editors who don’t understand synth or I don’t like it. I explained why with reasoning. This is drive by adminning . I find it uncivil to be called nasty and uncivil. Should you be banned for that? When people say something wrong, I am allowed to say it is wrong and I don’t need to sugarcoat it by saying how insightful they were despite not understanding WP: synth or why speculations by editors don’t belong in articles The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this whole thing is farcical. Look how much time and energy is wasted doing “civility” policing and “tone” policing instead of bringing sources and improving articles. My god, if that isn’t NOTHERE (this incessant focus on nebulous concepts of civility and tone) then what it is? The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing makes me want to quit honestly. I came here to edit articles and I’m just being harassed with wikilawyering and tone policing. I maybe some times a little sharp but I’m not telling people to go fuck themselves or calling anyone retarded. Who really cares at the end of the day? I’m tired of this cosplaying like this is a court instead of writing article content. Don’t you people get tired of all this talk space jabbering instead of adding shit to the articles The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tofflenheim
I started an innocuous discussion [[3]] on an (admittedly politics related) talk page stating that I believed a section in the article was misleading. I was not trying to delete, remove, or censor, but call to add context. There are a few proper responses to this, for example 1/ "do you have a source for this claim, or a reason to believe that the current wording is NPOV" or 2/ "I don't agree with the way you've characterized this, for XYZ reason".
Instead, The Final Bringer of Truth comments:
You are speculating. The material was very well sourced, the issue has been discussed in many sources (if you don’t read about the article topic you shouldn’t write about it, your ignorance is showing) and will be returned to the article.
OK. Let's assume I was speculating. This is a really aggressive approach. I'm trying to be civil so I'm replying, giving links and quotes from articles. But no matter what I do, he keeps escalating:
As for your irrelevant and unrelated BBC source it doesn’t say anything about dead democrats. It is also not about the final vote, making its relevance questionable. Hence your connection is synth and your own personal speculation. You may of course add material based on that reference if you like, but you cannot synthesize it with other sources that it draws no connection to, and I hope you understand the topic better before adding material.
Can you describe the policy basis for caring about an editors unsourced speculations and hypotheticals? No? Then stop. You are unequivocally wrong here.
30 minutes later, before I even get the chance to read his reply:
Still waiting on those sources that say the analysis in the cited sources is “misleading”… or was this just your idiosyncratic personal view of no relevance to anyone? Curious minds want to know!
Just take your L and move on. You’re embarrassing yourself
I finally take some time to review all the sources because I realize at this point, this guy is not trying to have a discussion, he is trying to belittle and attack everyone around him. I go to the article, find the passage that in question, and click the first source and find the following: diff1, diff2
So in his personal own source, there are claims that directly support the point I was trying to make. Since then, he's gone completely radio silent on the topic, avoiding admitting that he was wrong and that he needlessly escalated. I should have brought these up at the start, I admit that. but this guys behavior made it impossible to have a good faith discussion with his battleground mentality.
Patterns of behavior:
- starts with insults, such as calling others ignorant/misinformed out the game and questioning their ability to understand anything [[1]] [2]
- condescends others, then accuses them of being condescending and rude if they react to his aggressive tone [1][2]
- considers all edits that disagree with him to be vandalism, irrelevant, or unsourced and praises himself and anyone who agrees with his judgements [1]
- threatens to "report people to the admins for fraud" whenever they edit or adjust his contributions [1]]
this is his pattern of behavior with everyone, not just me. he's literally still doing it, below, in his so called "rebuttal" (note he does not actually address the content of anything I've shared, he just hand waves it all as irrelevant and goes straight to insults.
The general thesis is that I came to the talk page to talk, and instead of fostering a discussion that would have quickly led to the first couple of sources that agree with a claim I was making, this user got into an battleground mindset, aggroed on everyone, and then when others take the high ground and provide data and sources he doubles down and calls everything they're saying wrong.
Please reply on the talk page of the actual article, not here, so I can easily prove that you're wrong. This is not the right place, in fact I don't think you're really even meant to be making random rebuttal statements like this. Tofflenheim (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Moved comment to own section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Please make comments or replies only in this section. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning The Final Bringer of Truth
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
In these diffs, and indeed in their conduct here, I am seeing that The Final Bringer of Truth has a habit of incivility and nastiness in the AMPOL area, and apparently has no intent of changing that. Given that, I think they need to be removed from the area. I would note to Tofflenheim that editors who participate here can be sanctioned based upon such participation, and calling someone "unhinged" is also uncivil and inappropriate. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Final Bringer of Truth, while being right is important (I'm not, mind you, opining on whether you were or not; AE doesn't decide content questions), it's not enough. Even if you're right and someone else is wrong, there's a substantial difference between expressing that as "You're full of shit" versus "I disagree with that, and here's why." Sourcing and correctness are important, but being civil to other editors is also important, and that's especially true where you're discussing subjects which are already subject to a lot of tension and conflict. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked indefinitely, as a non-AE action, for the call to violence on their userpage; hyperbole or not, that's unacceptable. I defer to my colleagues as to whether to close this (perhaps with a note that a TBAN should be considered as a condition of any unblock), or leave it open for a day or two to see if they can respond to the block in a deescalatory fashion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning LesIie
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
[4][5]added by Tamzin after report was filed without awareness evidence
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
@Extraordinary Writ: While Leslie recognised that he violated 1RR, he still made no self-revert. I already mentioned that the problems with his infobox related editing are continuing for a long time. Just 2 weeks ago, he edit warred at the concerning page and used battleground edit summaries which can be seen here. Another example is here where he removed figures from Nawaz Sharif claiming he is from "an Opposition party", despite he was involved in the war. This is after he had got a warning here over his WP:OR in infobox. I would suggest topic ban from making infobox edits in India and Pakistan topics instead of a block for his 1rr violation. ❯❯❯Pravegag=9.817:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by LesIie
On the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 article, yes — it’s under WP:1RR, and I’m aware. But let’s be clear: I didn’t randomly change things. I read the actual sources, corrected the info to reflect what they say, and added page numbers so anyone could verify. It was brought on the talk page. The other editor reverted without addressing content or checking sources. So I reverted back. That technically went over 1RR, but I was trying to stop misrepresented info from being restored.
On Bangladesh Liberation War — it’s not under WP:1RR, there’s a new discussion on the Tp. My edit was supported. The editor has not participated in this article at all. The other editor could’ve read what I wrote while verifying sources using the pages instead of reverting. I’m happy to step back and talk, but good-faith editing with solid sources shouldn’t be sanctioned. I’ll admit the WP:1RR breach is on me — I shouldn't have reverted. But editors like the one who filed this need shouldn't revert without reading sources or discussing. It discourages actual source-based editing.
P.S. my edit was already reverted so I could not self-revert.
I’ll voluntarily refrain from making infobox edits on India–Pakistan conflict articles for some time or until there’s consensus on the TP. That’s reasonable. I'll also learn more on the rules. I request that a topic ban not be imposed. I care about this subject and want to continue contributing to it, with caution and collaboration from now on. I request a mentor to help, if possible, so we can avoid future issues and I can improve.
The edit involving Sharif’s claim: Sharif made these statements after being ousted by Musharraf; claims were politically motivated to undermine the military. Those claims remain, but now separate from official claims. I also admit I wasn’t fully aware of warnings — I hadn’t fully read warnings and messages, which I take accountability for. I see how some of my editing may have come across as disruptive, though my intent was to improve accuracy. I regret that. I’m here to contribute constructively, not push agendas.
On the William Harrison article, Worldbruce rightfully raises concerns. I didn’t use any LLM to write the article or comments, I know you'd assume that because my credibility is dented. For Harrison, I used DeepSeek, another editor mentioned it, to find rare sources, but much was paywalled or inaccessible, so I pieced together what I could.
After reading Worldbruce's comment, I realized I hadn’t checked the content properly. I unintentionally added fake sources and tried to fix things. Some books don’t mention Harrison directly but cover operations and areas he was involved in. That might cross into WP:SYNTH. I haven’t used LLMs any other time, none are as shadowy as Harrison. My intent was just to bring a lesser-known figure to light. This has been a wake-up call. I see I got carried away and made serious mistakes, I didn’t mean to. I genuinely care about these topics and want to do better.
Apologies, Worldbruce for not replying to their comment. I was shocked to see how inaccurate some of my work was and panicked, not knowing how to respond. LesIie (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare (4) the awards are legit, you may ask those editors, I compiled them together and made the formats similar so it fits neatly on my userpage, I'll get into the other points when i have the time thanks. LesIie (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (Worldbruce)
I have nothing to add regarding contentious topics and 1RR. But LesIie has opened the door to broader behavioral questions about competence and integrity by claiming that they don't edit carelessly and make fact-based and transparent edits.
A serious counterexample is their 4-5 month old article William Harrison (brigadier), of which they have contributed 97.4% of the text. Every indication is that it is largely if not wholly the hallucination of a large language model. I raised on their talk page questions about why the sources don't support the content, why sources are falsified or fabricated, and why detection tools indicate that it has been generated using an "AI chatbot" or similar application.
They have not responded, other than to remove the part of my post mentioning LLMs, and to furiously rewrite the article.
As of this writing, the article has 39 inline citations. Nineteen are to non-book sources of varying reliability. Of them, two are dead links and only four of the remainder mention Harrison:
a self-published collection of copyright violations[9]
a news portal with no reputation for accuracy or fact checking[10]
The remaining 20 inline citations are to one book that does not seem to exist (Feroz, Ahmad (2002). The 1971 War: A Retrospective Analysis. Karachi: Defence Publications) and eight real books (A Tale of Millions,[11] Bangladesh at War,[12] Surrender at Dacca,[13] The Betrayal of East Pakistan,[14] The Blood Telegram,[15] The Spectral Wound,[16] The Struggle for Pakistan,[17] and Witness to Surrender[18]). Only one of them, Bangladesh at War, even mentions Harrison – briefly on page 8, not a page that LesIie cites.
I am coming here after seeing Leslie's user contributions page. I've seen Leslie’s work before, some edits definitely didn't land with some, but I really don’t think there was any bad intent behind them. It comes across more like someone who cares about a lesser-known subject and got a bit carried away trying to flesh it out. A lot of us have made similar missteps when starting out on complex topics. They appear to me a relatively new contributor, who can contribute much effectively if they get proper guidance. It wouldn't be a good thing to lose someone who clearly wants to contribute. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Abecedare
Not involved but commenting here since I am bringing up new issues I spotted, rather than evaluating existing evidence
I couldn't verify the existence of the book Ahmad, Riaz (1993). The General's General: The Life and Times of General Abdul Hamid Khan. Oxford University Press., a source LesIie added to Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 and Abdul Hamid Khan (general). They reverted the latter addition today w/o any explanation.
I didn't find any mention of Baqir Siddiqui in Gary Bass's The blood telegram, which was cited by LesIie to support the article's statement "Known for his strategic involvement and leadership in East Pakistan, Brigadier Siddiqui played a significant role in the military administration of the region." until an unexplained removal today.
(minor but goes towards credibility and willingness to misrepresent) I didn't find any indication that the barnstars listed at User:LesIie were ever awarded to them by Lt.gen.zephyr, Lt.Casper and 9Ahmed9. They appear to be self-conferred and (re)worded by LesIie in other editor's name (cf, the editor selectively editing Worldbruce's comment on their userpage).
@LesIie: if I am somehow mistaken about (2), (3) or (4) and the book, citation or awards are legit, please let me know and I'll strike the particular claim. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that this AE will be closed with an indefinite block given the LLM use, source fabrication and misrepresentation, and the dissembling on this page when asked about these (the 1RR violations, socking and and self-puffery are relatively minor offenses IMO). Any suggestions on whether the pages created by the editor should be AFD'ed, draftitied, stubbed or cleaned in situ, and how a check and clean up of their other edits should be organized? Pinging Worldbruce for input. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by caeciliusinhorto
Re. abecadare's fourth point (re. the barnstars): this is really minor but I had a look and it's weird enough that I had to comment.
LesIie added the Distinguished Service Star from 9Ahmed on 10 May; 9Ahmed has so far as I can tell never edited LesIie's user or talkpage. They made six edits on 9 and 10 May, none of which are related to this award. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Vanamonde
Indef this user per Abecedare: any one of "LLM use, source fabrication and misrepresentation" would be sufficient, and they have engaged in all three. I would advise mass rollback on their edits, and PRODs on their creations. If de-PRODed they should go to AfD - I do not think it is a good use of editor time to clean up LLM hallucinations, and draft-space is for salvageable content. CSD#G3 may occasionally apply, but will not generally. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight did you perchance examine technical similarities between LesIie and Lt.gen.zephyr? Overlap is high, and there's considerable behavioral similarity. Asking since you looked at the case already - if you would rather not go deeper I'd be happy to file an SPI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree an indef is the only possible answer to everything that's been brought up here, especially since the only response we've gotten has been more AI-written dissembling. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did want to see if they'd have anything further to say, since I'd prefer they managed to turn this around rather than getting ejected over it, but they've been editing since, only to do things like Special:Diff/1293579419. I'll go press the button. Alas. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce, I'm very interested to hear this, since LesIie's responses in this thread do have that insincere LLM-written ring to them. LesIie, have you used LLMs to write any other articles? -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can add to what Caeciliusinhorto reports about Lt.Casper that they did try to make an edit, on User:Taeyab, but were blocked by an edit filter. Complicating any tracking here is the fact that LesIie renamed from Taeyab to LesIie on 23 May. This is so strange I'm calling in backup. {{CU needed}}, is Lt.Casper is a sock, and is there something going on here with these other barnstar-givers? I note 9Ahmen9 is already down as a sock of Pr0p123. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having flipped through their created articles, I've found quite a few more with clear evidence of LLM use. And I don't understand how it's possible to "unintentionally" add fake sources. So I think WP:PROD is the way to go for the articles. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning CapnJackSp
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
7 May - Made a problematic revert to restore the information sourced to an Indian magazine, but not an independent source even after knowing that he is required to use only independent sources for India-Pakistan military conflict information as evident from his earlier edit.
18 May - Calls Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus a "massacre" and reverts another editor to impose this pro-Hindutva view. The sources are not calling it a "massacre".
21 May - Makes a problematic edit to infobox that waters down the independent claims about Indian casualties, and used France 24, a French state-owned outlet for discussing the loss of their own aircraft.
21 May - Attacking another editor by inappropriately accusing them of "serious WP:CIR issue" for not giving credence to unreliable Indian outlets due to the requirement of using independent reliable sources.
21 May - Attacking another editor for backing up their argument with links and is also inappropriately accusing them of stonewalling just because the editor (Slatersteven) correctly reminds editors of past discussions to avoid duplicate discussions.[19][20]
21 May - Confirms his ignorance of WP:RS by offering his totally problematic defense of the unreliable Indian media sources, frequently called Godi media, by proclaiming, "Most of the sources editors callously label as "Godi Media" are perfectly reliable sources, or as reliable as most news sources get. Them being sympathetic to the government for monetary or ideological reasons does not change that."
21 May - Using unreliable Indian media sources to make the claims where independent sources are required. Went to use even one of the poorest Indian website called FirstPost which is now well known for conspiracy theories including that "China and the United States have launched a propaganda campaign against India".[21]
23 May - Makes a misleading claim that the information according to third party sources about the losses of aircraft regarding India are not properly sourced. Does not explain how.
What I find even more ironic is, that CapnjackSp expects others not to commit the very violations he has committed in the diffs right above.[22] Months ago, he was promoting Hindutva POV on Goa Inquisition by claiming that Hindus faced forced conversions and destruction of Hindu temples. He provided 3 sources to enhance his argument and none of them supported his claims.[23]
In the last AE report against him, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive302#CapnJackSp, he was warned by Dennis Brown that "I am going to warn them firmly about copyright infringement in particular, as well as behavior. This means you have a short piece of WP:ROPE and you will simply be blocked without warning for either." To this day, his pro-Hindutva and pro-Indian editing continues even on highly contentious topics like India-Pakistan conflict where his behavior has been absolutely unproductive. Azuredivay (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that CapnJackSp, in his response below, has engaged in selective canvassing, dodged the concerns about a few diffs, failed to address his misrepresentation of sources, and has falsely accused me of violating 3RR.
Outside here, he is now unnecessarily making revert to restore an opinion piece[25] in violation of WP:ONUS saying that consensus exists when the recent discussion discarded the use of opinion pieces at the talk page.[26]
What is more astonishing is, that he is casting aspersions against SheriffIsInTown here, claiming the editor created "the thread" in order "to single out Indian sources". He also made an off-topic comparison between India and Pakistan by falsely asserting that spread of misinformation is higher in Pakistan in comparison with India, despite experts surveying for the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risk Report have ranked India highest over misinformation and disinformation.[27] His jingoistic and pro-Hindutva editing is continuing even after the report. Azuredivay (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: CapJackSp's voluntary acceptance of a topic ban from the India-Pakistan conflict addresses the problems with most of the diffs. Without any further ado, the thread can be closed with the topic ban he has agreed to. Azuredivay (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by CapnJackSp
I would like to respond to the report in a thorough manner - I find the report to be worded extremely deceptively. While I will note that much of this is a content dispute presented as WP:DE, I will still give my rationale for those edits that are challenged.
Going through the content disputes raised, if editors are interested - Collapsed for those who do not want to read through the rather large amount of text
The claim about "promoting Hindutva POV on Goa Inquisition" is a gross mischarecterisation - All I did was modify the material in the sentence in line with the concerns raised (The objection was "Hindus were not the only ones to be prosecuted as per the rest of body ", and I slightly modified to reflect this - After the editor raised concerns beyond the wording, I did not reinstate the material). After my edit was reverted, I did not edit war - I raised my concerns on the T/P and after discussing with the user, I added back the material we agreed on [29]. This textbook example of WP:BRD and collaborative editing being spun as WP:DE is highly deceptive.
Point 4 states that I was attempting to impose a "pro-Hindutva view" that RS do not support. I contend that my edit was completely valid - Many killings of Kashmiri Pandits (and Kashmiri Hindus in general) have been called massacres by RS, and editors could cross check any number of sources at 2003 Nadimarg massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre and 1997 Sangrampora massacre.
Point 9 talks about an addition that had been made in wikivoice and removed (correctly). I added the material back, attributing correctly to media reports. Again, this is a content dispute - If the user would prefer "Indian media reports" instead, I woudnt have had any objection. The X link being shared has, as far as I can see, never been put forward at RSN or elsewhere.
Point 5 talks about "downplaying casualties". The current infobox uses multiple reports to synthesise something none of them say - My edit was simply an accurate summary of the sources in the article or those raisedon the T/P. After the edit, although the WP:SYNTH-problematic version was reinstated, I took my concerns to the T/P and have been discussing a possible consensus since.
Point 2 is about "reliability" of sources - The two edits are not contradictory, contrary to what is implied. There is no issue using RS from either country, especially when backed up by similar reports in reliable international media. It is however, objectionable to try and rush combat loss figures when the conflict is still ongoing and the reports are contradicting each other.
Point 10 is a partial quote - And the full quote [30], as well as my explanations in other sections currently open does indeed clarify my argument.
Point 6 and 8 are both about the use of "Godi Media" [a] sounces; the arbitrary usage of this inflammatory label by certain editors to discredit sources being problematic and against WP policies is not my opinion alone - I've brought this up a short while back in the filing above on Wareon. [b]
The seventh point is absurd - It is very clearly not a personal attack. I am not sure as to why Azuredivay would consider it a sarcastic remark directed at a particular editor - Especially since the two links of alleged "stonewalling" nowhere resemble stonewalling, and indeed were good responses to frivolous requests. It is common in many pages in contentious topics to cite a "previous consensus" to stonewall attempts at constructive edits, and my experience in the IPA area has taught me that even the weakest semblance of consensus in contentious topics can be used by disruptive editors to derail future good faith proposals. I was noting my dissent, but I had no proposals at the moment so I noted that too.
The only allegation of conduct violations are the reverts on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. I encourage editors to go through this section (though it is rather long) that I had started after editors kept reverting, without discussion, the use of dubious sources to rewrite the results section of the article. Other editors trying to make changes to balance the "revised" results have also been reverted. I still intent to resolve the issue through an RFC as stated in the discussion; I have lost faith in the T/P discussion resolving itself after the quality of arguments went downhill, like the claim about how ChatGPT found the sources reliable. I have not made reverts post the failure of my two separate attempts to remove obvious POV content from the high visibility page, and do not intent to do so either till we get a firm consensus on the content. I note that this is not the only page where such rewrites of results have happened - many, including Gotitbro[31], Kautilya3[32] pointed out similar issues.
I also note that while the filer has dug up a three year old ARE case (as a new editor, I had an incorrect understanding of how close was "too close" paraphrasing) and cited it as the "last" AE against me, they have left out the filing from two years ago - Perhaps, since that one was filed by a sock, and mirrors this one in that it was primarily a content disagreement.
Hello @Tamzin I've gone over the edit in more detail. I agree that the number of eighty is unsourced, and overlooking that was lazy editing on my part. If I had to do over, I think the better way would be to list the recognised instances of massacres separately and cite them from their respective articles. The sourcing would, in that case, be much clearer too.I would like to clarify that the edits above were made in good faith and were not intended to represent any one POV unfairly over another. However, if admins think this editing is one-sided, I am wiling to accept a voluntarily topic ban from the India-Pakistan Conflict topic area. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
^The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.
I am adding my two cents here since the majority of the complaints pertain to 2025 India-Pakistan conflict where I am involved.
The diffs numbered 1 and 3, deal with INFOBOX-warring on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. It is not uncommon for a large number of edits to get made in violation of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and, when an experienced editor runs into them, they have no choice but to revert a whole range of edits wholesale. To their credit, the editor started a talk page discussion where several experienced editors have participated. I don't think it is right to label this as "gaming 1RR".
The edit 4 is problematic in certain ways, but the editor is also right that there were some massacres that were part of Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits as it is called in popular parlance. (That is the version of that page before it succumbed to Wikipedia's systemic bias.) The right thing to do would have been to follow WP:BRD.
Coming to the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, there are groups of editors trying to exclude any information or analysis that shows that India did well in the conflict. Third-party analysts like Tom Cooper, John Spencer and Walter Ladwig (the last of them an academic in King's College London, War Studies department) have been shot down on technicalities, and a long thread started at WP:RSN to exclude all Indian media from the page. Those efforts continue in this complaint itself, peppered with references to "unreliable Indian media" and "Godi media". They basically amount to partisan censorship and are not in the interest of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning CapnJackSp
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I haven't gone through every allegation yet, but #4 jumps out as particularly alarming. CapnJackSp restored contested content that cited six sources for including Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (piped as "1990 Kashmiri Hindus killings") on List of massacres in India: [38][39][40][41][42][43]. None of the six uses the word "massacre", and the third one is an utterly unreliable source, a nonbinding resolution of the US House that appears to have never even passed committee, so just the opinion of a few politicians on the other side of the world. Furthermore, the first two, which were stated to support the "30–80" figure, respectively give numbers of "at least 30" and "32 ... [a] plausible figure". CJS' defense in this thread is that the use of the word "massacre" is supported on three other pages. Setting aside that the first isn't in the stated time period of the 1990s, and that sources existing on other pages don't exempt one from citation requirements, the fact that some RS verify that some massacres have occurred against Kashmiri Pandits does not verify the claim of up to 80 massacred, nor explain the references to higher body counts of 219 or 399, nor the link to an article about an exodus that occurred in 1990.@CapnJackSp, I would like to see a much better explanation of why you restored this content than what you've given, and I'd like to know whether you stand by that decision still. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Azuredivay: He hasn't quite agreed to it. He's agreed to it if admins think his editing has been one-sided, and so far 1 admin has commented (me) and I haven't decided whether I think there's a systemic issue. I'd like to hear from one or more colleagues first. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning DataCrusade1999
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
01:28, 5 May 2025: Showing entirely non-collaborative approach towards another editor, saying he will keep making reverts over "Islamist" vs "Islamic" and making accusations without evidence that the another editor is Islamophobic. He said: "First of all, please do not mention my name. I prefer not to engage with you, so feel free to proceed as you wish; I won't mind. However, I will revert any changes if I notice "Islamic" being used instead of "Islamist."" He added: "You can't insert your hatred of a religion in the article in this case the religion is Islam. DO NOT PUSH YOUR POV."
15:54, 3 May 2025 - Again, showing non-collaborative approach, assuming bad faith and making accusations without evidence. He said "You're violating NPOV by waging a religious crusade and giving the article a Hindutva tilt, so I suggest you remove yourself from this article altogether." He added: "please don’t respond to my comments. I might say something that you probably won't like. Let someone else handle this. I know you’re not fond of me, and I definitely don’t want to talk to you, especially after the whole non-argument you initiated in the Islamist section."
15:42, 6 May 2025: Failure to WP:AGF and attacking other editors. Says "any objection is just about your ego there's no merit or substance in any of your argument." He added: "there are always individuals who raise the censorship flag when they feel they are not being given the latitude to spread misleading information or impose their point of view on readers."
12:27, 24 May 2025: Totally disregarding WP:RS. Creates a false balance between "Indian and Pakistani sources" and reliable American news sources over the India-Pakistan military conflict and proposes a retaliatory action by saying "I'll gladly help in removing NYT and WaPo from vietnam war and war on terror or any other USA intervention".
12:33, 24 May 2025: Continues repetition of his false balance by targeting "every conflict page on Wikipedia starting from USA waged wars or conflicts," only because Indian and Pakistani outlets cannot be used for stating facts on India-Pakistan military conflicts.
08:24, 25 May 2025 - Again creating a false balance between unreliable Indian media sources and NYT. Engages in WP:BATTLE by wrongly claiming that another user is engaging in advocacy of banning Indian and Pakistani sources.
11:09, 25 May 2025: Continues his talk page disruption by saying "please don't launch defense for western media houses" and "So western media hosues have shown regret? well that may be how you have perceived things but it's not the case for me." To him, retraction of a story is not enough.
11:27, 25 May 2025: Sticks to his wrong belief that the RSN thread is demanding "blanket ban" by saying "I don't buy your reasoning I'm of the opinion that this whole thread is about instituting a blanket ban but you're entitiled to your opinion." See WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT.
13:34, 26 May 2025: Makes an outrageous claim that "Both India and Pakistan are relatively free compared to Russia or Ukraine", when corrected, he doubles down with his claim, "Ukraine is under martial law. There are lots of things that Ukrainian press can't report most of the Ukrainian press coverage of war has been pretty biased".[44]
08:59, 27 May 2025: Not even trying to give up his outrageous belief that categorization of an article as "opinion piece" depends on one's own view. As such, he keeps rejecting the fact that this article is an opinion piece and is bludgeoning across the talk page to impose his view. Following diffs show issues with WP:IDHT, WP:CIR and WP:BLUD;
"I've said before IMHO RUSI analysis is not an opnion piece. But you believe otherwise and that's fine you're entitled to your opinion."[45]
"I've said it before and I'll say it again I don't think RUSI is an opinion piece walter has expert knowledge in this field."[46]
"This is your view and at best I can acknowledge it but nothing more than that."[47]
The rampant display of battleground mentality, non-collaborative approach, and the failure to understand what others are telling is very clear here. Wareon (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Let me make it clear, I started this thread but wasn't requesting sanctions on Datacrusade1999. I just found that their conduct at talk pages and noticeboard as being unnecessarily combative. Another user recently was topic banned mainly for their conduct on talk pages.[50] I'd be okay that Datacrusade1999 should be alerted about incivility and other WP:TPG ethics, given it is the first time they have been reported here.
Let me address your points. Yes many editors do state their opinions (no matter how wrong they are) on talk pages, but most of them stop it after some time after becoming familiar with WP:TPG. However, Datacrusade1999 is continuing that, and his talk page comments are either derailing the threads from their actual purpose or they are getting unnecessarily heated.
This article is an opinion piece. It clearly says "The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution." A similar source written by a subject matter expert that was not tagged as an opinion piece yet was removed as it was deemed no different to an opinion piece on the article recently through consensus.[51] Pakistan and India are more "unfree" than Ukraine with regards to reporting of the events. Datacrusade1999 was already told that Ukraine ranks at No.62 at the Press Freedom Index, while India and Pakistan rank below 150. The difference is huge. While we have no doubt over the situation of Ukraine over the ongoing war, the same cannot be said for India and Pakistan. Experts believe that India is going through an undeclared emergency,[52] while there are those including the former PM of Pakistan who says Pakistan is going through undeclared martial law.[53]
I would further disagree that Datacrusade1999 treating "NYT and WaPo" to be as credible as the concerning Indian sources should be considered a mere " hyperbole / a slippery slope argument". He was doubling down and repeating this misleading argument as the diffs show. This betrays the understanding of WP:RS and WP:RGW, and these unhelpful comments turn any talk page discussion unproductive.
The diffs about defending Indian sources in context of this conflict become especially egregious when you consider the fact that Datacrusade1999 was repeatedly referring to Indian sources as "partisan", "Godi media" for spreading disinformation in the context of this conflict,[54] and then suddenly advocates them on the RSN thread while trying to portray them better than the relatively freer outlets from western media and Ukraine while also misrepresenting the thread's motive. Wareon (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by DataCrusade1999
A lot has been said about my lack of collaboration. However, "collaboration" cannot mean that I have to agree with every viewpoint put forward by other editors. I have my own perspective and worldview; if I don't believe in something, I won't agree with it.
Regarding RUSI, I've already stated that I don't consider it an opinion, and I acknowledge the differing perspectives of other editors. That is about as much as I can concede on matters with which I disagree. link
Much has also been said about the reliability of Indian media. As Wareon himself has pointed out, I am quite suspicious of "Godi media." This should indicate that I am aware of the issues facing Indian media. However, I also know that there are thousands of other media organizations in India that do excellent journalism.
Some editors are advocating for a ban on Indian sources. They claim they are not asking for a blanket ban, but anyone can look at the noticeboard and see the discussions taking place there. Needless to say, I do not support that kind of policy.
I cannot and will not agree to something that I don't believe in. It's important to note that my opinion is not more valid than that of other editors. If a consensus emerges where my views or sources do not find support or credibility, I am willing to accept that consensus and make my peace with it. I have nothing against anyone, but if I see something that I disagree with, I will speak out. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Kautilya3
I am apparently the editor involved in diffs 1, 2 and 3. I admit that the editor has a bit of an abrasive style but I think their heart is the in right place. Their point was basically that calling a certain group of militants as "Islamic" would smear a religion whereas calling them as "Islamist" would attach them to an ideology. I understood their point perfectly fine notwithstanding all the barbs. Other editors agreed with their position; so I let it pass. Little did I know that it would get cited as evidence at AE by some one else for no good reason.
The majority of the remaining diffs have to do with a completely misguided thread at WP:RSN, calling into question "Indian media" based on a (pretty sloppy) New York Times article. Titled "How the Indian Media Amplified Falsehoods in the Drumbeat of War" it was bascially criticising mainstream television channels calling them "Indian media".
The filer says the editor held a wrong belief that the RSN thread is demanding "blanket ban". It was not a wrong belief. When asked "Did it mention any source we regard as WP:RS?", SheriffIsInTown, the originator of the thread, said [56]: "It raises a gigantic question mark on the reliability of Indian media and sources as a whole. That is why we are requesting that they not be cited in conflict-related articles." That obviously sounds like a blanket ban?
And, what exactly does the filer mean by "false balance between unreliable Indian media sources and NYT"? What are supposed to be "unreliable Indian media"? And why is it a "false balance"?
This whole thing seems to have been an exercise to bait the Indian editors and to get them to trip up so that they can get sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning DataCrusade1999
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Diff by diff:
Quite rude. There is nothing wrong with asking someone not to ping you. The difference between "Islamic" and "Islamist" is an important one and replacing "Islamist" with "Islamic" where the latter does not apply could indeed be a form of Islamophobia. Which is to say, the portions you've quoted here are not particularly damning. The overall tone of that conversation, however, is pretty far from civil. I'm not terribly impressed by either participant (DataCrusade1999's tone is certainly worse, but Kautilya3 gets condescending in the first reply), but this is a single incident and Kautilya3 has already responded to this with equanimity.
Not acceptable. Ownership, aspersions, and a bit of a veiled threat. Not good.
See #1.
Not violation. This is hyperbole / a slippery slope argument. This kind of argument doesn't tend to be well-received on Wikipedia, but it's not a conduct violation.
Not violation. This is a more forceful restatement of the above. Editors are allowed to have opinions. This opinion does not strike me as particularly beyond the pale, either.
Not violation. The other editor is indeed saying that there is prior consensus not to use these sources.
Ish. It is not a violation of anything to have an opinion and state it. This is however unnecessarily personalized.
Not violation... however. Having read the discussion, I certainly can understand why this editor has come to this conclusion. However, immediately above this is Man don't do this at this point you're beign rude I don't throw the "r" word around casually but it seems you want to earn it. and... yikes. I'm going to believe that the "r word" here is "rude" and not the word we usually mean when we say "the r word". I will block immediately if disabused of this belief.
Not violation, reflects particularly poorly on the filer. This is again a statement of opinion. You do not violate IPA by having an opinion. That Ukraine is under martial law is a fact. That Ukraine does not have full freedom of the press is also a fact.
Not violation. That is not an opinion piece. It is expert commentary. Whether expert commentary is reliable or not for any given statement is something that is decided on a case-by-case basis.
Conclusion: In my opinion, DataCrusade1999's conduct falls short of the "behavioural best practice" that editors are expected to adhere to in CTOPs. I could easily believe Kautilya3's assessment, the editor has a bit of an abrasive style but I think their heart is the in right place, but I could also be convinced otherwise. I hope a reminder about best behaviour is all we need here.
Regarding Wareon, however, I'm really quite unimpressed. They were the subject of an AE thread that only just closed ([57]), and which resulted in a boomerang for the filer. The situation is extremely similar: one editor is brought to AE by another without merit, for disagreeing that something is a reliable source. I'd be unimpressed by this filing at the best of times. This is less than 48 hours after a similar thread in "the other direction". For Pete's sake. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I haven't looked at the evidence in any detail (and will probably not end up doing so) but with regards to the "r"-word: my guess is that in the context the euphemism was used, it referred to "racism". See the comment they were replying to, which had already been described as racist in the comment immediately above DataCrusader's comment. Abecedare (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the filer isn't seeking sanctions but instead a warning and since the admins replying here aren't suggesting a topic ban or block maybe this discussion can be closed with an outcome of a serious caution provided. LizRead!Talk!03:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, as I agree with Liz that we don't really need a sanction here, but for both Wareon and DataCrusade1999: whether US sources are used on articles about US conflicts, etc., is completely irrelevant at a particular IPA article talk. DC1999, you're free to make this argument at RSN, though it isn't a particularly strong argument there either, but using it at an IPA article is just irrelevant; your beef isn't with the editors at that article but with the editors at RSN. Wareon, if someone makes that kind of argument at an IPA article, the best response is something along the lines of "US media coverage of the Vietnam war is irrelevant here." And DC1999, continuing to make such arguments at an article talk may be seen as disruptive. Valereee (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning ÆthelflædofMercia
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
20 May 2025 Adds false detail to lede saying the list is about LTTE attacks on civilians when the next sentence makes it clear it also included military targets, indicating he did not even bother to read the article before editing.
21 May 2025 Re-adds content in diff #2 to a different section falsely claiming that I was an admin who advised him to put it there, after I had removed it from lede notifying him of WP:NPOV and explaining that the terrorist POV was already covered in a section and he needed to start Talk discussion if he disagreed.
21 May 2025 Despite my NPOV notification, adds nonexistent "Suicide Terrorism" as LTTE's ideology which is entirely his own original research.
22 May 2025 Adds false and extremely serious accusation against LTTE by misrepresenting the source which states the exact opposite and admits to it in Talk when pointed out. Then adds another detail from the source (without even citing it) against my advice that enough weight had already been given to it.
24 May 2025 Re-adds the disputed content in diff #3, citing Talk page, although no consensus had been reached with me who disputed it. Despite the fact that I had explained to him previously the section was inappropriate place to add that, citations lacked exact pages and sources he cited were biased, he still added it there, refused to give exact page numbers (last two sources don't support the content) and used weasel phrasing "Academics" without specifying them and their biases (like he did in Tamil genocide article).
24 May 2025 Removes my content from Tamil genocide article, claiming that I called it "excessive information in another page" which I never did. It's actually an important detail about the Sri Lankan government's stance from his own source but he had left it out when he created that section, possibly because it made the government look bad since, as it will become evident, he has a pattern of nationalist editing.
24 May 2025 Removes most of a section from Tamil genocide, once again claiming that I called it "excessive information in another page" which I never did.
25 May 2025 Adds unsupported attribution to Francis Boyle in Tamil genocide (his own article says he was a legal advisor, not founder, of TGTE) to question his neutrality, but removed a detail from attribution of another source in the article claiming it's unsupported (although it's supported elsewhere in the article). Uses two different standards but for the same reason: lessen the reliability of sources recognizing Tamil genocide.
26 May 2025 Casts aspersions on me by falsely accusing me of edit warring for challenging his edits on LTTE and falsely claimed another editor, Oz346, supported his stance that the view that LTTE is considered as a terrorist organization has not been included in its article, which Oz346 never said anywhere. This continued misrepresentation of sources and editors seems to indicate a lack of competence at best, or deliberate distortion at worst.
28 May 2025 Once again, removes most of another section from Tamil genocide, claiming they exist in its main article, although I had written most of them specifically for Tamil genocide article. Removal of large amount of content on baseless grounds is becoming disruptive.
29 May 2025 Casts aspersions on Oz346 by accusing him of only wanting content that agrees with Oz346's POV, in violation of the collaborative spirit and assume good faith.
29 May 2025 Re-adds contentious subheading to LTTE previously removed per NPOV without an explanation despite having been notified by another editor on user Talk page about the need of edit summary back in 22 May.
30 May 2025 Adds detail to LTTE lede not supported by the sources. Once again, no edit explanation. This is the most serious nationalist POV edit since it denies the killing of Tamil civilians by describing them as LTTE fighters which has been the tactic of the Sri Lankan government.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 20 May 2025.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a recently created SPA that exclusively edits articles relating to LTTE and Tamil genocide. This user has single-handedly made the topic heated. I urge admins to go through his edit history and note that most of his edits have been reverted by multiple users, and also check the various notices and complaints from editors, including an admin, on his user talk page. To save everyone the trouble of going through AE process each time a new SPA pops up, extended confirmed user protection, especially for the most contentious Tamil genocide and LTTE articles, may be helpful.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
Not surprised to see this here. I am surprised to see those two articles aren't ECP already. I'd page-protect, but as I read it this has to be for a maximum of one year, not indefinitely, so I'm not sure that's actually more useful than taking individual editors to AE. Would appreciate a sanity check from an experienced AE admin on that. -- asilvering (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can protect indefinitely; it just loses its "special" CTOP status after a year (i.e., another admin could then unprotect without going through the formal appeal process). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning ScienceFlyer
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Users is a multiyear contributor to the topic as well as the recent RfC. They are aware of the restrictions.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
There was a three month long RfC over the inclusion of material from several German and German/English sources which ScienceFlyer participated in. The closing statement noted a supermajority for inclusion of the material. Additional, the closure of the RfC indicated a substantial consensus for the proposed language. After this language was included in the article, it touched off an immediate edit war for it removal.
I would also like to request Bon courage, at a minimum be warned for contributing to the edit warring on this article.
For those who haven't followed COVID-19 lab leak theory: There was a huge RFC that concluded yesterday with the result that the existence of an unpublished German government report should be mentioned somehow in the article.
Editors are currently discussing "how" to mention it, but, at a glance, everyone seems to accept "whether" to mention it at this point.
I think the basic underlying complaint here is that the initial WP:BOLD attempt to mention the report was reverted as inappropriate/NPOV (by multiple editors). The OP is not yet WP:XCON and so was not/could not be involved in the reverting.
I would not call that edit warring. Editors are currently discussing on the talk page, productively or not. Procedurally, this is just standard WP:BRD.
I'll also note that the long "RfC" was in fact a discussion turned into a pseudo-RfC and never listed at RfC, and that ScienceFlyer never received any {{alert/first}} templates, not even under their "Discretionary" iteration. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Bon Courage
One of the unintended consequences of the introduction of WP:ECP was that, although it tamped down the damage caused by WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior editors in article space, it meant they had to find an outlet elsewhere. Launching waste-of-time AEs to try and take perceived opponents 'off the table' seems to be one of those outlets, as evidenced by this filing. Bon courage (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Aquillion
The RFC close specifically stated that no particular wording was endorsed, and reasonable objections were made on talk that the version ScienceFlyer reverted went beyond what the RFC agreed to. But more importantly, while AE requests are only supposed to focus on one person, the filer undermines their own point by objecting to Bon courage's edit, which was clearly a valid interpretation of the RFC's results, at least to the point where it can't reasonably be said to be editing against consensus. (Many supporters also recommended the mention be placed next to the German government's later findings and with attribution to the intelligence agency, though this aspect was not discussed much and might need further discussion.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Objective3000
It’s difficult to classify ScienceFlyer’s June 12th edit as edit warring as their previous edit to the article was two months and about 90 article edits earlier. The close of the survey (I don’t see where it was an RfC) states further discussion is warranted. So let the discussion continue without further disruption. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning ScienceFlyer
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I don't see that any action is needed here. There was a brief edit war following the close of the RFC which has now stopped and editors have returned to discussion. Recommend we close with no action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No action taken. Eliezer1987 is reminded that it is generally expected that editors provide reasoning for a revert upon request, and all editors involved are reminded that the same applies to placing maintenance tags on an article. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Eliezer1987
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
1. Reverted an edit by restoring a WP:FRINGE viewpoint ("was neither a consulate nor an embassy") to the first sentence in the lead. Previous move discussions appear to have an implicit overwhelming consensus that the building was either a consulate or embassy[58]. But the most egregious thing here is that there was an ongoing discussion on this very change, and Eliezer1987 didn't bother to even respond.
I told them they should be discussing this on the talk page and still they haven't engaged in the article talk page. Meanwhile they've continued this exact behavior on another article (see below).
2. reverts the removal of contested content. Once again there is an ongoing discussion on this and thus far the consensus is that the material is POV[59]. The key point here is that despite significant discussion the user has made no attempt to discuss on the talk page.
They made another large revert at the article restoring a lot of content to the lead. An hour later, another user protested against this change[62] at the talk page, and again Eliezer1987 didn't respond.
In this revert they write in the edit summary "Whoever put the tags, please open a discussion about it on the talk page". So they acknowledge they are making a revert but not starting a discussion themselves instead of trying to put the onus of discussing on someone else.
A discussion indeed was started by someone else[63], but they didn't bother to join the discussion at talk.
Admitted to making reverts[64][65] but again no sign of discussion.
Another example where they are aware they are making a revert[66] but don't bother discussing at talk. There was plenty of discussion at talk[67] regarding the use of the "colonial" framing they reverted.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Eliezer1987
Unfortunately, I don't have much time these days when missiles are flying over us. So I haven't gone through every edit that appears here.I will write in general:
I am an experienced editor, also on the subject of conflict. The discussions in these articles are long and exhausting, and I don't always get to them. When I see that there is a discussion, I do not act contrary to it.
I would be happy for the administrators to examine the complaint against me in depth. And also the complainant who saw fit to open a complaint immediately after I reprimanded him for inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia.
I try not to make things personal, maybe that's why I try to create and write and edit articles and not discuss a single word for hours. I hope there is a place on Wikipedia for people who try to avoid arguments.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
A few general notes here. Generally speaking, I would expect that editors who make major reverts be willing to explain themselves upon request, but it generally isn't required to offer an explanation (beyond a descriptive edit summary) absent such a request. And of course, life happens. That said, it is indeed expected that editors who add maintenance tags to articles be willing to explain why they did so upon request as well, though generally it is better practice to ask them to do that rather than remove the tags as a first resort. I don't, though, see anything here meriting more than perhaps a mild reminder that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and so communication with other editors is a core part of participation here, not an optional nicety. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
12.5.2025 YFNS complains that her DYK nomination is on hold because of ongoing issues; says The issues with sourcing currently raised were discussed extensively during those, and the editor most vehemently arguing there are issues is relitigating complaints they made prior. The ongoing discussion at the time was raised by an editor new to the page (me) and hadn't been discussed before.
15.5.2025 YFNS says now sourcing concerns by one editor are being used to justify deleting a DYK nom when at the time maybe a half dozen editors across two talk page sections were engaging constructively, including editing unverified statements or finding better sources.
26.5.2025 YFNS claims a longstanding consensus "that ROGD is indeed FRINGE", linking to a discussion closed with a decision not to call it (lower-case) "fringe" in an article talk page.
31.5.2025 YFNS claims I don't think I've seen a MEDRS that SEGM has produced despite less than a week earlier arguing that a review article in Archives of Disease in Childhood shouldn't be used because one co-author is affiliated to SEGM.
Added since filing:
1.6.2025in this discussion claims that (of diffs 1/2 above) he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM, linking to a discussion where I'd repeatedly said the opposite, in addition to saying the opposite in my first additional comments below. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC) edited 12:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These diffs above show within 3 weeks that YFNS misrepresented discussions a bunch of times to try and get her way. To try and get the DYK passed, YFNS repeatedly dismissed and misrepresented the ongoing discussions as insignificant or vexatious.
To counter claims in the FTN RfC, YFNS claims that the implications are narrow, the point of the exercise was solely to be able to point editors to site consensus about a group and not to disqualify sources. At the same time YFNS is using SEGM-affiliation of authors as their first (though not only) argument to disqualify sources.
YFNS says that there is a longstanding consensus that ROGD is WP:FRINGE linking to an RfC on an article talk page (i.e. local consensus).
YFNS says that she's never seen a SEGM MEDRS source before and yet has - including in extremely recent discussions.
I saw at the ongoing close review an admin state that the proper place to address rhetorical dishonesty in GENSEX was here. I had already tried to address it on this editor's talk page, and received denial, justification, followed by a repeat of the behaviour. It's just not reasonable to expect editors to have to double-check every time an editor references a previous discussion because they may not be telling the truth.
Added a new diff because, in a report based on misrepresentations of discussions to influence processes, YFNS has blatantly done it again, and the evidence is on this board.
On their rebuttal:
1-2) A blatant misrepresentation aside, misses the point. The other arguments against the source may have been valid in their context. At FTN, the important thing was the scope of a "fringe organisation" finding. Saying that it disqualifies a source published in academic RS would have demonstrated the concern about how broadly an affirmative finding would be interpreted, and YFNS deliberately downplayed this by denying using the argument.
3) Just to note that what YFNS calls here one straightforward issue is still unresolved weeks later, and that YFNS denied there was any issue at all when it was raised.
4) I didn't argue to scrap the DYK, if that's what your implying. Even if I had, it wouldn't justify lying.
5) To answer Snokalok, this is actually the weakest diff in my evidence - the close is pretty damning about the theory. Even so, it simply doesn't support YFNS' statement that links to it.
6) No one said the ADC article was a systematic review or unimpeachable, or that no contrary sources exist. It's a review article in Archives of Disease in Childhood - it's MEDRS. Which we discussed, and within a week you claimed not to have seen. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) EW says of using SEGM-authorship to disqualify sources, viewed in context she's just saying that it wasn't fundamental to her argument. This was a later excuse not made in the original context. In the original context of the misrepresentation it's irrelevant whether it was the main argument YFNS used, it was whether the argument was used at all. The use of this argument demonstrated wider implications of the RfC at FTN. Saying there: "that was only a small part of my argument" would have been conceding this point. Instead, she said that wasn't the argument.
3-4) EW says these should have been worded more precisely. YFNS represented the live issues on the page as: previously discussed, vexatious, solely raised by VIR. These aren't imprecise, they're false.
5) The close doesn't say what YFNS says it does, and just as important YFNS misrepresents the level of consensus even after elastic exculpatory exegesis.
6) EW's statement that about SEGM-affiliation as "the gravamen of her argument" seems to be about 1-2, and completely unrelated to diff 6 which is about pretending not to have seen MEDRS.
Supplemental diff: 1) YFNS accuses he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM. Not only did I write in this filing that it was their first (though not only) argument to disqualify sources (emphasis added), but I've clarified this 3 previous times to YFNS. YFNS alleges that I make the same arguments (point 2 in the back and forth[112]) that her only opposition was SEGM authorship. In fact, in that discussion, I say: The fact that you also added further arguments doesn't mean you weren't using that oneandI never claimed that this was the only argument you made.I had earlier written (in a comment YFNS responded to): you made several arguments for throwing out a source, the first one is association to the organisation. YFNS didn't clumsily misread my opening statement here, she links to a talk page discussion and says I make the opposite claim there to the one I did explicitly and repeatedly. This is what I'm talking about. She's demonstrably lied, in this filing - what more evidence could you need? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, to your point about inconsistent arguments, I started this report because I noticed a pattern of YFNS misrepresenting past discussions to sway processes.
During this report, YFNS linked[69] to a past discussion with me[70], and represented me as saying that YFNS had used SEGM affiliation as the only argument to disqualify a source. I had said the opposite - multiple times at the discussion YFNS linked to[71][72], and elsewhere. It's what got me started as saying this was lying as opposed to misrepresentation, because I can't maintain further doubts about intentionality. YFNS hasn't responded further on this. This isn't inconsistent arguments. It's making false claims about what has previously been said. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
1-2) This is a misrepresentation Samuel has been making for a week. He saysThis behaviour continues months later with the primary argument against a review article's use being a co-author's declared affiliation to SEGM., linking to me noting that a commentary cited by a narrative review doesn't override systematic reviews. That's basic MEDRS. He came to my talk page the other day to make the same arguments (point 2 in the back and forth[74]) The SEGM authorship is the cherry on top for unreliability in what already fails MEDRS, he keeps saying my only opposition is SEGM
3) I shouldn't have said that at DYK. I was admittedly vexed as the first DYK was derailed by comments admins just agreed were sanctionable[75], which led to a GAR and second GA assessment, which found it fine and let me re-open the DYK, and I was frustrated to see it derailed again.
I would like to note however, Samuel also raised this on my talk page (point 3 in the discussion[76]), and I note my response that his section raised one straightforward issue but In the same section, VIR repeatedly commented on desistance, social contagion, the detransition rate - relitigating things previously discussed to death
4) I don't think any of those other editors engaging would have supported scrapping the DYK because of a discussion of sourcing unrelated to the hooks. I'll note the comment I make after, where I clarify my frustration[77]
5) There is absolutely long-standing consensus across dozens of articles that ROGD (kids are catching trans from the internet en masse) is a fringe theory. Snokalok already quoted that RFC close noting it's got no scientific support. But the full statement is We've had a longstanding consensus, that VIR is aware of, that ROGD is indeed FRINGE[78], which is doubly true since VIR has extensively argued on multiple talk pages that ROGD is not FRINGE (include talk for ROGD) and consensus has repeatedly found against. A week before, you asked VIR's advice and had him tell you himself he's "a small minority" in opposing consensus at ROGD[79], a few weeks before I make that comment in response to claims like Wuest & Last present "social contagion/ROGD" as misinformation without establishing that it is
6) That is not some top-tier MEDRS, it's a primary source analyzing another primary source. Some editors wanted to disprove the former based on the latter. In that linked thread, I note that top-tier MEDRS/MEDORGS (the British Medical Association and the AWMF's latest clinical practice guidelines) 1) make the same accusations the second source says isn't an issue and 2) and cite the former source. Conversely, I note that the only people who've given any weight to the source authored by SEGM is commentary/opinion pieces from other SEGM members.
If admins need context for all this : [SEGM, Genspect, and etc] produce little or no original research, adds a group of researchers from the Yale University Integrity Project. For example, they estimate that around 75% of published publications by SEGM members are letters and comments, not peer-reviewed scientific papers.[80]
1) Cass Review#Methodology: No external review or prior consultation was performed before publishing. - cited to the AWMF
2/3) Whether a "letter" or "scientific letter" (rated lower than primary by the publisher) - still not MEDRS.
4) I did not call Esses a conversion therapist, I said his website recommends conversion therapy advocates Therapy First and Genspect, among others. Those others are the Bayswater Support Group and Our Duty (who say the goal of treatment should be "desistance", ie no longer identifying as trans[82])[[83]]
In VIR's latest diff[87] he says I concede removed text was NPOV, as I explain that it's a NPOV violation to claim it found "80% desistance" when it says the commonly used statistic stating that *80% of TGE youth will desist is flawed, relied on conflicting definitions, and conversion therapy.
9) I apologize. It was blunter than called for and in the wrong forum.
10) I defend Baxendale as a MEDRS there and note VIR's other "MEDRS" were mostly commentaries and primary articles
11) A MEDORG states a number of people involved in the review and the advisory group previously advocated for bans on gender affirming care in the United States, and have promoted non-affirming ‘gender exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice.[88] VIR and Sweet6970 participated in the talk discussion that led to consensus to keep the material[89] (And other editors told Sweet to not hound me[[90])
Clarif. for 11: Consensus was to keep it but swap out "far-right" for "anti-trans", which I supported. Sweet6970 had argued the entire paragraph was WP:COATRACK, and should be removed, quite apart from any other objections to the wording.[91]Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To save words/time - I'll try to only respond to admins after this. First:
@Void if removed:'s 4a links to me noting his website recommends multiple conversion therapy orgs. VIR, are you denying his website recommends conversion therapy orgs?
Sweet6970's example, Helen Joyce has famously called trans people damaged problems and called for reducing the number who can transition and RS have described this as genocidal / eugenicist. Sweet6970 thinks calling her a WP:QUACKS is too far (for the record, since SFR commented, I've tried to avoid the term, and later in the convo stop using it[92]). The context was VIR putting her criticism of the BMA in an article [93][94]Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, if what I’m reading here is right, you’re taking her to AE because you perceive minor inconsistencies in arguments presented across different discussions tirelessly over the course of weeks? Because that sounds like something completely reasonable for any flawed human being with a life and limited energy to have when they’re volunteering as tirelessly as YFNS does, again, over the course of weeks.
Additionally, the FTN thread on SEGM came to a consensus of it is quite clear that there is strong support for classifying SEGM as a fringe organization. and that SEGM’s publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC. so even if she was discounting sources based on SEGM ties, that is well within her rights.[95]
You seem to argue here that she misrepresents the closure of the ROGD RFC, and yet the closure she cited was in regards to the actual wording of content in an article, in which the consensus was the rough consensus is that ROGD is politics and not science and The article clearly describes ROGD as the contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence. In other words, Wikipedians are immensely skeptical of ROGD and this wording will remain in the article. This was NOT an RFC that decided whether to call it WP:FRINGE as editors, it was whether to use the word fringe in articlespace; but also the wording of this closure makes describing a consensus that ROGD would fall under the policy of WP:FRINGE to be not an unfathomable takeaway. [96] Not the takeaway I would make perhaps, but not a particularly incriminating one either. To my mind, this is your strongest diff, and even it does not rise to the level of AE.
Tamzin said above to bring more GENSEX cases, they said nothing about “rhetorical dishonesty”.[97] Stricken in accordance with diff from Tamzin
1. James Esses. Now, YFNS nowhere that I can see calls Esses a conversion therapist, she says that he advocates for conversion therapy- with the exact method being gender exploratory therapy. Click on that wikilink, and you will see extensive sourcing that GET is a form of conversion therapy practiced against trans people to try and cure them of their transness. VIR knows this, because he has been a very active part of the discussion in arguing against it being considered conversion therapy, based on the (highly medically criticized) Cass Review. This is the first time though that I can remember it being made an admin issue.[98][99][100][101]
2. 83% desistance. Now, if one actually read the source being cited [102], they’d see that the review extensively perforates the quantitative studies used to form that number, describing them as biased research and classifying them as all poor quality. It highlights how they all relied on the DSM-III criteria, and 3/4 studies diagnosed internally using inconsistent definitions and criteria across their patient cohort; and then of those four, Cohen-Kettenis (2008) classified as desisters those who later on as adults did not respond to contact attempts, and subsequently used this to argue against social transition. Davenport (1986), didn’t actually study trans kids, it only used the DSM-III def. under which it studied ten feminine boys who'd exhibited cross-gender behavior with the exact study eligibility criteria not discussed; and because one of those 10 later transitioned, it said that 90% desist. So hypothetically, by this criteria, if you did ballet as a boy, and you grew up to be cis, congratulations - you’re now a desister. Drummond (2008) evaluated desistance as no longer being distressed about your gender - so if you successfully and happily transitioned, congrats! Desister. And Singh (2012), with an avg starting age of 7.5 yrs old, was at the Toronto CAMH, which is widely known for having at the time practiced psychotherapy to try and make trans kids become cis as the primary line of treatment.[103] These are issues the other citations in the article then extensively expand upon and flesh out; with the result being that the GAR found the coverage and underlying citations of the topic to be fine despite you arguing these same points there at the time.[104]Snokalok (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transgender healthcare is an area where MEDRS are genuinely contradictory and the best we can do is represent all views according to weight. YFNS has very strong views about which views are correct, and has spent the 18 months since the lifting of her TBAN bludgeoning many discussions insisting that sources which don't accord with her POV are invariably FRINGE. I think there are many examples of source misrepresentation, cherrypicking, and disregard for sensitivity to BLPs as well as BATTLEGROUND and RGW behaviour. Some examples:
(Copied here for clarity)(1a,1b) 1 - 08/03/2025 - Misrepresenting a source about the Cass Review 2022 interim report as applicable to the 2024 final report in the GA3 review of their article (see here for why).
2 and 3 - 26/05/2025 -WP:BATTLEGROUND - responding to a simple FYI with two comments doubling down on incorrect information.
4 - 05/09/2024 -4a 09/09/2024 One of several examples of calling BLPs contentious terms like "conversion therapists" "fringe conversion therapy pusher" on talk with no sourcing/OR. (Apologies - wrong diff, imprecise quote)
6 - 29/09/2024 - Removing material on historic desistence rates from one article, prior to creating a new article here where historic desistance rates are now framed as a "myth".
7 - 04/03/2025 - Source misrepresentation/cherrypicking. Removing the best quantitative estimate of desistance from a systematic review - appropriately caveated - to continue to portray historically high rates as a "myth".
8 - 10/05/2025 - Source misrepresentation. Same source, presented as if 80% is definitively a myth.
Personal attacks here 9, directed at me on an admin's talk page, which I only became aware of last week.
More BATTLEGROUND and dubious assessment of sources here 10 and exactly the problem with her longstanding misuse of FRINGE, in that YFNS seeks to discount MEDRS that say the wrong thing (in the linked original comment, dismissing respected neuroscientist Sallie Baxendale, for one).
11 WEASEL-worded "concerns" a BLP may have far-right links, using one weak source citing a blog.
RE: 6,7 and 8 see here for YFNS' concession the removed text was actually an appropriately caveated NPOV representation of a systematic review that says Quantitative studies were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting. Void if removed (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ The sentence starting The desistance myth is the theory that the majority (approximately 80%) [...] will stop desiring transition requires MEDRS. YFNS combines a sociology paper with a systematic review which found, with caveats, 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting. This source never finds or says it is a "myth", only that the data is poor and the author - while acknowledging their personal bias - suggests desistance should not be a focus of discourse. YFNS has removed at [7] balancing aspects of the source that contradict the strong "myth" framing, and the diff at [8] is WP:SYNTH that takes the 83% from this source and misrepresents it as part of the “myth”. Void if removed (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 - I told YFNS this on January 2nd, 3rd and 5th. Everything from then on was knowing misrepresentation.
4 - apologies, wrong diff, fixed
6,7,8 - YFNS uses articles she has excluded balancing sources from to argue circularly against the sources she excluded. Having removed contrary sources like Cass and created the "Desistance myth", cites it to claim Cass is FRINGE eg. here and here.
11 - Only after a trip to WP:BLPN. Treating a WP:BLP with care should be the default, not a battle.
10,14,15 - YFNS starts at Samuelshrega's [6] saying The only one is the Guyatt review. I supply 4 systematic reviews, a narrative review, and 2 research articles. YFNS misclassifies them [10], claims to have meant 3 of the reviews then dismisses their importance because the lead author is heavily critical of them and has been critical of many of their FRINGE theories (wrong author, criticism is exaggerated/false). Attaching criticism to lead author inflates rhetorical importance, [14] is the same misrepresentation - it gives the "criticism" more weight. And at [15] YFNS continues to insist I'm citing "mostly commentaries and primary articles". Its plainly untrue. This rhetorical dishonesty is what Samuelshrega complains about. Void if removed (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This entire filing just appears to be fringe-pushing editors in the transgender topic area purposefully misrepresenting and misleading both past RfCs and consensus on various topics, not to mention doing so with source discussions. Which Snokalok has clearly pointed out above for what the filer claims.
As for the statement just above mine and its continued argumentation with diffs of article and source content disputes (and still pushing fringe subjects like desistance), I can 100% wholeheartedly say that Void if removed is a perfect representation of an fringe-pushing WP:SPA editor in this topic area from their very first edits, which involved an interaction with me on Talk:Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet and Talk:The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes and they have continued pushing anti-transgender information ever since. It is their entire edit history. The entire thing outside of very rare edits on anything else. With tendentious talk page arguing making up over 50% of that edit history.
There is a lot of verbiage here but the core allegation is that Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist shows a pattern of dishonest behaviour. That is a very serious, even blockworthy, accusation but the material purporting to back it up doesn't even begin to support it. What I see here is a load of largely unconnected gripes that fail to form a narrative. It is an attempt to make a mountain out of whatever molehills can be found and most of them aren't even real molehills. There is no dishonesty here. Well, none that can be pinned on Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, anyway... --DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by LokiTheLiar
I'd like to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here for VIR (not Samuelshraga, their concerns are IMO incorrect but in good faith), because many of their diffs are themselves extremely misleading.
1. This diff is to YFNS explicitly distinguishing between the interim and final report. She also didn't even mention the source that said the interim report wasn't peer reviewed. She says that neither was peer reviewed because that's common knowledge and we all agreed including in the second discussion linked.
2/3. It's true Pubmed said it's a letter, and it's true policy says we shouldn't use things Pubmed says are letters. I agree this is likely a mistake in context, but it's not a lie.
7. Trimming an overly-detailed description of the methodology of a study is not a bad edit. We don't need to describe why the review thought those 5 studies were bad, and we definitely don't need to describe what the conclusions of 5 studies the review thought were bad were.
8. It is a myth that 80% of children with gender dysphoria or who identify as trans will not grow up to be trans. That is very well-sourced, and the article including that section passed GAR just recently. The studies that found the 80% number were studying something much broader and then were used to claim that specific thing, which is false. That's almost the definition of a myth.
9. Admittedly, this should have been brought to AE instead of someone's talk page. But especially in the context of the previous points I think it should be clear why YFNS thinks you're a POV-pusher.
10. Evaluating the reliability of sources is a thing you're supposed to do in discussions, especially about WP:MEDRS sources. I also think that YFNS's evaluations of sources tend to be pretty good, FWIW.
11. TBH I don't like the first sentence of this either. The rest is well-sourced, though.
12. It's almost a direct quote from her. The recording is publicly available. It was a major controversy at the time. I don't know what else you'd want.
For 1, 4, 6, and 8 especially I don't think any good-faith editor could have reasonably claimed what VIR claimed about those diffs. All of these descriptions strike me as biased, but those four especially strike me as just lies. Loki (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re VIR on 6/7/8: Here's the conclusion of that review. It's not kind to the idea of "desistence" to the point where "myth" is a fair characterization. Loki (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished that SarekOfVulcan says that Void if removed is clearly misrepresenting their diffs. To take just one: VIR’s diff 11 is the worst BLP violation I have ever seen. I commented at the time:
[105][106]
Regarding VIR’s diff 4 - the comments on James Esses and exploratory therapy - I initiated the discussion with an objection to a link in a quotation. Here is the whole discussion:
[107]Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to YFNS:It is plain that the BLP violation I objected to was the reference to ‘far-right’. As I said in the 2nd diff I provided: Your edit was plainly a smear that Dr Cass is connected with the far right.. Contrary to your assertion above, there was no consensus to keep this.Sweet6970 (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan I had thought it was too obvious to mention that I was not counting vandalism. Are you saying that you don’t think it is a problem that Wikipedia should defame an eminent paediatrician by suggesting that she is connected to far-right politics? Also, note that YFNS has made a misleading statement on this page – saying that the discussion led to consensus to keep the material. It didn’t. Are you also unconcerned about the potential defamation of James Esses, who had won a legal case for discrimination? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee:Void if removed’s comment on his diff 11 is WEASEL-worded "concerns" a BLP may have far-right links, using one weak source citing a blog.. In YFNS’s statement, when she is replying to this comment, she says VIR and Sweet6970 participated in the talk discussion that led to consensus to keep the material[71]. But the material in question is the ‘far right’ smear here [110] . The result of the discussion was that the ‘far-right’ smear was not kept. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said, and contrary to what Loki has just said, the consensus to keep did *not* include the far-right smear. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by MilesVorkosigan
Obviously, support closing with no action taken regarding YFNS. I understand that reports here are supposed to involve only the two original editors, but VIR should still be cautioned about making sure that their claims of what a diff says need to be much more accurate than they are here.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked one of the later links, the 2.2.2025 one from User:SamuelShraga where he implies that YFNS is lying about SEGM being FRINGE. The discussion on NPOVN is a bunch of editors agreeing that it is "outside the scientific mainstream". Nobody explicitly said "WP:FRINGE" but I'd say that this is a distinction without a difference. If this kind of thing is the best that they can come up with, I'd suggest that it's proof that YFNS isn't doing anything wrong. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Springee
This is not an area I do much editing in but I’ve noted YFNS’s low level battleground/activist approach to the topic area. YFNS was tbanned shortly after joining Wikipedia in part because they were making, in effect, attack articles aimed at BLP subjects and groups they disfavored. Since requesting a lifting of that block they have maintained a POLEMIC section on their homepage “Honorable mentions” where they brag about the public reaction of people/groups who’s articles were edited by YFNS. This sort of taunting article subjects serves no encyclopedic value and only would add to external views that Wikipedia articles aren’t be edited impartially.
Recently Colin decided to step away from this topic area due to conflicts with YFNS among others. The loss of Colin from this subject area is the sort of collateral damage that YFNS’s attitude has on the topic area. It becomes toxic and few want to deal with the heat. One admin noted a YFNS appeared to bait [111] Colin. Unfortunately, Colin couldn’t keep their cool and decided to leave the area for their own good. That is unfortunate as they were a great example, as editor put it, of one of the most truly nonpartisan editors in this topic area.
At this point I don’t see anything red line item that warrants a sanction/tban (other than removing the POLEMIC content from their home page), but I do think this is a return to the 2023 form and I think in the long term it will hurt Wikipedia by discouraging divergent views from working in this topic area. Who wants to get in the constant fights? Springee (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YFNS's opening of the complaint below, especially given they were counseled against it's wisdom[112], further illustrates the BATTLEGROUND behavior of this editor. They joined Wikipedia to engage in activism and it doesn't appear they have moved far from that objective. This is an editor who pushes limited in many small ways then uses the administrative system to get editors who don't buy into their views removed when those editors, not unreasonably, lose their cool. We saw this with Colin and now they are going after VIR below. Springee (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by LunaHasArrived
With regards to YFNS sourcing the 80% part of the myth to the Karrington review, this figure and people describing that figure as a myth is a lot older [113][114]. Both of the above were used in the section when YFNS added "approximately 80%" in brackets. The main problem here seems to be proper citations.
LunaHasArrived (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell
I have concerns about this user too. Despite the community reaching a consensus on the source’s reliability, YFNS continues to reject it, making inaccurate claims about the the source's type and veracity:
Claims that the Economist article is an opinion piece: [115]
Another example. Is it appropriate to characterize living persons as "anti-trans" in a wiki voice just for expressing critical views on the appropriateness of medical gender transitions for minors or critical reporting on the subject? The edit in question [118] introduces a highly charged label without adequate sourcing, and reflects a partisan and tendentious interpretation rather than neutral encyclopedic writing. This is a serious concern, especially when applied to Singal, a journalist who has written for The New York Times (a publication considered a reliable source under WP:RSP.) Labeling him as "anti-trans" in a Wiki voice, without clear attribution to a backed-up reliable source that makes this claim explicitly, violates the principles of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.
I agree with Springee above. I think it's unfair for Colin to be basically "voluntold" out of the topic area by multiple administrators and closer, while YFNS is allowed to go on and on after being permitted back following a topic ban from the area. If anything, a topic ban that was successfully appealed is more of a "final warning" than Colin got - yet YFNS is being allowed because... I don't know why. Just because someone tries to remain civil (even though they fail) does not mean their behavior is acceptable. From WP:CTOP: When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. I implore admins reviewing this to consider the effect YFNS has had on this topic area with their behavior as a whole - rather than expecting specific diffs.As Springee says, Colin left this topic area partially because of the lack of support in enforcing CTOP "scrutiny". I add that I feel the same way - while I keep some articles in this area on my watchlist, I do not typically intend to edit them or their talkpages unless expressing my opinion once - specifically because of behavior like this. I understand editors, including admins, are volunteers and never obligated to act. But there's ample evidence YFNS is not part of an "acceptable collaborative editing environment" - from diffs and history as a whole. It shocks me to see admins opining they see no problematic behavior from YFNS at all.I understand transgender related subjects are a hot-button political topic now. But that does not excuse bad behavior just because people agree with the person who is behaving poorly. The topic area has already lost enough long-term/good-faith editors who were either forced out or who chose to leave because this type of behavior isn't being addressed. Specifically, SPAs whose sole purpose contributing to Wikipedia is to further their viewpoint. YFNS' userpage makes clear their sole purpose here is to push their POV on transgender subjects:
I joined Wikipedia as an editor after realizing just how poor our coverage of trans topics has been
Hell, I still see editors try and whitewash gender identity change efforts.
I should know, I ... was interviewed on anti-trans disinformation on Wikipedia
I strive to document ... history and present of the organized hate campaigns operating against us.
I'm thankful to all my friends on and off the project who've ... kept me going through transphobia and harassment. (veiled personal attack)
Their original username - TheTranarchist - says all.
YFNS is clearly only here to push their POV. It doesn't matter if they are mostly civil. In CTOPs, CIVILPOV should be considered even more so than in other areas. I implore admins to consider one question - Is YFNS a net positive in this topic area, or not? There's many other editors who can "take over" making constructive edits. YFNS' contribution is not a net positive, nor is it necessary, and should be dealt with accordingly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!01:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that these allegations are, at their core, primarily content disputes, and that they warrant no action. I do, however, believe the arguments by Samuelshraga are problematic.
One example, in your recent edit 05.06.2025, you claim that at a discussion at NPOVN, no one mentioned fringe. This is misleading. Editors characterized SEGM as “alt-med”, “outside the medical mainstream”, “anti-trans activists” and “political/culture-war org dressed up in science-y clothing”. These comments clearly support calling SEGM fringe. The discussion also revolved around whether the SPLC, which supported the characterization of SEGM as fringe, describing it as a hub of pseudoscience, was reliable. Editors agreed that SPLC was reliable for this claim, with no editor arguing against this. It is dishonest to suggest that this discussion did not indicate a clear consensus that SEGM is fringe.
Statement by Black Kite
I wonder if ArbCom is a good destination for this dispute. There are clearly a lot of editors with WP:BATTLEGROUND issues here, and whilst I am loath to suggest ArbCom because they sometimes get things very wrong, they do get things right more often than not. Otherwise we are going to have more and more filings where pro and anti-trans editors are trying their best to remove their ideological opponents from the area. Black Kite (talk)09:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by FortunateSons
I'm seconding the suggestion by Black Kite. I'm mostly uninvolved here, but from the outside looking in, it seems less like individual problematic editors (though there are enough of those too) and more so the topic area's dynamic, which should be addressed as soon as possible. The sooner ArbCom takes a look at it, the better. FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
As Loki says, while the original submitter may just be wrong, Void if removed is pretty clearly misrepresenting their diffs. I see no reasons to sanction YFNS at this time, but I'd leave the question of sanctioning Vir open, if the rest of their editing on the topic plays out like it does here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, extension granted to 1000 words; please use them sparingly so you don't have to request another extension later. Snokalok, I'm going to defer the extension request for now, but let us know after YFNS replies if you still have points that she or Loki hasn't raised. (You do still have another ~180 words.) A general reminder: while I don't mind considering issues related to the statement Void if removed made above, any broader concerns about him would need to go in a separate filing, per the new two-party rule. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I worry merging that into this report would put us on the path to another trainwreck, though I don't have a problem with a separate filing at any time (including right now). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1/2: YFNS didn't deny invoking SEGM affiliation; viewed in context she's just saying that it wasn't fundamental to her argument, which is not an unreasonable thing to say.
3/4: perhaps these comments could have been worded more precisely (especially since Samuelshraga seems to think they refer to him rather than VIR), but that's not a case for sanctions.
5: we can debate how the wording of that closure maps onto the wording of WP:FRINGE, but YFNS's interpretation (point 1 here) is not out of the question
6: again, she's mentioning SEGM affiliation but arguably not using it as the gravamen of her argument
supplemental diff: I'm not sure why you would assume this was intentional dishonesty; frankly I read your statement the same way at first.
None of these are sanctionable, and when it comes to the natural imprecisions and ambiguities of talk-page comments, I think we need to assume good faith rather than imputing motives of rhetorical dishonesty. I will try to have thoughts on VIR's diffs later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And thoughts on VIR's diffs. Given the two-way claims of dishonesty, I think it's worth going through these individually.
1: not really sure why YFNS didn't take out the RAND source once she was informed it didn't mention the final report, but she did eventually remove it after someone else complained, and it's a complicated enough situation that I'd assume good faith. The diff is from March; this has since been discussed more thoroughly, so hopefully there won't be further issues with the RAND report.
2/3: not sanctionable, per Loki
4: does not describe any BLP as a conversion therapist. If I were VIR I would just strike this.
5: content dispute
6/7/8: I understand why VIR sees major policy problems with connecting the "desistance myth" phrasing (in boldface no less) to the older studies/80% figure on the basis of only the Kennedy article and Karrington review. I also recognize that discussion about this has consistently not gone VIR's way. I struggle to see a role for AE here, although I'd be interested to hear other admins' takes.
9: apologized for
10/15: I don't consider the FRINGE interpretation issues a conduct matter
11: I agree with Loki this could have been handled better, although it was eventually revised with YFNS's agreement
12: understandable given YFNS's explanation
13: "bigoted quack" wasn't really necessary, but this was over a year ago
14: describing the corresponding author as having led the study is so minor I wonder why it was brought here
I don't think any of this warrants a sanction for YFNS. Assuming diff 4 was just misread, I'm not convinced anything here amounts to outright dishonesty from VIR, so I also would be reluctant to sanction him, although throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks is rarely a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I am heading out of town for a while and will not be able to participate further in this thread. I'm just going to abstain as far as the result is concerned; other admins are welcome to consider my comments insofar as they're useful, but please also note the responses to them from other editors above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd view these types of variations in argument re: any given source as possible sealioning if it were all in the same article talk discussion, but I'm not sure making inconsistent arguments across multiple discussions in a variety of fora is really evidence of rhetorical dishonesty.
Also everyone commenting here should go read the draft essay at User:Tamzin/Arbspace_word_limits, paying special attention to the paragraph that starts And part of this is social and rhetorical advice: Using too many words replying to other commenters is not often a good reason for an extension. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweet6970, re: Don’t you care that YFNS lied about the ‘far right’ smear on this page?, I've searched both "far right" and "smear", and both times came up with your own posts. Can you give me a diff/explanation to the lie you're talking about? We're at 9k here, it's not easy to follow the conversation. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
